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 .
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, in the last clause, recitations of “a covered region” and “a not covered region” are ambiguous as to what structural feature of the composite has the recited regions (“a covered region of the base material” and (“a not covered region of the base material” are suggested).
In claim 7, “that accelerate oxidation of a collection” is unclear as to whether oxidation of the composite collection surface or other composite feature, or oxidation of a material treated by the composite is being referred to.
In claim 10, there is a lack of nexus between collection of particulate matter in an exhaust gas, and the components of the porous composite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 is directed only to a method step concerning collecting of particulate matter from an exhaust gas, and doesn’t further define or introduce any apparatus structural features or composition of the porous composite. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al PGPUBS Document US 2019/0301325 (Yoshioka) in view of patent publication JP 2006/239544 and the accompanying Escapenet English translation (publication ‘544).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the applied PGPUBS Document and of the applied Escapenet English translation are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 1, Yoshioka discloses: a porous, layered or “composite” honeycomb filter for filtering automotive engine exhaust gas so as to remove particulates from the exhausted gas [0042, 0045, 0048 and 0049, and comprising: a porous base material (figures 1-4 and 7-9, [0043, 0045 and 0080-0085 re honeycomb filter 100/300 including honeycomb structure 4/44 having porous partition walls 1/41 and cells 2/42], and a porous base material constituting trapping layer 55 (figure 9 and [0080-0085], in particular see [0081] regarding the layer 54 provided for trapping particulate matter in the exhaust gas); and
a porous catalyst or collection layer 54 provided on a collection surface of said base material trapping layer 55 illustrated in figure 9 and described in [0080-0085]),
wherein said collection layer includes catalyst particles along said collection surface (figures 4 and 7-9 and [0045-0049 and 0080-0085] re platinum group element containing catalyst layer 14/54);
suggests, although not specifically disclosing, that in a plan (‘plane) view of said collection surface, a proportion of an area of a covered region that is covered with said collection layer out of said collection surface is less than or equal to 70% ([0080 and 0083 re the catalyst or collection layer being disposed in a range of at least up to 40% or up to 50% with the overall length of the cells 42] and [0082-0083 re the trapping, base material layer 55 and catalyst collection layer 54 co-existing or ‘overlapping each other in a range of the filter], hence suggesting an area or region covered with the base material layer having a collection surface which is also covered with the collection layer being “less than or equal to 70%”, and
suggests, although not specifically disclosing, a proportion of an area of a pore region out of a non-covered region that is not covered with said collection layer being less than or equal to 15% [0078 and 0080-0083] cumulatively teaching only a portion of a pore region of the porous partition walls 41 being covered with both the trapping base material layer 55 and catalyst collection layer 54, hence undisclosed portions of area of the pore region covered only with base material layer 55 and covered only with catalyst collection layer 54, respectfully] .
Claim 1 and claims dependent therefrom firstly differ from Yoshioka by requiring that the particles of the collection layer include particles disposed in the pores of the collection surface.
Publication ‘544 teaches to provide a catalytic body for purifying automotive exhaust gas [0002, 0011 and 0014]; such catalytic body having a porous coating layer 21 formed on a porous inorganic substrate 10 with catalyst component 30 disposed in the pores 22 of the coating layer, such catalyst component being in particulate form [0041-0043].
Publication ‘544 teaches that such arrangement results in a collection layer which exhibits increased, more active, catalytic activity towards multiple types of substances, hence more highly purifying the automotive exhaust gas [0041-0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the automotive exhaust filtration art, to have modified the structure of Yoshioka, as taught or suggested by publication ‘544 , in order to increase the catalytic activity of the collection layer and increase the catalytic activity towards multiple types of substances, hence more highly purifying the automotive exhaust gas.
Claim 1 and claims dependent therefrom, also differ by explicitly requiring that in a plan or plane view of the collection surface, that a proportion of an area of a covered region that is covered with said collection layer out of said collection surface is less than or equal to 70%, and a proportion of an area of a pore region out of a non-covered region that is not covered with said collection layer is less than or equal to 15%.
Such proportions or percentages of areas which are covered and not covered by the collection layer or collection surface are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to purify a maximum and consistent amount of automotive exhaust fluid in the composite by maintaining optimum flow, while adequately collecting and removing the contaminant particles from the automotive exhaust gas.
Yoshioka discloses that the coverage of both the porous base material layer and catalyst collection layer along the area of inflow cells and partition walls of the honeycomb filter may vary between widely differing percentages [0080, 0081 and 0083].
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Hence it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the automotive exhaust purifying arts, to have also constructed the composite filtering structure of Yoshioka to have the specific proportion of coverage of collection layer to be as claimed, in order to purify a maximum and consistent amount of automotive exhaust fluid in the composite by maintaining optimum flow, while adequately collecting and removing the contaminant particles from the automotive exhaust gas.
For claim 2, Yoshioka also suggests wherein in a plan view of said collection surface, the proportion of the area of said covered region out of said collection surface may be more than or equal to 25% .
Such proportion or percentage of area which is covered or not covered by the collection layer or collection surface is deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to purify a maximum and consistent amount of automotive exhaust fluid in the composite by maintaining optimum flow, while adequately collecting and removing the contaminant particles from the automotive exhaust gas.
Yoshioka discloses that the coverage of both the porous base material layer and catalyst collection layer along the area of inflow cells and partition walls of the honeycomb filter may vary between widely differing percentages [0080, 0081 and 0083].
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Hence it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the automotive exhaust purifying arts, to have also constructed the composite filtering structure of Yoshioka to have the specific proportion of coverage of collection layer to be as claimed, in order to purify a maximum and consistent amount of automotive exhaust fluid in the composite by maintaining optimum flow, while adequately collecting and removing the contaminant particles from the automotive exhaust gas.
Publication ‘962 also teaches wherein in a plan view of said collection surface, the proportion of the area of said covered region out of said collection surface is more than or equal to 25% .
For claim 3, publication ‘544 also suggests wherein the particles in the collection layer have cavities therein, thus further increasing relative surface area of the catalytic material and hence catalytic activity [0039 and 0040 re catalyst particles consisting of a base particle 1 which may contain two or more types of solid solution particles, thus there necessarily being spaces, i.e. cavities between the different individual particles of the base particle 1].
It would have thus been also obvious to the skilled artisan to have employed such particles having cavities in the Yoshioka composite, as taught by ‘544, to further increase relative surface area of the catalytic material and hence catalytic activity.
For claim 4, although Yoshioka is silent as to wherein the particles in the collection layer have a bulk density of less than 0.50 g/ml, such teaching is inherent, since Yoshioka teaches use of any of a wide range of types of catalytic particle elements [0085], as well as the particles of the cavity layer 14 having any of a widely varied porosity and average pore diameter thus inherently having the recited bulk density [0050, 0051].
Such particle bulk density is deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to purify a maximum and consistent amount of automotive exhaust fluid in the composite by maintaining optimum flow, while adequately collecting and removing the contaminant particles from the automotive exhaust gas.
Yoshioka discloses that the porosity and average pore diameter of the particles, thus the recited bulk density [0050, 0051]. of the honeycomb filter may vary between widely differing values .
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Hence it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the automotive exhaust purifying arts, to have also constructed the composite filtering structure of Yoshioka to have the specific claimed bulk density of particles of the collection layer, in order to purify a maximum and consistent amount of automotive exhaust fluid in the composite by maintaining optimum flow, while adequately collecting and removing the contaminant particles from the automotive exhaust gas.
For claim 6, Yoshioka further explicitly discloses in [0087] wherein said collection layer has a porosity of higher than or equal to 70% and lower than or equal to 90%.
If necessary, or optionally, collection layer porosity is deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to purify a maximum and consistent amount of automotive exhaust fluid in the composite by maintaining optimum flow, while adequately collecting and removing the contaminant particles from the automotive exhaust gas.
Yoshioka discloses that the collection layer porosity of the honeycomb filter may vary between widely differing values between 70% and 90% [0087] .
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Hence it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the automotive exhaust purifying arts, to have also constructed the composite filtering structure of Yoshioka to have the specific claimed porosity of the collection layer, in order to purify a maximum and consistent amount of automotive exhaust fluid in the composite by maintaining optimum flow, while adequately collecting and removing the contaminant particles from the automotive exhaust gas.
For claim 7, Yoshioka further discloses wherein said collection layer particles include catalyst particles that accelerate oxidation of a collection [0054 regarding effective trapping and continuous, high performance oxidation and removal of PM particulates by platinum group element-containing catalyst layer 14].
For claim 9, Yoshioka further discloses wherein said base material has a honeycomb structure whose interior is partitioned into a plurality of cells by a partition wall, and at least some of said plurality of cells have an inner surface that serves as said collection surface (figures 1-9 illustrating partition walls 1 or 41 having surfaces on the length of some cells on which the catalyst collection layer is disposed as described in [0043 and 0080]).
For claim 10, Yoshioka further discloses wherein the porous composite is serving as a gasoline particulate filter that collects particulate matter in an exhaust gas exhausted from a gasoline engine [0003, 0005 and 0009, taken cumulatively].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al PGPUBS Document US 2019/0301325 (Yoshioka) in view of patent publication JP 2006/239544 and the accompanying Escapenet English translation (publication ‘544), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 above, and further in view of patent publication CN 107961813 and the accompanying Escapenet English translation (publication ‘813). Referenced paragraph numbers of the applied PGPUBS Document and of the applied Escapenet English translations are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 5 further differs by requiring wherein d10 of a cumulative particle size distribution of said particles is greater than or equal to 0.3 μm, and d90 thereof is less than or equal to 20 μm.
Publication ‘813 teaches a catalytic coating for a molecular sieve type filter for filtration of automotive exhaust gas [0003], and utilizing catalyst particles of the claimed relatively narrow size distribution [see 0019-0020, regarding preferred embodiments concerning cumulative distribution of catalytic particle size d90, d50 and d10 particle diameter differences, with suggested advantages of having a relatively narrow, uniform size distribution of maintained activity and selectivity of the catalyst particles].
Additionally, such cumulative particle size distribution of particles is deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to optimize maintained activity and selectivity of the catalyst particles for removing the contaminant particles from the automotive exhaust gas.
Publication ‘813 teaches that cumulative distribution of catalytic particle size may vary [see 0019-0020, regarding preferred embodiments concerning the cumulative distribution].
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Hence it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the automotive exhaust purifying arts, to have also constructed the composite filtering structure of Yoshioka to have the specific claimed cumulative distribution of catalytic particle size of the collection layer, as taught by ‘813, in order to optimize maintained activity and selectivity of the catalyst particles for removing the contaminant particles from the automotive exhaust gas.
It would have been additionally obvious for the skilled artisan to have utilized catalyst particles in the Yoshioka composite, such that d10 of a cumulative particle size distribution of said particles is greater than or equal to 0.3 μm, and d90 thereof is less than or equal to 20 μm, as taught by publication ‘813, in order to .
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al PGPUBS Document US 2019/0301325 (Yoshioka) in view of patent publication JP 2006/239544 and the accompanying Escapenet English translation (publication ‘544), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 above, and further in view of patent publication JP 2007-697 and the accompanying Machine English translation (publication ‘697). Referenced paragraph numbers of the applied PGPUBS Document and of the applied Escapenet English translations are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 8 further differs by reciting wherein said catalyst particles are CeO.sub.2, a lanthanum-cerium composite oxide, a lanthanum-manganese-cerium composite oxide, a lanthanum-cobalt-cerium composite oxide, a lanthanum-iron-cerium composite oxide, or a lanthanum-praseodymium-cerium composite oxide.
For claim 8, publication ‘697 further teach wherein an exhaust gas purification catalyst contains a support layer 2, having an aggregation-suppressing coating layer, having pores, containing oxides of lanthanum and cerium, i.e. “a lanthanum-cerium composite oxide” (Machine translation paragraphs entitled “Novelty”, “Preferred Composition” and “Preferred Properties”). Publication ‘697 teaches that such types of catalyst suppress aggregation of collected noble metal particles (paragraph entitled “Novelty”).
It would have been additionally obvious for the skilled artisan to have utilized catalyst particles of the particular mixed metal oxides recited in instant claim 8, as taught by publication ‘697, in order to optimize catalytic action of collecting and removing noble metal contaminants from the exhaust gas being treated by the composite, to better ensure their removal from the gasoline exhaust being filtered.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A plurality of prior art is made of record concerning honeycombed filters for purifying engine exhaust gas having the partitioned honeycombed structure recited in instant claim 1, and having varied dimensional configurations and varied deployment of catalyst particles for removing contaminating particles from the exhaust gas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. Visit https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
02/19/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773