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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I invention (claim 1-16) in the reply filed on 07/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 07/01/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 10-11, 13-14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Wada (US2010/0275584).
Wada teaches an apparatus (i.e. an internal combustion engine) that uses a fuel reformer (item 50) to provide a reducing gas including H2 to a combustion exhaust, then a catalytic converter (item 31) and a NOx-purification catalyst (item 33) follow in an exhaust channel (item 4, 5), wherein the catalytic converter contains Pt and Pd on a support, the NOx-purification catalyst contains Pt on a support (para. [0032], [0056], [0077]-[0086], Fig. 1). Wada teaches the source of reducing gas connected to an inlet of the exhaust pipe (Fig. 1). Wada further teaches a test apparatus for such apparatus is shown with a reactor (item 82) with inlet for a gas mixture including H2 and NOx, the reactor is heated via a heater (item 83) to the range of 50-450°C and it includes the above explained catalysts, i.e. it includes Pt and Pd (para. [0135]- [0143], Fig. 4-5).
As for the claimed “a heater configured to heat the catalyst to temperature from 20 °C to 100 °C, it is noted that such recited limitation “configured to… heat the catalyst to temperature from 20 °C to 100 °C” preceded immediately via a structural component “heater” (rather than generic place holder), thus such limitation does not invoke 112 (f). Since Wada teaches a same or substantially the same heater as that of instantly claimed, therefore, same function--“configured to… heat the catalyst to temperature from 20 °C to 100 °C” as that of instantly claimed is expected.
Regarding claim 1, as for the claimed an outlet for the reaction chamber, since Wada teaches such test apparatus being used in an exhaust pipe of an internal combustion engine, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include an outlet in such reactor for removing the treated exhaust gas outside the apparatus, e.g. the internal engine.
Regarding claim 2 and 10, such limitation has been met as discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, Wada further teaches fuel supply gas device (item 52 Fig. 1) in the fuel reformer providing reducing gas (para. [0096]-[0099], Fig. 1, model gas in Fig. 4, table on left col. of page 9).
Regarding claim 4, such limitation has been met as discussed above.
Regarding claim 6-7, Wada also teaches fuel gas supply device (item 52) is connected to the ECU 40 (an electronic control unit), and a supply amount of fuel gas and a mixture ratio thereof are controlled by the ECU 40,wherein the supply amount (amount of reducing gas supplied into the exhaust plumbing 4 per unit time) of reductive gas supplied by controlling the supply amount of this fuel gas (para. [0098], Fig. 1). Wada also expressly teaches the model gas can contain 5000 or 6000ppm hydrogen as reducing gas (table on left col. of page 9), wherein such hydrogen volume is within the claimed range. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a same reducing gas volume percentage as that of instantly claimed via routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144. 05 II) for help obtaining desired performance, such as raising the temperature of catalytic converter and NOx purification catalyst up to an activation temperature at predetermined time period (para. [0098], [0106]).
Regarding claim 11, Wada further teaches Pt being supported onto alumina and such catalyst having a weight percentage within or overlapping with the claimed weight ratio (para. [0085], [0086], [0088]-[0089]).
Regarding claim 13 and 14, Wada further teaches target exhaust gas amount out from catalytic converter as well as NOx purification reactor can be measured and controlled, measuring and using gas analyzer (item 85, Fig. 4)--chemiluminescence method measuring NOx purification supplied into the reactor containing adsorbent (i.e. catalyst-item 84) and after it passed through the catalyst wherein such data being supplied to computer for calculation (Fig. 2,4-5, para. [0107]-[0119], [0134]-[0141]). Since gas analyzer can detect and analyze gas, therefore it reads onto the claimed gas detector. Since such gas analyzer being used to measure NOx purification rate after NOx purification in engine and data being shared with ECU or computer, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to communicate such gas analyzer with the outlet of the engine plumbing to minimize and control the final NOx level in the exhaust gas before it exits the engine.
Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Wada (US2010/0275584) as applied above, and in view of Jahnke (US2016/0351930).
Wada does not expressly teach the reductant source comprising an electrolyzer for producing the reductant.
However, it is well-known in the art that hydrogen and carbon monoxide can be produced via an electrolyzer as shown by Jahnke (para. [0027]-[0035], Fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known electrolyzer as shown by Jahnke to modify a well-known reductant source of Wada because adopting such well-known electrolyzer to produce hydrogen to modify a well-known reductant source in an exhaust gas treatment containing engine for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Wada (US2010/0275584) as applied above, and in view of Kim (KR2000/0046777) (for applicant’s convenience, machine translation has been provided hereof).
Regarding claim 8, Wada does not expressly teach using a flow rate controller.
Kim teaches a flow regulator (item 12, Fig. 2) is used to regulate the supply of a nitrogen oxide reducing agent (page 11 second para., page 12 second last para., claim 4 and 7).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known flow rate controller as shown by Kim to modify the apparatus of Wada because by doing so can help regulate (i.e. increase or decrease) the reducing agent flow rate so that a set flow rate can be achieved as suggested by Kim (page 14 third last para.).
Regarding claim 9, as for the claimed “flow rate controller is configured to increase of the flow rate of the reductant for 5 to 15 seconds”, it is noted that such recited limitation “configured to increase of the flow rate of the reductant for 5 to 15 seconds” is preceded immediately via a structural component “flow rate controller” (rather than generic place holder), thus such limitation does not invoke 112 (f). Since Kim teaches a same or substantially the same flow rate controller as that of instantly claimed, therefore, same function-- “configured to increase of the flow rate of the reductant for 5 to 15 seconds” as that of instantly claimed would be expected.
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Wada (US2010/0275584) as applied above, and Cheng et al. (Copper and platinum dual‐single‐atoms supported on crystalline graphitic carbon nitride for enhanced photocatalytic CO2 reduction, Chinese Journal of Catalysis 43 (2022) 451–460).
Wada already teaches a catalyst content within or overlapping with the claimed weight percentage range (para. [0085], [0088], [0089]).
Regarding claim 12, Wada does not expressly teach the catalyst being PtCu supported onto gC3N4 (i.e. graphitic carbon nitride).
Cheng et al. teaches dimetal Pt‐Cu atoms being incorporated into crystalline g‐C3N4 (i.e. graphitic carbon nitride) can be used as catalyst for decompose CO2 (page 452 left col. last para.-page 453 second para., Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such g‐C3N4 (i.e. graphitic carbon nitride) supported Pt-Cu catalyst as shown by Li to modify the catalyst in the exhaust treatment system of Wada because such catalyst having improved CO2 reduction as suggested by Cheng et al. (Fig. 2-4, page 454 right col. last para. -page 455 first para., page 455 left col. last para.-right col. first para., page 456 right col. 2nd para., page 458 4. Conclusion section). Furthermore, adopting such well-known CO2 reduction catalyst to modify a well-known exhaust gas treatment catalyst in the engine for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Claim 13-14 and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Wada (US2010/0275584) as applied above, and in view of Kanae (JP2015/223583) (for applicant’s convenience, machine translation has been provided hereof).
Regarding claim 13, in arguendo about Wada not expressly teach using gas detector to measure NOx, Kanae teaches NOx sensor (i.e. a gas detector) can be arranged downstream of the reduction catalyst unit measuring the amount of NOx after it has pass through the reduction catalyst unit (page 59, 2nd last para, page 61 last para., Fig. 8) and such NOx sensor can be infrared absorption, chemiluminescence and ultraviolet absorption sensor (page 40 last para.-page 41 first para.). Kanae also teaches such NOx sensor can be used after oxidation catalyst unit (item 13 a, b Fig 9, page 65 last para.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known NOx sensor as shown by Kanae to modify the apparatus of Wada because by doing so can measure and control NOx level when the exhaust gas stream entering and exiting the NOx reduction catalyst unit as suggested by Kanae. Furthermore, adopting such well-known NOx sensor to modify a well-known engine containing NOx reduction catalyst for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Since such NOx sensor is used to measure and control NOx amount before and after NOx passing through the reduction catalyst unit in engine, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to communicate such NOx sensor with the outlet of the engine plumbing to minimize and control the final NOx level in the exhaust gas before it exits the engine.
Regarding claim 14 and 15, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art “obvious to try” chemiluminescence sensor or infrared absorption sensor for sensing NOx because choosing NOx chemiluminescence sensor or choosing infrared absorption sensor from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of NOx sensor would have a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Claim 16 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Wada (US2010/0275584) in view of Kanae (JP2015/223583) (for applicant’s convenience, machine translation has been provided hereof) as applied above, and further in view of Bahrmi (US2017/0122159).
Wada in view of Kanae already teaches a system for monitoring concentration of NOx in enclosed space.
Regarding claim 16, Wada in view of Kanae does not expressly teach a system comprising a plurality of apparatus, however, it is well-known in the art that catalytic unit comprising precious metal for treating exhaust gas comprising NOx can be repeated as shown by Bahrmi (Fig. 1, para. [0003], [0020], [0033]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a plurality of such apparatus in an enclosed space (e.g. reaction chamber) comprising catalyst (for reducing NOx or harmful components), heater, and a source of reductant to help improve the exhaust gas treatment efficiency as suggested by Bahrmi. Furthermore, adopting a plurality of the apparatus comprising an enclosed space (reaction chamber) comprising catalyst, heater, and a source of reductant to treat the exhaust gas (before being released to air) for improved efficiency only involves routine skill for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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 (Coris) 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights