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 Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “wherein the first end face is at an inlet end of the wall-flow filter substrate and the second end face is at an outlet end of the wall-flow filter substrate”. This recitation of an intended use of the claimed invention (orientation of the invention in space) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use (i.e., having the first end face act as an inlet end and having the second end face act as an outlet end), then it meets the claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of claims 12-15, after “The catalytic wall-flow filter of claim 1,”, the word “wherein” should be added for consistency with other dependent claims and for clarity.
In line 2 of claim 16, “any of” should be deleted.
In line 2 of claim 17, “claims” should be edited to read, “claim”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. See MPEP 2173.05(q), citing, e.g., Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986), where a claim which read: "[a] process for using monoclonal antibodies of claim 4 to isolate and purify human fibroblast interferon" was held to be indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any method for treating a vehicular exhaust gas from a gasoline engine containing NOx, CO, HC, ammonia, and PM which includes the catalytic filter of claim 1 will be considered to read on the claim, regardless of process steps, as individual claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2111.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neubauer (U.S. 2011/0030346 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Neubauer teaches a catalytic wall-flow filter for treating exhaust gas from a gasoline engine (Neubauer, Fig. 2, [0002], [0093], [0099]-[0103]), comprising:
a wall-flow filter substrate having a first end face, a second end face, a filter substrate length L defined by the distance from the first end face to the second end face (Neubauer, Fig. 2, [0035], “axial length”), a longitudinal direction between the first end face and the second end face, first and second pluralities of channels extending in the longitudinal direction, and porous channel walls between the first plurality of channels and the second plurality of channels (Neubauer, Fig. 2, [0093], “During operation in a treatment system according to the present invention, the particulate filter is disposed in the gasoline engine exhaust gas stream such that the exhaust gas enters the inlet channels and, after first flowing through the inlet layer, followed by the porous substrate material, and finally the outlet layer, exits the particulate filter via the outlet channels.”), wherein the first plurality of channels is open at the first end face and closed at the second end face (Neubauer, Fig. 2, “A”-side channels are open at the first end face and closed at the second end face), and the second plurality of channels is open at the second end face and closed at the first end face (Neubauer, Fig. 2, “B”-side channels are open at the second end face and closed at the first end face);
a first catalyst coated on the first plurality of channels, wherein the first catalyst comprises a zeolite (Neubauer, Fig. 2, [0103], “Outlet Layer Washcoat” comprising H-Beta zeolite on “B”-side channels); and
a second catalyst coated on the second plurality of channels (Neubauer, Fig. 2, [0101]-[0102], “Inlet Layer Washcoat” on “A”-side channels), wherein the second catalyst comprises palladium as a PGM component (Neubauer, [0102]), a ceria-zirconia composite as an OSC material (Neubauer, [0101]), and a lanthanum-stabilized gamma alumina support as an inorganic oxide support (Neubauer, [0101]).
Neubauer does not explicitly teach that the first end face is at an inlet end of the wall-flow filter substrate and the second end face is at an outlet end of the wall-flow filter substrate. However, whether either end face is designated as an inlet end or an outlet end has no bearing on the structure of the catalytic wall-flow filter itself and is therefore not interpreted to further limit the structure of the claimed catalytic wall-flow filter (see Claim Interpretation section above).
Regarding claim 12, Neubauer teaches the catalytic wall-flow filter of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the first catalyst is coated for 50% of the filter substrate L (Neubauer, Fig. 2, [0034], “By way of example, FIG. 2 displays said particularly preferred embodiment for a preferred wall flow filter substrate wherein 50% of the inlet and outlet layer surfaces are respectively covered by the inlet and outlet layers, and the portion of the inlet and outlet surface respectively covered represents the first 50% of the inlet surface to be contacted by the incoming gas stream, and the last 50% of the outlet surface to be contacted by the gas stream exiting the filter substrate, respectively.”).
Regarding claim 13, Neubauer teaches the catalytic wall-flow filter of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the OSC material is a ceria-zirconia mixed oxide (Neubauer, [0101]).
Regarding claim 14, Neubauer teaches the catalytic wall-flow filter of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the inorganic oxide support is a lanthanum-containing alumina (Neubauer, [0101]).
Regarding claim 15, Neubauer teaches the catalytic wall-flow filter of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the second catalyst is coated for 50% of the filter substrate L (Neubauer, Fig. 2, [0034], “By way of example, FIG. 2 displays said particularly preferred embodiment for a preferred wall flow filter substrate wherein 50% of the inlet and outlet layer surfaces are respectively covered by the inlet and outlet layers, and the portion of the inlet and outlet surface respectively covered represents the first 50% of the inlet surface to be contacted by the incoming gas stream, and the last 50% of the outlet surface to be contacted by the gas stream exiting the filter substrate, respectively.”).
Regarding claim 17, Neubauer teaches a system (Neubauer, [0030]) for treating an exhaust gas comprising the catalytic filter of claim 1 (Neubauer, Fig. 2, [0002], [0093], [0099]-[0103]).
Neubauer does not explicitly teach that the exhaust gas is vehicular exhaust gas. However, Neubauer’s exhaust gas is from a gasoline engine (Neubauer, [0031]), and instant claim 16 indicates that gasoline engines produce vehicular exhaust gas. Neubauer’s exhaust gas is therefore considered to be vehicular exhaust gas.
Regarding claims 18-19, Neubauer teaches the system of claim 17, as discussed above, further comprising a TWC article upstream of the catalytic filter (Neubauer, [0061], “…the positioning of the TWC catalyst upstream of the particulate filter being preferred.”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neubauer (U.S. 2011/0030346 A1), as further evidenced by Viswanadham (“Studies on octane boosting of industrial feedstocks on Pt/H-BEA zeolite”, 2008).
Regarding claim 2, Neubauer teaches the catalytic wall-flow filter of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the zeolite has a framework type of BEA (Neubauer, [0103], H-Beta zeolite; Viswanadham, Abstract, H-Beta zeolite has a framework type of BEA).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neubauer (U.S. 2011/0030346 A1), as further evidenced by DiGiulio (“Passive-ammonia selective catalytic reduction (SCR): Understanding NH3 formation over close-coupled three way catalysts (TWC)”, 2014).
Regarding claim 16, Neubauer teaches a method (Neubauer, [0002]) for treating an exhaust gas from a gasoline engine containing NOx, CO, HC (Neubauer, [0004]), and PM (Neubauer, [0011], particulate) using the catalytic filter of claim 1 (Neubauer, Fig. 2, [0002], [0093], [0099]-[0103]; see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) above).
Neubauer does not explicitly teach that the exhaust gas contains ammonia. However, Neubauer teaches that a TWC catalyst is upstream of the particulate filter (Neubauer, [0061]), and DiGiulio teaches that TWC catalysts produce ammonia (DiGiulio, Abstract). Therefore, Neubauer’s exhaust also contains ammonia.
Neubauer does not explicitly teach that the exhaust gas is a vehicular exhaust gas. However, vehicular exhaust is produced from a gasoline engine, as stated by the claim, so the exhaust of Neubauer is considered vehicular exhaust.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neubauer (U.S. 2011/0030346 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Neubauer teaches the catalytic wall-flow filter of claim 1, as discussed above. In the embodiment already discussed (Neubauer, [0099]-[0103]), the zeolite does not have a framework type of FER, CHA, or AEI. However, Neubauer teaches that CHA is a suitable option as the zeolite (Neubauer, [0049], chabazite).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substitute the H-Beta zeolite of Neubauer (Neubauer, [0103]) for chabazite, a CHA-framework zeolite. Substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754. See also MPEP § 2144.06.II. In the instant case, chabazite was known to be suitable for the same purpose of serving as a catalyst in Neubauer’s particle filter (Neubauer, [0049]).
Regarding claim 4, Neubauer teaches the catalytic wall-flow filter of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the zeolite has a silica-to-alumina ratio (SAR) of from 35 to 180 (Neubauer, [0050]), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 8 to 150.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the silica-to-alumina ratios because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neubauer (U.S. 2011/0030346 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zheng (U.S. 2018/0229224 A1).
Regarding claims 5-8, Neubauer teaches the catalytic wall-flow filter of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach that the first catalyst further comprises a transition metal. However, Zheng teaches that incorporating Cu into the zeolite component of the catalyst in a gasoline exhaust particulate filter (Zheng, [0001], [0100]) promotes the reduction of nitrogen oxides (Zheng, [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the catalytic wall-flow filter of Neubauer by having the zeolite of the first catalyst further comprise Cu (copper), a transition metal, as Zheng teaches that this promotes the reduction of nitrogen oxides (Zheng, [0025]), and this is an objective of Neubauer (Neubauer, [0071]).
Regarding claims 9-10, modified Neubauer renders the catalytic wall-flow filter of claim 5 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the transition metal is about 0.5 to about 2% relative to the weight of the zeolite (Zheng, [0025]). As Zheng teaches that this range of copper loading promotes the reduction of nitrogen oxides (Zheng, [0025]), it would be obvious to select.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neubauer (U.S. 2011/0030346 A1) in view of Zheng (U.S. 2018/0229224 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Arulraj (GB 2520776 A, 2015).
Regarding claim 11, modified Neubauer renders the catalytic wall-flow filter of claim 5 obvious, as discussed above, but does not teach a specific D90 of the zeolite (Neubauer, [0103] teaches an average particle size of 5 μm, which differs from a D90 value). However, Arulraj teaches that the D90 value of a zeolite catalyst for an exhaust particulate filter relates to the degree to which the particles may be transported into the porous support walls (Arulraj, Page 6, lines 29-33).
As the degree to which the particles may be transported into the porous support walls is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the zeolite’s D90 value, with the degree to which the particles may be transported into the porous support walls both increasing/decreasing as D90 is increased/decreased, the precise D90 would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the D90 value of the zeolite in modified Neubauer to obtain the desired degree to which the particles may be transported into the porous support walls as taught by Arulraj (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY J. BAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3590. 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.
/ZACHARY JOHN BAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736