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 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 1 – 24 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.
Regarding claim 1, 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). Claims 2 – 24 depend from claim 1 and are also rejected.
Additionally, regarding claims 3 and 4, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 4, 8 – 14, and 17 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,346,722 to Beauseigneur et al. (hereinafter referred to as Beauseigneur).
In regard to claim 1, as shown in figures 1 – 3, Beauseigneur discloses a method of washcoating a porous ceramic substrate (see column 3 lines 6 – 11). The method includes pre-treating the substrate with a buffer solution (16) to form a pre-treated substrate, as shown in figure 2. The, method further includes contacting the pre-treated substrate with a washcoat composition (24), as shown in figure 3. The washcoat composition can includes a washcoat solvent (deionized water) and a refractory material (alumina), as discussed in column 9 lines 41 – 45. As discussed in column 3 lines 43 – 49, the substrate can be a honeycomb body that inherently has a plurality of channels and a plurality of micro-channels (14). As shown in figures 2 and 3, pre-treating the substrate substantially prevents ingress of the washcoat solvent into pores of the substrate.
In regard to claim 2, by blocking the microcrack (14), or pore, capillary action into the pore is prevented. Thus, ingress of the washcoat solvent into pores of the substrate is substantially prevented by preventing capillary action of the pores.
In regard to claims 3 and 4, as discussed above, the refractory material in Beauseigneur can comprise alumina, which is both a ceramic material and a metal oxide.
In regard to claims 8 and 9, the buffer solution (16) can be considered a second pre-treatment solvent, as broadly recited in the claims. The ingress of the washcoat solvent into pores (14) of the substrate is prevented by substantially saturating the pores of the substrate with the second pre-treatment solvent (16), as shown in figures 2 and 3. This step includes contacting the substrate with a second pre-treatment solvent to as to substantially saturate the pores of the substrate with the second pre-treatment solvent (16).
In regard to claim 10, the pre-treated substrate inherently is subject to a pressure of 20 to 200 kPa upon contacting with the washcoat composition, as atmospheric pressure falls within this range.
In regard to claim 11, as discussed in column 9 lines 47 – 51, the substrate is dried and fired after contacting with the washcoat composition, which inherently removes the washcoat solvent form the substrate.
In regard to claim 12, as discussed in column 8 lines 29 – 41, Beauseigneur further discloses applying a catalytic species or precursor to the substrate.
In regard to claims 13, 17, and 20, Beauseigneur performs a method according to claim 1 of the present application, as discussed above, and inherently forms a washcoated porous ceramic substrate obtained by the method of claim 1 of the present application. The washcoated porous ceramic substrate of Beauseigneur includes all of the required structural features and can be considered a “filter”, as broadly recited in claim 17, or a “catalytic convertor”, as broadly recited in claim 20.
In regard to claim 18, similarly, Beauseigneur performs a method according to claim 1 of the present application, which includes all of the required steps of the method of manufacturing a catalytic convertor of claim 18. Additionally, as discussed above in regard to claim 12, Beauseigneur can include a catalytic species or precursor as part of the washcoat.
In regard to claim 14, as discussed in column 1 lines 14 – 32, it is known in the prior art to form a washcoated porous ceramic substrate having a plurality of microcracks, or micro-channels, coated with a solid washcoat layer. The quantity of the washout layer can be considered to be proportional to the volume of the micro-channels, as larger channels can be filled with more material that smaller channels.
In regard to claims 19 and 21 – 24, as discussed in column 8 lines 42 – 66, Beauseigneur discloses a method of catalytic conversion of pollutants form an automotive engine exhaust using the substrate, or catalytic convertor, of the invention by passing an exhaust with a pollutant composition through the catalytic convertor. In this case, Beauseigneur can be considered to perform a method of manufacturing an exhaust system by manufacturing a catalytic convertor that is incorporated into an exhaust system, wherein the catalytic convertor is manufactured by a method comprising manufacturing a washcoated porous ceramic substrate according to claim 1 of the present application, as discussed above. The resulting exhaust system comprises a catalytic convertor having the washcoated porous ceramic substrate obtained by the method of claim 1 of the present application. To be used as discussed in column 8 lines 42 – 66, Beauseigneur inherently incorporates the exhaust system into a product including an internal combustion engine.
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.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauseigneur in view of WO 2008/106518 to Boorse et al. (hereinafter referred to as Boorse).
Beauseigneur is discussed above in section 7. As discussed above, Beauseigneur discloses a honeycomb ceramic substrate that can include a catalyst in the washcoat and be used to remove pollutants from an automotive engine exhaust. Beauseigneur does not disclose manufacturing a filter with a method that includes blocking at least some channels in the substrate. As shown in figures 1A and 1B and discussed in the abstract, Boorse discloses a catalytic filter having a honeycomb body (100) with channels (102) that is used to provide simultaneous treatment of particulate matter and NOx in engine exhaust. As best shown in figure 1B, the filter is formed by using plugs (110, 112) to block at least some channels (102) in the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beauseigneur to manufacture the substrate as a filter by blocking at least some channels of the honeycomb substrate as suggested by Boorse in order to also be able to filter particulates from the exhaust.
In use, the filter of Beauseigneur and Boorse has a composition (i.e. the exhaust) passed through the filter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
In regard to claim 5, Beauseigneur discloses a buffer solution that forms a gel when in contact with the washcoat composition to block the washcoat composition ingress into the microcracks, or pores. Beauseigneur also discloses different prior art methods of blocking the microcracks. There is no teaching or suggestion, however, preventing the ingress of the washcoat solvent into the pores by increasing the hydrophobicity of the substrate. Claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 5 and would be allowable for at least the same reason as claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Other prior art references listed on the PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) are considered to be of interest disclosing similar substrates having washcoats and methods of forming them.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Clemente whose telephone number is (571)272-1476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, 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.
/ROBERT CLEMENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773