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.
Claim 25 is 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 25 recites the limitation, “wherein the copper ion-exchanged zeolite is Cu-CH-type zeolite A,” in line 2. CH-type zeolite A is not a recognized zeolite framework and blends the naming convention for CHA framework zeolite (i.e. chabazite-type zeolite, CHA framework zeolite) and zeolite type-A (i.e. Linde Type A, LTA framework zeolite). The recited limitation appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and requires correction to distinctly define a zeolite framework which is claimed. For the purposes of examination, the limitation has been interpreted to refer to a CHA-framework zeolite based upon the specification [0004].
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.
Claims 12, 14, 15, 24, 26-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Publication JP-H11276907A (published 24 Aug 1999; cited on IDS).
With regard to claim 12, JP-H11276907A (herein referred to as JP’ 907A) teaches a three-way catalytic converter comprised of a honeycomb-shaped monolithic support [0018], an inner layer containing noble metals platinum and/or palladium coated onto the support [0018], [0026], an intermediate layer containing a refractory inorganic compound such as alumina or titania [0025], and a surface layer comprising copper, rhodium, or cobalt on MFI zeolite, mordenite, beta zeolite, or inorganic oxides [0023]-[0024].
Example 7 discloses an exhaust gas purification catalyst device comprising a cordierite honeycomb substrate (400 channel per square inch, [0030]);
coated with a noble metal catalyst particle-supporting layer in the form of Pt inside the partition walls (see EPMA analysis as it relates to Example 7 [0030]) and Pt/MFI-zeolite disposed on the partition walls [0047];
a zeolite layer which includes a copper ion-exchanged MFI zeolite (5.6 wt% Cu, SAR = 30) present on the surface of the device, i.e. the first layer to interact with exhaust gas and therefore further toward the exhaust flow path side in relation to the noble metal catalyst particle-supporting layer [0049];
and an inorganic oxide particle layer (i.e. the intermediate layer) comprising titanium oxide particles between the noble metal catalyst particle-supporting layer and the zeolite layer [0048]. The details of the device of Example 7 are summarized in Table 1, row 7. The intermediate layer is formed using a slurry of titanium dioxide on top of the upper half of the MFI zeolite inner coating [0048], which was determined to contain no platinum by EPMA analysis (see [0047], [0044], [0030]), and therefore the intermediate layer would contain a noble metal content of lower than 0.01 g/L. As all of the recited features of claim 12 are disclosed in JP ‘907A, claim 12 is anticipated.
With regard to claims 14 and 15, JP’ 907A discloses the use of activated Al2O3 (i.e. alumina) and TiO2 (i.e. titania) as intermediate layer materials [0025]. Specifically, Example 7 discloses TiO2 particles as making up the intermediate layer as noted above [0048].
With regard to claim 24, in Example 7 JP’ 907A teaches that the amount of copper ion-exchanged zeolite in the zeolite layer is 160 g/L [0049], which is within the instantly claimed range of 30 g/l or greater and 200 g/L or lower.
With regard to claim 26, JP ‘907A teaches that the noble metal particles in the noble metal catalyst particle-supporting layer may be platinum and/or palladium as instantly claimed [0018]. In Example 7, platinum particles are used in the noble metal catalyst particle-supporting layer [0047] (see [0044]).
With regard to claim 27, JP ‘907A teaches that the steps used to produce the first coating layer of the catalyst in Example 7 results in, “the distribution of platinum in the coating layer [being] almost the same as that of honeycomb catalyst 1A in Example 1,” [0047] & [0044]. JP ‘907A teaches that the production method employed in Example 1 results in a portion of the noble metal catalyst particles being embedded in the honeycomb support (around 20% of the total deposited Pt, see EPMA analysis of [0030]). Therefore, the catalyst device of Example 7 would comprise noble metal catalyst particles (i.e. deposited Pt particles) directly supported inside the partition walls of the substrate (i.e. cordierite honeycomb support) as instantly claimed.
With regard to claims 28 and 30, JP’ 907A teaches that the platinum or palladium particles are supported on a refractory inorganic compound such as MFI zeolite, mordenite, beta zeolite, alumina, or titania [0021]. In example 7, 0.8 g/L of platinum was deposited in the coating layer with a similar distribution to Example 1 ([0047] & [0044]), i.e. 80% of particles found in the lower half of the support (H-type beta zeolite, [0047], [0044], [0035], [0030]) disposed on the walls of the honeycomb substrate and 20% in the honeycomb substrate [0030]. Therefore, the catalyst device of Example 7 comprises noble metal catalyst particles supported on inorganic oxide particles other than silica (H-type beta zeolite being an aluminosilicate) disposed on the partition walls of the substrate, forming a noble catalyst particle-supporting layer as instantly claimed in claim 28 (which depends from anticipated claim 12) and claim 30 (which depends from anticipated claim 14).
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.
Claim 13, 16, 17, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘907A.
JP ‘907A is applied as above to claim 12.
With regard to claim 13, JP ‘907A is silent as to the coating thickness of the inorganic oxide particle layer in µm. Instead, JP ‘907A teaches a range of 15-20 g/L of inorganic oxide in the inorganic oxide particle layer (see Examples 1 and 7, Table 1). JP ‘907A teaches that the inorganic oxide particle layer should not be made too thick as a thicker intermediate layer can increase pressure loss [0025], a phenomenon in which poor diffusivity of the exhaust gas through the catalytic bed results in a drop in pressure across the gas flow path. Therefore, JP ‘907A suggests that the coating thickness of the inorganic oxide particle layer is a result-effective variable on the performance of the catalytic device overall. Based upon the disclosed loading of inorganic oxides as an intermediate layer, the suggestion that the thickness of the layer coating is a results-effective variable, and ordinary knowledge in the art of typical washcoat thicknesses, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to choose the instantly claimed coating thickness range of 2.0-25.0 µm through process optimization, since it has been held that there 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. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
With regard to claims 16 and 17, JP ‘907A teaches the use of titania particles as inorganic oxides in the inorganic oxide particle layer as discussed above with regard to claims 14 and 15.
With regard to claims 29 and 31, JP ‘907A teaches generally that the noble metal catalyst particles of the noble metal catalyst particle-supporting layer are supported on inorganic oxide particles and specifically the platinum catalytic particles of Example 7 are supported on H type beta zeolite particles, which are not silica particles. See above rejections of claims 28 and 30.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘907A as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (U.S. Patent 9676634 B2, published 13 Jun 2017).
With regard to claim 18, JP ‘907A is silent to the size of the inorganic oxide particles which comprise the inorganic oxide particle layer disposed between the noble metal catalyst particle layer and the zeolite layer. However, Yoon et al. teaches the synthesis of porous titania microspheres with an average diameter equal to or larger than 0.5 µm and up to about 2 µm (Col. 10, lines 41-47 and Fig 2a-f), which is within the instantly claimed average particle diameter range (D50) of 0.5-5.0 µm. Yoon et al. teaches that titania microspheres may have applications as an oxidation-reduction catalyst or carrier, which demonstrates suitability in SCR applications (Col. 1, lines 29-31). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of JP ‘907A, which disclose the use of titania particles in the inorganic oxide particle layer, by using the titania microspheres taught by Yoon et al. as the particles in the inorganic oxide particle layer, because of their art-recognized suitability as oxidation-reduction catalysts or carriers. See § MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘907A as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view Yoon et al. (U.S. Patent 9676634 B2, published 13 Jun 2017).
With regard to claim 19, JP ‘907A is silent to the size of the inorganic oxide particles which comprise the inorganic oxide particle layer disposed between the noble metal catalyst particle layer and the zeolite layer. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of JP ‘907A by using the titania microspheres of Yoon et al., which may have average diameters of 0.5-2.0 µm, based upon their art-recognized suitability as catalysts and/or catalyst carriers. See above rejection of claim 18.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘907A as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (U.S. Patent 9676634 B2, published 13 Jun 2017).
With regard to claim 20, JP ‘907A is silent to the size of the inorganic oxide particles which comprise the inorganic oxide particle layer disposed between the noble metal catalyst particle layer and the zeolite layer. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of JP ‘907A by using the titania microspheres of Yoon et al., which may have average diameters of 0.5-2.0 µm, based upon their art-recognized suitability as catalysts and/or catalyst carriers. See above rejection of claim 18.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘907A as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (U.S. Patent 9676634 B2, published 13 Jun 2017).
With regard to claim 21, JP ‘907A is silent to the size of the inorganic oxide particles which comprise the inorganic oxide particle layer disposed between the noble metal catalyst particle layer and the zeolite layer. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of JP ‘907A by using the titania microspheres of Yoon et al., which may have average diameters of 0.5-2.0 µm, based upon their art-recognized suitability as catalysts and/or catalyst carriers. See above rejection of claim 18.
Claims 22, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘907A as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Fickel et al. (J. Phys. Chem. C 2010, 114, pp. 1633-1640).
With regard to claim 22, JP’ 907A does not teach that the silica-alumina ratio (SAR) of the copper ion-exchanged zeolite in the zeolite layer is 15.0 or lower. However, Fickel et al. teaches a copper ion-exchanged SSZ-13 zeolite, which has a CHA-framework (see pp. 1633, right col., lines 3-4), with a SAR of 12 and a copper:aluminum molar ratio of 0.35 (pp. 1635, left col., lines 14-22). Fickel et al. teaches that copper ion-exchanged zeolites with a chabazite (CHA) framework demonstrate improved activity and selectivity in the decomposition of NO (i.e. the selective catalytic reduction reaction; pp. 1633, left col., line 22 – right col., line 2). Fickel et al. demonstrate that the Cu-SSZ-13 zeolite has thermal stability up to 800°C and thus has applicability as an SCR catalyst in automotive pollution abatement systems (catalytic converter devices). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of JP ‘907A to replace the Cu-MFI zeolite in the zeolite layer with the Cu-SSZ-13 (CHA) zeolite of Fickel et al. because of the high catalytic activity for NOx SCR and its high thermal stability.
With regard to claim 23, JP ‘907A does not teach that the amount of copper in the copper ion-exchanged zeolite in the zeolite layer is 0.10 or greater and 0.50 mol or lower with respect to 1 mol of aluminum atoms in the zeolite. However, the Cu-SSZ-13 (CHA) zeolite of Fickel et al. has a Cu:Al molar ratio of 0.35 as noted above. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of JP ‘907A with Fickel et al. as noted above, to yield a zeolite layer with a Cu-CHA type zeolite with a Cu:Al ratio of 0.35 which is within the claimed range of 0.10-0.50.
With regard to claim 25, JP ‘907A does not teach that the copper ion-exchanged zeolite is Cu-CHA type zeolite A, herein interpreted to mean copper ion-exchanged chabazite (CHA) type zeolite. However, the Cu-SSZ-13 (CHA) zeolite of Fickel et al. has a chabazite (CHA) framework as noted above with regard to claim 22. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of JP ‘907A with Fickel et al. as noted above with regard to claim 22, to yield a zeolite layer with a Cu-CHA zeolite as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORDECAI M LEAVITT whose telephone number is (571)272-6637. 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.
/MORDECAI M LEAVITT/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
