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 .
Responsive to correspondence
This office action is in response to correspondence filed on 04/19/2024.
Abstract
The abstract filed 04/19/2024 appears to be acceptable.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-8, 14-15, 21, 26, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37-38, 41, 48-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (WO2018207497 A1), (U.S Publication number 2021/0189930 A1 to SUGAWARA (SUGAWARA) has been used as English translation).
Re: Claim 1:
SUGAWARA discloses:
A filtration article comprising :
a plugged honeycomb filter body comprising (See Figs. 1,2: ¶0069-¶0082) :
intersecting porous walls (See Figs. 1,2: intersecting walls 11) extending an axial length in an axial direction from a proximal end to a distal end of the honeycomb body (honeycomb body as shown in figure 1 and explained in ¶0051-¶0055, ¶0069-¶0082) and defining a plurality of axial channels (See Figs. 1,2: as shown) comprised of inlet channels (See Figs. 1,2: inlet channels 31) , which are plugged at the distal end of the plugged honeycomb filter body, and outlet channels (See Figs. 1,2: outlet channels 32), which are plugged at the proximal end of the plugged honeycomb filter body (as shown in figure 1), the porous walls comprising:
porous ceramic base portions (See Figs. 1,2: ¶0066: porous partition walls in the honeycomb substrate may be comprised of, for example, a heat-resistant porous material. Examples of heat-resistant porous materials include silicon carbide, cordierite, aluminum titanate, silicon nitride and metal oxide particles.) with a plurality of pores (See Figs. 1,2: as described in ¶0055 and throughout the disclosure) and an average thickness (an average thickness is implied) and having inlet sides and outlet sides (as shown in figure 1, upstream side which is inlet side and downstream side which is outlet side);
inlet surfaces (as shown in figure 1 inlet surfaces are implied to define inlet channels 31) defining the inlet channels;
outlet surfaces (as shown in figure 1 inlet surfaces are implied to define outlet channels 32) defining the outlet channels;
inorganic deposits disposed at the inlet sides of the porous ceramic base portions (See Figs. 2b and 2c: coat layer 20), the inlet surfaces being comprised of exposed inorganic deposits and any areas of the porous ceramic base portion exposed to the inlet channels (See Figs. 1,2: ¶0074-¶0075: the inlet side coat layer contains inorganic oxides and only optionally components such as a precious metal catalyst); and
catalytic material (See Figs. 1,2: ¶0074, ¶0077, ¶0080 : The outlet side coat layer contains inorganic oxide particles and further optionally contains components such as a precious metal such as palladium, platinum or rhodium) disposed at the outlet sides of the porous ceramic base portions on and/or within the porous ceramic base portions (See Figs. 1,2: ceramic base portion as shown and explained in ¶0079), the outlet surfaces being comprised of any catalytic material exposed to the outlet channels (See Figs. 1,2: The exhaust gas purification catalyst device of the present embodiment may have an outlet side coat layer on the honeycomb substrate in addition to the inlet side coat layer) , and any areas of the porous ceramic base portion exposed to the outlet channels (See Figs. 1,2: ¶0077-¶0080: claim 7);
wherein the porous ceramic base portions comprise interposing regions located between the inlet sides and the outlet sides of the porous ceramic base portions (See Figs. 1,2: ¶0079: result of inlet layer being on the inlet channel wall, ref. Fig. 2b,2c, and the outlet coating layer present within the range from the partition wall surfaces of the outlet side cells towards the depth-wise direction of the partition walls to depth of 10% of the partition wall thickness),
wherein a majority or all of the inorganic deposits are spaced away from a majority of the catalytic material by the interposing region at a given axial location (See Figs. 1,2: ¶0071, ¶0079);
wherein both the porous ceramic base portions and the inorganic deposits are not hydrophobic (See Figs. 1,2: ¶0074, ¶0075: the materials as specified in cited paras are not hydrophobic materials).
Regarding claim 36: SUGAWARA discloses all the limitations of method claim 36.
Re: Claim 3:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 1, wherein substantially all or all of the inorganic deposits are spaced away from the catalytic material by the interposing region in one or more of the porous walls (See Figs. 1,2: ¶0074: the precious metal is supported on a portion or entirety of the aforementioned metal oxide particles).
Re: Claim 4:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 1, wherein the inorganic deposits are spaced away from the catalytic material by the interposing regions in one or more of the porous walls (See Figs. 1,2: ¶0074: the precious metal is supported on a portion or entirety of the aforementioned metal oxide particles).
Re: Claim 7:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 1, wherein the interposing regions are free of the catalytic material (See Fig. 1: the interposing regions shown at 11 are free of the catalytic material).
Re: Claim 8:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 1, wherein the interposing regions are free of the inorganic deposits (See Fig. 1: the interposing regions shown at 11 are free of the inorganic deposits).
Re: Claim 14:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 1, wherein each of the porous ceramic base portions is comprised of:
an inorganic deposit region comprised of inorganic deposits disposed on and/or in the porous ceramic base portion at the inlet side thereof; a catalytically dense region comprised of catalytic material disposed on and/or in the porous ceramic base portion at the outlet side thereof; and the interposing region is disposed between the inorganic deposit region and the catalytically dense region (See ¶0102, ¶0103: inorganic oxide particles, precious metal catalyst and inorganic binder in the slurry for coat layer formation may respectively be the same as or different from the inorganic oxide particles, precious metal catalyst and inorganic binder contained in the inlet side coat layer).
Re: Claim 15:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 1, wherein the inorganic deposits are comprised of porous agglomerates of inorganic material, or aggregates of porous agglomerates of inorganic material (See ¶0102, ¶0103).
Re: Claim 21:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 1, wherein the inorganic deposits are comprised of porous ceramic material (See ¶0114: slurry coat layer may also be formed within the outlet side cells of the honeycomb substrate as necessary by coating the slurry for coat layer formation. The slurry for coat layer formation coated within the outlet side cells may be the same as or different from the slurry coated within the inlet side cells).
Re: Claim 26:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 1, wherein the catalytic material comprises a three-way conversion (TWC) catalytic material (¶0075: discloses three-way material palladium, platinum or rhodium).
Re: Claim 32:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 1, wherein the inorganic deposits are comprised of refractory inorganic nanoparticles bound by a binder comprising one or more inorganic components ( discloses slurry as explained in ¶0102 , since a slurry is a suspension of refractory particles such as alumina, silica, magnesia, zirconia, or chromite).
Re: Claim 33:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 1, wherein the inorganic deposits are comprised of refractory metal oxide nanoparticles (inorganic deposits are comprised of refractory metal oxide nanoparticles as explained in ¶0120, ¶0121).
Re: Claim 34:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 33, wherein the nanoparticles comprise alumina (¶0121).
Regarding method claims 36, 37, 38, 41, 48-50: SUGAWARA discloses all the limitations of method claims 37, 38, 41, 48-50
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 5-6, 11, 13, 22, 29, 30, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO2018207497 A1), (U.S Publication number 2021/0189930 A1 to SUGAWARA (SUGAWARA) has been used as English translation) combined with the following reasons.
Re: Claim 2:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 1, wherein the interposing regions contain less than 5% of the catalytic material, if any, which is disposed on a respective wall at the given axial location (See Figs. 1,2: ¶0071,¶0072: the range over which the inlet side coat layer is present extends from the partition wall surfaces of the inlet side cells towards the depth-wise direction of the partition walls to 3% or more, 4% or more ).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to elect different interposing regions having different percentage of a catalytic material, as a matter of design choice depending on the system requirement, therefore the specific range claimed just provides applicant with an optimum characteristic, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A)
Re: Claim 5:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 1, SUGUWARA discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the interposing regions comprise greater than or equal to 0.0 to less than or equal to 5.0% of an amount of the catalytic material within the honeycomb body (See Figs. 1,2: ¶0071,¶0072: the range over which the inlet side coat layer is present extends from the partition wall surfaces of the inlet side cells towards the depth-wise direction of the partition walls to 3% or more, 4% or more ).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to elect different interposing regions having different percentage of a catalytic material, as a matter of design choice depending on the system requirement, therefore the specific range claimed just provides applicant with an optimum characteristic, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A)
Re: Claim 6:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 1, wherein the interposing regions comprise less than 5.0% of an amount of the catalytic material at the given axial location (See Figs. 1,2: ¶0071,¶0072: the range over which the inlet side coat layer is present extends from the partition wall surfaces of the inlet side cells towards the depth-wise direction of the partition walls to 3% or more, 4% or more ).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to elect different interposing regions having different percentage of a catalytic material, as a matter of design choice depending on the system requirement, therefore the specific range claimed just provides applicant with an optimum characteristic, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A).
Re: Claim 11:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 1, wherein a ratio of a thickness of the interposing regions relative to the thickness of the porous ceramic base portions is between 0.05 and 0.95.
Although SUGAWARA discloses a ratio of thickness of interposing regions relative to the thickness of porous ceramic base portion, however SUGAWARA is silent regarding specific ratio between 0.05 and 0.05 of a thickness of the interposing regions relative to the thickness of the porous ceramic base portions. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to elect different ratio of thickness of interposing regions relative to the thickness of porous ceramic base portion as a matter of design choice depending on the system requirement, therefore the specific range claimed just provides applicant with an optimum characteristic, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A).
Re: Claim 13:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 11, wherein the ratio of the thickness of the interposing regions relative to the thickness of the porous ceramic base portions is between 0.25 and 0.75.
Although SUGAWARA discloses a ratio of thickness of interposing regions relative to the thickness of porous ceramic base portion, however SUGAWARA is silent regarding specific ratio between 0.25 and 0.75 of a thickness of the interposing regions relative to the thickness of the porous ceramic base portions. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to elect different ratio of thickness of interposing regions relative to the thickness of porous ceramic base portion as a matter of design choice depending on the system requirement, therefore the specific range claimed just provides applicant with an optimum characteristic, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A).
Re: Claim 22:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 1, wherein the inorganic deposits are comprised of porous (See Figs.1-2: ¶0102: discloses inorganic deposits/binder) spherical agglomerates of nanoparticles .
Although SUGAWARA discloses inorganic deposits/binder, however SUGAWARA is silent regarding spherical agglomerates of nanoparticles. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to elect different formation of inorganic deposits depending on the desired system requirement as a matter of design choice depending on the system requirement, therefore the specific shape claimed is merely a matter of design option. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Re: Claim 29:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 1, SUGAWAR discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the inorganic deposits comprise a median pore size in a range of greater than or equal to 0.1 micrometers to less than or equal to 5 micrometers (¶0103: discloses varied pore diameters). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to elect sizes of pores in inorganic deposits as a matter of design choice depending on the system requirement, therefore the specific range claimed is merely one of the design options, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A).
Re: Claim 30:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 1, SUGAWAR discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the porosity of the porous walls ( discloses porosity of porous walls having a percentage), although SUGAWARA is silent regarding a specific percentage of porous walls being greater than 50% to less than or equal to 70%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to elect different porosity percentages of porous walls as a matter of design choice depending on the system requirement, therefore the specific range claimed just provides applicant with an optimum characteristic, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A).
Re: Claim 35:
SUGAWARA discloses:
The filtration article of claim 1, wherein a clean filtration efficiency of the filtration article is greater than or equal to 90% as measured by a clean filtration efficiency test (this is merely the hypothetical result to be achieved without providing any basis of the disclosed invention as taught by SUGAWAR.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve desired efficiency of the claimed system as a matter of design choice depending on the system requirement, therefore the specific efficiency just provides applicant with an optimum results to operate a system at a desired efficiency level.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record U.S Publication number 2018/0361360 A1, U.S Publication number 2021/0283580 A1 and U.S Publication number 20200047124 not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAFIQ A MIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 6:30 pm (Monday thru Thursday).
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, MARK LAURENZI can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/SHAFIQ MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
25-Jun-26
Prosecution Insights