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 Status
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected.
Claim 4 is objected.
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.
Claims 5-6 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first and second catalyst layers" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wursthorn et al. (US 2006/0008396) [hereinafter Wursthorn].
With respect to claim 1, Wursthorn discloses a filter, as shown in Fig. 1, having: a partial region 10 (wall-flow type base material) and a ceramic coating 12 (catalyst layer) formed on the base material 10, as shown in Fig. 1, wherein the base material 10 includes an inflow opening 7 (inlet side cell) whose only end part on an exhaust gas entry side is open, as shown in Fig. 1, an outlet side cell 5 whose only end part on an exhaust gas exit side is open, as shown in Fig. 1, and filter walls 2 (partition wall) that sections between the inlet side cell 7 and the outlet side cell 5 and includes a plurality of pores communicating between the inlet side cell 7 and the outlet side cell 5, as shown in Fig. 1, a first catalyst layer 12 is formed on a surface of the partition wall 2 that is in contact with the inlet side cell 7, as shown in Fig. 1, the first catalyst layer 12 is provided in a region over 80% of a total length of the base material 10 from an end part of the base material 10 on the exhaust gas entry side toward an end part thereof on the exhaust gas exit side, as shown in Fig. 1, and the first catalyst layer 12 is inclined so that a thickness of the first catalyst layer 12 decreases from the end part on the exhaust gas entry side toward the end part on the exhaust gas exit side, as shown in Fig. 1.
Wursthorn does not disclose the specific percentage of the length with inclination, i.e., in at least a region from a position corresponding to 20% of the total length of the base material to a position corresponding to 80% thereof. However, Wursthorn teaches that “the additional coating 12 further improves the flow through the filter because the flow resistance decreases in the flow direction of the exhaust. As a result, the downstream region of the filter in the vicinity of the closed regions 9 has a better flow. This plays a role primarily in the regeneration of a particle filter because when there is poor flow through the downstream region, the dissipation of heat is no longer assured so that thermal stresses occur that could lead to damage to the filter. The coating 12 on the filter walls 2 here has been applied to the ceramic substrate that constitutes the filter walls 2. The overall flow resistance is consequently comprised of the wall resistance of the substrate and the flow resistance of the additionally applied coating 12. The variation of the coating thickness can be adjusted through a correspondingly selected coating process.” (see paragraph 0016). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the catalyst layer disclosed by Wursthorn in at least a region from a position corresponding to 20% of the total length of the base material to a position corresponding to 80% thereof, as claimed by applicant, in order to improve the flow through the filter by decreasing the flow resistance in the flow direction of the exhaust, as taught by Wursthorn (see paragraph 0016) and since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to obtain the optimum length by routine optimization and since Wursthorn already teaches that the variation of the coating thickness can be adjusted through a correspondingly selected coating process (see paragraph 0016).
With respect to claim 2, Wursthorn lacks wherein a ratio (D20/D80) of a thickness (D20) of the first catalyst layer at the position corresponding to 20% of the total length of the base material from the end part of the base material on the exhaust gas entry side to a thickness (D80) of the catalyst layer at the position corresponding to 80% of the total length of the base material from the end part of the base material on the exhaust gas entry side is 2 or more and 4 or less. However, the specific a ratio (D20/D80) of a thickness (D20) claimed by applicant, is considered to be nothing more than a choice of engineering skill, choice or design that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious during routine experimentation based among other things, on desired accuracy, since the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (FED. Cir. 1984), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Furthermore, Wursthorn teaches that the thickness can be adjusted (see paragraph 0016).
With respect to claim 3, Wursthorn lacks wherein the thickness (D80) of the first catalyst layer at the position corresponding to 80% of the total length of the base material from the end part of the base material on the exhaust gas entry side is 11 μm or more and 25 μm or less. However, the specific thickness (D80) of the first catalyst layer at the position corresponding to 80% of the total length claimed by applicant, is considered to be nothing more than a choice of engineering skill, choice or design that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious during routine experimentation based among other things, on desired accuracy, since the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (FED. Cir. 1984), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Furthermore, Wursthorn teaches that the thickness can be adjusted (see paragraph 0016).
With respect to claim 5, Wursthorn discloses wherein the first and second catalyst layers contain a three-way catalyst that oxidizes CO and HC and reduces NOx, and a carrier that carries the three-way catalyst (see paragraph 0017).
With respect to claim 6, Wursthorn discloses wherein the three-way catalyst contains at least one kind selected from the group consisting of Pt, Pd, and Rh (see paragraph 0017).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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: Claim 4 would be allowed because the prior art of record does not show or suggest a second catalyst layer formed on a wall surface of the pore in a predetermined region from a surface of the partition wall that is in contact with the outlet side cell toward the inlet side cell, and a catalyst non-formation region where the catalyst layer is not formed substantially is provided between the first catalyst layer and a formation region of the second catalyst layer in a thickness direction of the partition wall, in combination with any remaining limitations in the claim. Wursthorn lacks these limitations and it would have not been obvious to modify because there is no reason or suggestion to do so and the filter would not operate as intended.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/MADELINE GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773