DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are pending
Claims 13-16 are withdrawn
Claims 1-12 are rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on April 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 13-16 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 15, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 8 and 9 are 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.
6. Regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
7. Regarding dependent claim 9, this claim does not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 8 noted above, and is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-3, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sunada et al. (US 20120283091 A1) (Sunda).
10. Regarding claim 1, Sunada teaches a catalyst for purifying exhaust gases includes a substrate, and a catalytic layer (Sunada, Abstract) that is a three-way catalyst (i.e. multifunctional catalyst) that converts CO (Sunada, [0087]);
wherein the substrate is monolithic (Sunada, [0090]);
wherein the catalyst layer includes a lower catalytic layer (i.e. first layer) and a second upper catalytic layer (i.e. second layer) (Sunada, Abstract); wherein the lower catalytic layer (i.e. first layer) is loaded with Pt and Pd (i.e. a first catalyst) (Sunada, Abstract)
wherein the second upper catalytic layer (i.e. second layer) being loaded with Rh (i.e. a second catalyst) covers a downstream side of the lower catalytic layer (i.e. formed on top of the first layer) (Sunada, Abstract) and the second upper catalytic layer shows capability of diffusing exhaust gases down into the lower catalytic layer (i.e. second layer is porous) (Sunada, [0079]).
Sunada further teaches a first upper catalytic layer keeps that inhibits the Rh (i.e. second catalyst) loaded in the second upper catalytic layer (i.e. second layer) from deteriorating (i.e. layering of the first and second catalysts reduces degradation of the second catalyst) (Sunada, [0074]).
11. Regarding claims 2-3 and 5, Sunada further teaches the substrate is made of silicon carbide (i.e. the substrate includes SiC) and metals (i.e. the substrate is formed of metal materials) in a honeycomb configuration (Sunada, [0057]).
12. Regarding claim 11, Sunada further teaches the Pt and Pd (i.e. first catalyst) of the lower catalytic layer (i.e. first layer) contribute to converting CO and HC by means of oxidation (i.e. first catalyst catalyzes a first reaction) (Sunada, [0008]) and the Rh (i.e. second catalyst) of the second upper catalytic layer (i.e. second layer) mainly contributes to converting NOx by means of reduction (i.e. second catalyst catalyzes a second reaction different from the first reaction) (Sunada, [0008]).
13. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sunada taken in view of evidence by Román-Manso et al., Thermal conductivity of silicon carbide composites with highly oriented graphene nanoplatelets (Román-Manso).
14. Regarding Claim 4, Sunada further teaches the substrate is made of silicon carbide (i.e. the substrate includes SiC) (Sunada, [0057]) wherein silicon carbide is a thermally conductive material as evidenced by Román-Manso (Román-Manso, Title).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunada.
17. Regarding claim 6, Sunada further teaches the lower catalytic layer (i.e. first layer) has a thickness of from 10 to 30 µm (Sunada, [0064]) and the second upper catalytic layer has a thickness of from 10 to 30 µm (Sunada, [0070]), which overlap with the claimed ranges.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
18. Claims 7-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baracchini et al., Direct synthesis of dimethyl ether: A simulation study on the influence of the catalyst configuration (Baracchini).
19. Regarding claim 7, Sunada does not further teach the first catalyst is a CuZnZr-based catalyst.
With respect to the difference, Baracchini teaches a structured double layer system (CZA//Z) for the direct synthesis of dimethyl ether from CO (Baracchini, Abstract) or CO2- (Baracchini, p. 2, right column, first paragraph);
wherein CuO/ZnO/Al2O3 (CZA) catalyst (i.e. first catalyst) is for methanol synthesis and zeolite H-ZSM-5 (Z) catalyst is for its dehydration (i.e. second catalyst) (i.e. multifunctional catalyst) to dimethyl ether (DME) (Baracchini, Abstract)
wherein the CZA//Z was implemented as a wall coating (i.e. on a surface of the substrate) (Baracchini, p. 5, left column, 2.12. Structured core–shell (CZA@Z) and double layer (CZA//Z) systems, paragraph 3) (Baracchini, Abstract).
Baracchini further teaches that a lower layer (i.e. a first layer) includes the CZA catalyst (i.e. first catalyst) (Baracchini, p. 3, Fig 1c) and an upper layer (i.e. a second layer) that enhances the diffusion of reactants (i.e. second layer is porous) (Baracchini, p. 3, left column, last paragraph), see annotated Fig 1c below.
PNG
media_image1.png
138
429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1c
Baracchini further teaches it is known in the art that higher methanol-selectivity is reached when applying Cu/ZnO/ZrO2 as the CZA catalyst (i.e. first catalyst is a CuZnZr-based catalyst) (Baracchini, p. 2, right column, first paragraph).
Baracchini expressly teaches CO is converted over a Cu-based catalyst into methanol, which is then dehydrated in a second step to DME (Baracchini, p. 2, left column, 1.1. Dimethyl ether in the Power-to-Fuel context)
wherein DME is used directly in compression-ignition engines processing as a substitute for fossil-based gasoline or as a valuable feedstock for the chemical industry (Baracchini, p. 2, left column, 1.1. Dimethyl ether in the Power-to-Fuel context).
Sunada and Baracchini are analogous art as they are all drawn to layered multifunctional catalysts for the conversion of CO.
In light of the motivation for the synthesis of DME from CO as disclosed by Baracchini, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Cu/ZnO/ZrO2 (i.e. first catalyst is a CuZnZr-based catalyst) for the catalyst for purifying exhaust gases of Sunada, in order to achieve the synthesis of DME used directly in compression-ignition engines processing as a substitute for fossil-based gasoline or as a valuable feedstock for the chemical industry, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
20. Regarding claim 8, Sunada does not further teach the second catalyst includes an acid component, such as a zeolite.
With respect to the difference, Baracchini further teaches the upper layer (i.e. a second layer) consists of a non-dense zeolitic film (Baracchini, p. 3, left column, last paragraph)
wherein the non-dense zeolitic film is the zeolite H-ZSM-5 catalyst (i.e. second catalyst includes an acid component such as a zeolite) (Baracchini, Abstract).
Baracchini expressly teaches methanol from CO-conversion is then dehydrated in a second step to DME over a solid acid zeolite catalyst (Baracchini, p. 2, left column, 1.1. Dimethyl ether in the Power-to-Fuel context);
wherein the non-dense zeolite enhances the diffusion of the reactants (Baracchini, p. 3, left column, last paragraph)
wherein DME is used directly in compression-ignition engines processing as a substitute for fossil-based gasoline or as a valuable feedstock for the chemical industry (Baracchini, p. 2, left column, 1.1. Dimethyl ether in the Power-to-Fuel context).
In light of the motivation for CO conversion followed by methanol dehydration to DME over a solid acid zeolite catalyst as disclosed by Baracchini, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the zeolite H-ZSM-5 (Z) catalyst (i.e. second catalyst includes an acid component such as a zeolite) in the catalyst for purifying exhaust gases of Sunada, in order to achieve enhanced diffusion of reactants, the synthesis of DME used directly in compression-ignition engines processing as a substitute for fossil-based gasoline or as a valuable feedstock for the chemical industry, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
21. Regarding claim 12, Baracchini further teaches the Cu/ZnO/ZrO2 (i.e. first catalyst is a CuZnZr-based catalyst) (Baracchini, p. 2, right column, first paragraph) is for methanol synthesis (i.e. a first reaction) to form methanol (i.e. the first reaction to form a reaction product) (Baracchini, Abstract) and the zeolite H-ZSM-5 catalyst (i.e. second catalyst) is for dehydration of methanol (i.e. a second reaction) to the desired dimethyl ether (DME) product (i.e. the second reaction in which the reaction product of the first reaction is a reactant) (Baracchini, p. 3, left column, last paragraph).
22. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunada in view of Baracchini as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bonura et al., Catalytic features of CuZnZr–zeolite hybrid systems for the direct CO2-to-DME hydrogenation reaction (Bonura).
23. Regarding claim 9, Sunada in view of Baracchini do not teach the second catalyst is a Ferrierite (FER) zeolite.
With respect to the difference, Bonura teaches a CuZnZr–zeolite hybrid system (i.e. multifunctional catalyst) for the direct CO2-to-DME hydrogenation reaction (Bonura, Title)
wherein the zeolite (i.e. second catalyst) responsible for methanol dehydration (Bonura, p. 49, left column, first paragraph) is a FER framework (Bonura, Abstract).
Bonura expressly teaches FER was indicated as a key factor to realize a more efficient mass-transferring of MeOH from CuZnZr sites to zeolite surface (Bonura, Abstract)
wherein FER surface form clusters characterized by high interfacial area promote the activation of CO2 and its hydrogenation into methanol (Bonura, p. 53, left column, last paragraph) and achieve favorable formation of DME (Bonura, Abstract).
Sunada, Baracchini, and Bonura are analogous art as they are all drawn to multifunctional catalysts.
In light of the motivation for a more efficient mass-transferring of MeOH from CuZnZr sites to zeolite surface as disclosed by Bonura, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the FER zeolite (i.e. second catalyst) responsible for methanol dehydration in the catalyst for purifying exhaust gases of Sunada in view of Baracchini, in order to achieve favorable formation of DME from CO2, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
24. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20150352493 A1) (Zhang).
25. Sunada does not further teach including an inert layer interposed between the first layer and the second layer.
With respect to the difference, Zhang teaches a catalytic article comprising a first coating (i.e. a second layer) and a second catalytic coating (i.e. a first layer) (Zhang, Abstract) for three way catalysis (TWC) (i.e. multifunctional catalyst) (Zhang, [0003]) with monolith substrate (i.e. monolithic substrate) (Zhang, [0041]);
wherein the second coating (i.e. the first layer) overlies the surface of the monolith substrate (i.e. on a surface of the substrate) (Zhang, [0052]) comprising non-platinum group metals (non-PGM) (i.e. a first catalyst) (Zhang, [0036]) used to treat CO and hydrocarbons (Zhang, [0049])
wherein the first catalytic coating (i.e. the second layer) comprising a PGM metal (i.e. a second catalyst) (Zhang [0058]) is layered over (i.e. formed on top of) the second catalytic coating (i.e. the first layer) (Zhang, [0050]) and is used to treat NOx (Zhang, [0049])
wherein the first catalytic coating (i.e. the second layer) and second catalytic coating (i.e. the first layer) are separated by an inert barrier layer (Zhang, [0039]).
Zhang expressly teaches the barrier layer aids in the separation of platinum group metal catalyst from non-PGM metal, which in turn to help minimize the poisoning effect of the non-PGM metal on the platinum group metal catalyst (Zhang, [0052]).
Sunada and Zhang are analogous art as they are all drawn to multifunctional catalysts for three-way catalysis.
In light of the motivation for aids in the separation of platinum group metal catalyst from non-PGM metal as disclosed by Zhang, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an inert barrier layer to separate the first and second catalytic coatings in the structured double layer system of Baracchini, in order to minimize the poisoning effect of two adjacent catalytic layers, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
26. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 5.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights