DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki (US 9,981,255 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Okazaki discloses an exhaust gas-purifying catalyst comprising a catalyst-coated filter, the catalyst-coated filter comprising a filter substrate and a catalyst layer on a pore wall of the filter substrate, wherein the exhaust gas-purifying catalyst has a first end, a second end, a porous wall, a first cell, and a second cell, the first cell extending from the first end toward the second end, being opened at the first end, and being closed at the second end, the second cell extending from the second end toward the first end, being opened at the second end, and being closed at the first end, and the first cell and the second cell being adjacent to each other with the porous wall interposed therebetween (see Abstract; figures 1(a)-1(b); and column 2, line 16 through column 10, line 67), since Okazaki discloses providing a ceramic honeycomb structure for cleaning an exhaust gas, which has high strength without plugs, while securing good flowability of an exhaust gas through pores in cell walls, and which exhibits high capability of removing harmful substance with small pressure loss when carrying a catalyst (see column 2, lines 16-22), and the honeycomb ceramic structure may be plugged in ends of or inside desired flow paths by a known method to form a ceramic honeycomb filter (see column 9, lines 1-4).
Okazaki fails to explicitly disclose that the porous wall has a proportion SS/S of 65% or more at a surface on the first cell side, the proportion SS/S being a proportion of a total area SS of pores having an opening diameter of less than 40 μm at the surface in a total area S of all pores at the surface.
Okazaki discloses that when the cumulative pore volume in a pore diameter range of 20 μm or less is more than 25% of the total pore volume, a smaller percentage of pores have diameters of more than 20 μm, resulting in more pressure loss; the cumulative pore volume in a pore diameter range of 20 μm or less is preferably 3-22%, more preferably 5-18%; when the cumulative pore volume in a pore diameter range of more than 20 μm and 50 μm or less is less than 50% of the total pore volume, a catalyst-carrying ceramic honeycomb structure has larger percentages of fine pores and coarse pores, resulting in poor pressure loss characteristics and low strength; the cumulative pore volume in a pore diameter range of more than 20 μm and 50 μm or less is preferably 55-80%, more preferably 60-75%; when the cumulative pore volume in a pore diameter range of more than 50 μm is less than 12% of the total pore volume, a catalyst-carrying ceramic honeycomb structure has poor pressure loss characteristics; the cumulative pore volume in a pore diameter range of more than 50 μm is preferably 15-30%, more preferably 18-25% (see column 4, lines 35-54); and table 4 shows a median pore diameter between 26.8 and 45.0 µm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the porous wall has a proportion SS/S of 65% or more at a surface on the first cell side, the proportion SS/S being a proportion of a total area SS of pores having an opening diameter of less than 40μm at the surface in a total area S of all pores at the surface, since applicant has not disclosed that having the porous wall has a proportion SS/S of 65% or more at a surface on the first cell side, the proportion SS/S being a proportion of a total area SS of pores having an opening diameter of less than 40μm at the surface in a total area S of all pores at the surface solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with the porous wall has a proportion SS/S of 65% or more at a surface on the first cell side, the proportion SS/S being a proportion of a total area SS of pores having an opening diameter of less than 40μm at the surface in a total area S of all pores at the surface.
Regarding claim 2, Okazaki fails to explicitly disclose that exhaust gas-purifying catalyst wherein the porous wall has a proportion SM/S of 30% or less at the surface, the proportion SM/S being a proportion of a total area SM of pores having an opening diameter of 40 μm or more and less than 60 μm at the surface in the total area S of all the pores.
Okazaki discloses that when the cumulative pore volume in a pore diameter range of 20 μm or less is more than 25% of the total pore volume, a smaller percentage of pores have diameters of more than 20 μm, resulting in more pressure loss; the cumulative pore volume in a pore diameter range of 20 μm or less is preferably 3-22%, more preferably 5-18%; when the cumulative pore volume in a pore diameter range of more than 20 μm and 50 μm or less is less than 50% of the total pore volume, a catalyst-carrying ceramic honeycomb structure has larger percentages of fine pores and coarse pores, resulting in poor pressure loss characteristics and low strength; the cumulative pore volume in a pore diameter range of more than 20 μm and 50 μm or less is preferably 55-80%, more preferably 60-75%; when the cumulative pore volume in a pore diameter range of more than 50 μm is less than 12% of the total pore volume, a catalyst-carrying ceramic honeycomb structure has poor pressure loss characteristics; the cumulative pore volume in a pore diameter range of more than 50 μm is preferably 15-30%, more preferably 18-25% (see column 4, lines 35-54); and table 4 shows a median pore diameter between 26.8 and 45.0 µm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the porous wall has a proportion SM/S of 30% or less at the surface, the proportion SM/S being a proportion of a total area SM of pores having an opening diameter of 40 μm or more and less than 60 μm at the surface in the total area S of all the pores, since applicant has not disclosed that having the porous wall has a proportion SM/S of 30% or less at the surface, the proportion SM/S being a proportion of a total area SM of pores having an opening diameter of 40 μm or more and less than 60 μm at the surface in the total area S of all the pores solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with the porous wall has a proportion SM/S of 30% or less at the surface, the proportion SM/S being a proportion of a total area SM of pores having an opening diameter of 40 μm or more and less than 60 μm at the surface in the total area S of all the pores.
Regarding claim 3, Okazaki discloses an exhaust gas-purifying catalyst wherein the porous wall has a proportion SL/S of 15% or less at the surface, the proportion SL/S being a proportion of a total area SL of pores having an opening diameter of 60 μm or more at the surface in the total area S of all the pores (see column 2, line 66 through column 3, line 2 and column 5, line 56 through column 6, line 4).
Regarding claim 4, Okazaki discloses an exhaust gas-purifying catalyst wherein the porous wall has a proportion SSS/S of 50% or less at the surface, the proportion SSS/S being a proportion of a total area SSS of pores having an opening diameter of less than 20 μm at the surface in the total area S of all the pores (see column 4, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 5, Okazaki discloses an exhaust gas-purifying catalyst wherein a portion of the porous wall on the first cell side has a cross section perpendicular to the surface, pores of the filter substrate include first pores having a pore diameter of 5 μm or more and less than 10 μm at the cross section, second pores having a pore diameter of 10 μm or more and less than 20 μm at the cross section, and third pores having a pore diameter of 20 μm or more at the cross section, a filling rate RF1 of the first pores with the catalyst layer, a filling rate RF2 of the second pores with the catalyst layer, and a filling rate RF3 of the third pores with the catalyst layer satisfy a relationship represented by an inequality RF1 < RF2 < RF3 (see Abstract; figures 1(a)-1(b); and column 2, line 16 through column 10, line 67), since the use of the apparatus isn't limiting or the material the apparatus acts upon isn't limiting.
Regarding claims 6-7, Okazaki discloses an exhaust gas-purifying catalyst wherein the filling rate RF1 is 40% or less, the filling rate RF2 is 40% or less, and the filling rate RF3 is 45% or less; and wherein the filling rate RF3 is 20% or more (see Abstract; figures 1(a)-1(b); and column 2, line 16 through column 10, line 67), since the use of the apparatus isn't limiting or the material the apparatus acts upon isn't limiting.
Regarding claim 9, Okazaki discloses an exhaust gas-purifying catalyst further comprising inorganic particles in a powder form supported by the catalyst-coated filter (see column 3, lines 5-30).
Regarding claim 10, Okazaki discloses an exhaust gas-purifying catalyst wherein the inorganic particles are localized on the first cell side of the porous wall (see Abstract; figures 1(a)-1(b); and column 2, line 16 through column 10, line 67), since the use of the apparatus isn't limiting or the material the apparatus acts upon isn't limiting.
In addition, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the inorganic particles are localized on the first cell side of the porous wall, since applicant has not disclosed that having the inorganic particles are localized on the first cell side of the porous wall solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with the inorganic particles are localized on the first cell side of the porous wall.
Regarding claim 12, Okazaki fails to disclose an exhaust gas-purifying catalyst wherein the pores of the porous wall include first small pores having an opening diameter of less than 40 μm at the surface and first large pores having an opening diameter of 40 μm or more at the surface, and pores of a portion of the catalyst-coated filter corresponding to the porous wall include second small pores having an opening diameter of less than 40 μm at a surface of the portion on the first cell side and second large pores having an opening diameter of 40 μm or more at the surface of the portion, a ratio (SS2-SS1)/SS2 of a difference SS2-SS1 between a total area SS2 of the second small pores and a total area SS1 of the first small pores to the total area SS2 of the second small pores is 40% or less, and a ratio (SL2-SL1)/SL2 of a difference SL2-SL1 between a total area SL2 of the second large pores and a total area SL1 of the first large pores to the total area SL2 of the second large pores is 60% or more.
Okazaki discloses that when the cumulative pore volume in a pore diameter range of 20 μm or less is more than 25% of the total pore volume, a smaller percentage of pores have diameters of more than 20 μm, resulting in more pressure loss; the cumulative pore volume in a pore diameter range of 20 μm or less is preferably 3-22%, more preferably 5-18%; when the cumulative pore volume in a pore diameter range of more than 20 μm and 50 μm or less is less than 50% of the total pore volume, a catalyst-carrying ceramic honeycomb structure has larger percentages of fine pores and coarse pores, resulting in poor pressure loss characteristics and low strength; the cumulative pore volume in a pore diameter range of more than 20 μm and 50 μm or less is preferably 55-80%, more preferably 60-75%; when the cumulative pore volume in a pore diameter range of more than 50 μm is less than 12% of the total pore volume, a catalyst-carrying ceramic honeycomb structure has poor pressure loss characteristics; the cumulative pore volume in a pore diameter range of more than 50 μm is preferably 15-30%, more preferably 18-25% (see column 4, lines 35-54); and table 4 shows a median pore diameter between 26.8 and 45.0 µm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the pores of the porous wall include first small pores having an opening diameter of less than 40 μm at the surface and first large pores having an opening diameter of 40 μm or more at the surface, and pores of a portion of the catalyst-coated filter corresponding to the porous wall include second small pores having an opening diameter of less than 40 μm at a surface of the portion on the first cell side and second large pores having an opening diameter of 40 μm or more at the surface of the portion, a ratio (SS2-SS1)/SS2 of a difference SS2-SS1 between a total area SS2 of the second small pores and a total area SS1 of the first small pores to the total area SS2 of the second small pores is 40% or less, and a ratio (SL2-SL1)/SL2 of a difference SL2-SL1 between a total area SL2 of the second large pores and a total area SL1 of the first large pores to the total area SL2 of the second large pores is 60% or more, since applicant has not disclosed that having the pores of the porous wall include first small pores having an opening diameter of less than 40 μm at the surface and first large pores having an opening diameter of 40 μm or more at the surface, and pores of a portion of the catalyst-coated filter corresponding to the porous wall include second small pores having an opening diameter of less than 40 μm at a surface of the portion on the first cell side and second large pores having an opening diameter of 40 μm or more at the surface of the portion, a ratio (SS2-SS1)/SS2 of a difference SS2-SS1 between a total area SS2 of the second small pores and a total area SS1 of the first small pores to the total area SS2 of the second small pores is 40% or less, and a ratio (SL2-SL1)/SL2 of a difference SL2-SL1 between a total area SL2 of the second large pores and a total area SL1 of the first large pores to the total area SL2 of the second large pores is 60% or more solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with the pores of the porous wall include first small pores having an opening diameter of less than 40 μm at the surface and first large pores having an opening diameter of 40 μm or more at the surface, and pores of a portion of the catalyst-coated filter corresponding to the porous wall include second small pores having an opening diameter of less than 40 μm at a surface of the portion on the first cell side and second large pores having an opening diameter of 40 μm or more at the surface of the portion, a ratio (SS2-SS1)/SS2 of a difference SS2-SS1 between a total area SS2 of the second small pores and a total area SS1 of the first small pores to the total area SS2 of the second small pores is 40% or less, and a ratio (SL2-SL1)/SL2 of a difference SL2-SL1 between a total area SL2 of the second large pores and a total area SL1 of the first large pores to the total area SL2 of the second large pores is 60% or more.
14. The exhaust gas-purifying catalyst according to claim 9, wherein the inorganic particles comprise one or more selected from the group consisting of a metal oxide, a metal hydroxide, a metal carbonate, a metal phosphate, a metal nitrate, a metal sulfate, and a clay mineral.
Regarding claim 13, Okazaki discloses an exhaust gas-purifying catalyst wherein the inorganic particles have an average particle size in a range of 1 μm to 50 μm (see column 3, lines 5-30).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki (US 9,981,255 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rownaghi et al. (US 2019/0001311 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Okazaki fails to disclose an exhaust gas-purifying catalyst wherein the inorganic particles comprise one or more selected from the group consisting of a metal oxide, a metal hydroxide, a metal carbonate, a metal phosphate, a metal nitrate, a metal sulfate, and a clay mineral.
Rownaghi et al. discloses a zeolite coated monolith article; the zeolite coated monolith article comprises an uncoated monolithic support structure including walls having a honeycomb structure comprising ammonia-ZSM-5 powder (SiO2/Al2O3) and bentonite clay; and a porous coating disposed directly upon the uncoated monolithic support structure (see paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the inorganic particles comprise one or more selected from the group consisting of a metal oxide, a metal hydroxide, a metal carbonate, a metal phosphate, a metal nitrate, a metal sulfate, and a clay mineral, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 11, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, 11, and 15, the prior art references fail to disclose an exhaust gas-purifying catalyst wherein a ratio of a mass of the catalyst layer to a volume of the filter substrate is in a range of 10 g/L to 300 g/L; wherein an amount A, an amount A1, and an amount A2 satisfy a relationship represented by an inequality (A1+A2)/A ≥ 90%, the amount A being a total amount of the inorganic particles, the amount A1 being an amount of the inorganic particles positioned above a surface of the catalyst-coated filter on the first cell side, and the amount A2 being an amount of the inorganic particles which are in pores of the catalyst-coated filter and whose distances from the surface of the catalyst-coated filter on the first cell side is 20% or less of a thickness of a portion of the catalyst-coated filter corresponding to the porous wall; and wherein a ratio of a mass of the inorganic particles to a volume of the filter substrate is in a range of 3 g/L to 50 g/L.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA E YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wang Claire can be reached at 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
NATASHA E. YOUNG
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/NATASHA E YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights