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 § 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.
Claims 13-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergeal et al. (US 2015/0360213 A1) in view of Arshad et al. (US 2020/0306734 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Bergeal et al. teaches an oxidation catalyst for treating an exhaust gas from a compression ignition engine, which oxidation comprises: a first washcoat region comprising Pt and a first support material, and a second washcoat region with a second support material, wherein the first washcoat region is arranged to contact inlet exhaust gas before the second washcoat region (corresponding to inorganic particle layer arranged closer to exhaust gas channels than the noble metal catalyst layer) (abstract). The second washcoat layer is downstream of the first washcoat region (paragraph [0130]). The second washcoat layer may overlap with the first washcoat layer, thus an end portion of the second washcoat may be disposed or supported on the first washcoat layer (paragraphs [0134], [0142]). The second washcoat support material comprises of a refractory metal oxide, and is selected from the group consisting of alumina, silica, titania, zirconia, ceria, and mixed or composite oxides (corresponding to inorganic oxide particle layer) (paragraph [0072]). The refractory metal oxide has a d90 particle size ≤ 20 µm.
Bergeal et al. does not teach inorganic particle size from 5 to 200 nm.
However, Arshad et al. teaches a support material, which includes titania oxide with a mean particle size of 0.01-10 µm (paragraphs [0023]-[0024]). Arshad et al. found that preparing a catalyst with colloidal titania and micro sized titania resulted in a catalyst with an increased active SCR temperature, because the smaller particle size causes the titania to sinter and join larger particles together, adhering to create a larger support surface (paragraph [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergeal et al. and Arshad et al. and to have utilized an inorganic oxide particle having a particle size of 0.01-10 µm (10-10,000 nm) as the inorganic oxide particle of Bergeal et al., as suggested by Arshad et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Arshad et al., of creating a larger support surface. Bergeal et al. generally teach a d90 particle size of less than 20 microns. Arshad et al. provide more specificity and teach applicable particle sizes that would have been selected for use in the device of Bergeal et al. in order to create a larger support surface. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 14, Bergeal et al. teaches the first washcoat region (corresponding to noble metal catalyst particles) is arranged on the substrate to contact the inlet exhaust gas before the second washcoat region (corresponding to inorganic oxide particles) (paragraph [0127]).
Regarding claim 15, Bergeal et al. teaches the Pt on the first washcoat is supported on a refractory metal oxide, which is typically selected from the group consisting of alumina, silica, titania, zirconia, ceria, and mixed or composite oxides (paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 16 and 17, Bergeal et al. teaches the second washcoat (corresponding to inorganic oxide particles) support material comprises of a refractory metal oxide, and is selected from the group consisting of alumina, silica, titania, zirconia, ceria, and mixed or composite oxides (paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 18, Bergeal et al. teaches the first washcoat comprises Pt in the amount of 5 to 300 g/ft3 which corresponds to 0.17-10.6 g/L (paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 19, Bergeal et al. teaches the second washcoat region comprises an amount of second support material of 0.1 to 4.5 g/in3 which corresponds to 6-274 g/L (paragraph [0097]).
Regarding claim 20, Bergeal et al. teaches the third washcoat layer consists essentially of a hydrocarbon adsorbent, with a preferred embodiment of a zeolite (paragraphs [0110]-[0111]). The third washcoat is placed downstream of the first washcoat and may be disposed upstream or downstream of the second washcoat [paragraph [0144]).
Regarding claim 21, Bergeal et al. teaches examples of suitable zeolites include a copper CHA zeolite (paragraph [0112]).
Regarding claim 22, Bergeal et al. teaches the amount of hydrocarbon adsorbent is 0.01 to 3 g/in3 which corresponds to 0.6-183 g/L (paragraph [0107]).
Regarding claim 23, Bergeal et al. teaches the third washcoat is placed downstream of the first washcoat and may be disposed upstream or downstream of the second washcoat [paragraph [0144]).
Regarding claim 24, Bergeal et al. teaches examples of suitable zeolites include a copper CHA zeolite (paragraph [0112]).
Regarding claim 25, Bergeal et al. teaches the amount of hydrocarbon adsorbent is 0.01 to 3 g/in3 which corresponds to 0.6-183 g/L (paragraph [0107]).
Regarding claim 26, Bergeal et al. teaches the third washcoat is placed downstream of the first washcoat and may be disposed upstream or downstream of the second washcoat [paragraph [0144]).
Regarding claim 27, Bergeal et al. teaches examples of suitable zeolites include a copper CHA zeolite (paragraph [0112]).
Regarding claim 28, Bergeal et al. teaches the amount of hydrocarbon adsorbent is 0.01 to 3 g/in3 which corresponds to 0.6-183 g/L (paragraph [0107]).
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Bergeal et al. teaches the noble metal of the first washcoat is Pt (paragraph [0041]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANNAH E KETCHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/H.E.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1742
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
