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
This is a first action on the merits for this regular application filed on 09/11/2023
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, in claims 1 and 12 “the outlet end of the first substrate, and a plurality of passages defined by internal walls of the first substrate extending threrethrough” AND “on a surface of the internal walls of the first substrate” AND “a second substrate comprising an inlet end” AND “a plurality of passages defined by internal walls of the second substrate extending therethrough” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 12-14 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.
Process claim 12 depends from system claim 1. The examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of process claim 12 since it is not positively recited what structural limitations from system claim 1 are or are not included in process claim 12. It is respectfully requested that process claim 12 be rewritten in independent form to include all the structural limitations of system claim 1.
The same applies to dependent method claim 14.
System claim 13 depends from process claim 12. The examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of system claim 13 since it is not positively recited what steps from process claim 12 are or are not included in system claim 13. It is respectfully requested that system claim 13 be rewritten in independent form to include all the steps of process claim 12.
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 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bergeal et al. (US 2017/0096922 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Bergeal et al. discloses a system (Fig.2) and a process for preparing a system [0002 and 0022-0023] for the treatment of an exhaust gas of a diesel combustion engine [0002 and 0212], comprising:
providing a NOx adsorber component [0025] and a lean NOx trap component [0022] wherein the NOx adsorber component is comprised in that the system comprising a NOx adsorber component (Fig.2:10) and a lean NOx trap component (Fig.2:30), wherein the NOx adsorber component (Fig.2:10) is comprised in
(a) a first catalyst [0041] comprising
(a.1) a first substrate ([0026]; molecular sieve catalyst) comprising an inlet end (Unlabeled left end of 10 as shown in Fig.2), an outlet end (unlabeled right end of 10 as shown in Fig.2), a substrate axial length extending (unlabeled length of 10 along the X-axis as shown in Fig.2) from the inlet end to the outlet end of the first substrate, and a plurality of passages defined by internal walls of the first substrate extending therethrough (the molecular sieve of the first substrate is considered to have internal walls [0043] for the air to pass through as shown by arrows 1 and 2 in Fig.2;
(a.2) a first coating ([0071] the platinum and the palladium layers that are supported on support material) being said NOx adsorber component, said coating being disposed on a surface of the internal walls of the first substrate over at least 50% of the substrate axial length [0095] of the first substrate,
the first coating comprising a platinum group metal [0028] supported on a zeolitic material [0038]; and
wherein the lean NOx trap component (Fig.2:30) is comprised in
(b) a second catalyst [0158] comprising
(b.1) a second substrate [0158] comprising an inlet end (Unlabeled left end of 30 as shown in Fig.2), an outlet end (unlabeled right end of 30 as shown in Fig.2), a substrate axial length extending
(unlabeled length of 30 along the X-axis as shown in Fig.2) from the inlet end to the outlet end of the second substrate, and a plurality of passages defined by internal walls [0188 and 0191] of the second substrate extending therethrough;
(b.2) a second coating [0182] being said lean NOx trap component, said coating being disposed on the
surface of the internal walls of the second substrate [0158] over at least 50% of the substrate axial
length of the second substrate,
the second coating [0182] comprising
a first non-zeolitic oxidic support material, Pt and Pd [0188],
wherein Pt and Pd are both supported on the first non-zeolitic oxidic support material [0188];
wherein the first non-zeolitic oxidic support material comprises CeO₂ and Al₂O₃ [0189], wherein at least
45 weight-% of the first non-zeolitic oxidic support material [0167-0171] consist of Al₂O₃, calculated as
Al₂O₃ (the support material in Bergeal et al. is capable of being made to have at least
45 weight-% of the first non-zeolitic oxidic support material consist of Al₂O₃),
wherein at least 10 weight-% of the first non-zeolitic oxidic support material consist of CeO2 [0167-0171],
calculated as CeO₂,
wherein in said system the NOx adsorber component (Fig.2:10) is arranged upstream of the lean NOx trap component (Fig.2:30)
arranging [0023] the NOx adsorber component (Fig.2:10) upstream of the lean NOx trap component (Fig.2:30).
Regarding claim 2, Bergeal et al. discloses that the zeolitic material according to (a.2) comprises a 10-membered ring pore zeolitic material [0043].
Regarding claim 3, Bergeal et al. discloses that the zeolitic material according to (a.2)
has a framework type selected from the group consisting of FER, TON, MTT, SZR, MFI,
MWW, AEL, HEU, AFO, a mixture of two or more thereof and a mixed type of two or more
Thereof [0043 and 0045].
Regarding claim 4, Bergeal et al. discloses that from 45 to 90 weight-% of the first non-zeolitic oxidic support material consist of Al₂O₃, [0169-0171] calculated as Al₂O₃.
Regarding claim 5, Bergeal et al. discloses that the second coating according to (b.2) further comprises Rh [0182] and a second non-zeolitic oxidic support material [0180], wherein Rh is supported on the second non-zeolitic oxidic support material.
Regarding claim 6, Bergeal et al. discloses that the second coating [0182] according to (b.2) that is capable of exhibiting a ratio of the weight of Pt, calculated as elemental Pt, to the weight of Rh, calculated as elemental Rh, in the range of from 5:1 to 50:1.
Regarding claim 7, Bergeal et al. discloses that the system further comprises at least one reductant injector (Fig.2:20), wherein each reductant injector is arranged between the NOx adsorber component (Fig.2:10) and the lean NOx trap component (Fig.2:30).
Regarding claim 9, Bergeal et al. discloses that the first substrate ([0026]; molecular sieve catalyst) according to (a.1) and the second substrate [0158] according to (b.1) together form one single substrate which comprises an inlet end, an outlet end, a substrate axial length extending from the inlet end to the outlet end of the single substrate, and a plurality of passages [0062] defined by internal walls of the single substrate [0104] extending therethrough, wherein the first coating ([0071] the platinum and the palladium layers [0069] that are supported on support material) according to (a.2) is
disposed on the surface of the internal walls of the single substrate that is capable of being over at least 25 % of the substrate axial length [0103] of the single substrate and the second coating [0182] according to (b.2) is disposed on the surface of the internal walls of the single substrate, the surface of the internal walls of the single substrate being at least partially coated with the first coating according to (a.2), over at least 25 % of the substrate axial length [0104] of the single substrate.
Regarding claim 10, Bergeal et al. discloses that the single substrate comprises one or more
Cavities [0043-0047], wherein each cavity extends from an outer position, wherein the outer position is located at an outer surface of the single substrate, to an inner position, wherein the inner position is located within the single substrate.
Regarding claim 11, Bergeal et al. discloses that the system further comprises at least one reductant injector (Fig.2:20 and 50), and wherein each reductant injector is located in a cavity.
Regarding claim 13, Bergeal discloses a system (Fig.2) for the treatment of an exhaust gas of a diesel combustion engine [0212] obtainable or obtained by the process [0002].
Regarding claim 14, Bergeal et al. discloses a method for the treatment of an exhaust gas of a diesel combustion engine [0211-0212], comprising providing an exhaust gas from a diesel combustion engine and passing said exhaust gas through the system [0022-0023].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 8 is the inclusion of a gas heating component. The closest prior art found (Bergeal et al.) does not teach or fairly suggest adding a gas heating component to Bergeal et al. system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONZER R CHORBAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-1271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-12:00 and 6:00-9:00.
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, Jill J Warden can be reached at (571)272-1267. 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.
/MONZER R CHORBAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798