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 Objections
Claim 15 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 14. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugiura et al. (US 20210324777 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiura et al. discloses an exhaust gas control apparatus having a catalyst on a filter with a wall flow structure (paragraph 009). The honeycomb substrate includes an inlet cell and an outlet cell that are adjacent to each other with a porous partition wall between the inlet cell and the outlet cell (paragraph 0015). The outlet cell is sealed at an inlet-side end of the outlet cell and is open at the outlet-side end of the outlet cell (paragraph 0015).
A catalyst layer is formed on the outlet-side end of the partition wall by immersing the honeycomb substrate in the slurry from the outlet-side end face (paragraph 0108). The slurry outlet cell side catalyst layer was dried by ventilation at 200° C for two hours and then fired at 500° C for one hour (paragraph 0127). The end from which ventilation takes place is not disclosed, but it is inherent that gas will flow through the inlet side of the exhaust gas control apparatus when ventilating.
PNG
media_image1.png
269
865
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An embodiment of the invention is shown in FIG. 5B below. The outlet-cell side has a catalyst layer having a length equal to 80% of the total length in the extending direction of the honeycomb substrate from the outlet-side end of the partition wall and is formed in the internal region of the partition wall (paragraph 0128).
The outlet port of Suigura et al. corresponds to the first cell of the present invention, and therefore, satisfies the limitation of an uncoated portion of the other end at which the second cell – the inlet port of Suigura et al. – is not coated.
The examiner concedes there is a catalyst layer on the surface of the partition wall that is at the end of the inlet port, but the claim language is not directed to this type of coating. Rather the language is directed to a coating inside the porous partition wall that does not extend the total length towards the inlet port. As a result, the language of claim 1 does not preclude a catalyst layer on the surface of the partition wall that extends to the end of the inlet port.
Regarding claim 2, Suigura et al. discloses in FIG. 5B that the outlet cell-side catalyst layer has a length equal to 80% of the total length in the extending direction of the honeycomb substrate (paragraph 0128).
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Suigura et al. discloses the partition wall has a porous structure through which exhaust gas can pass and the average diameter of the pores is preferably 5 to 30 micrometers (paragraph 0046). The average particle size of the support in the form of powder is 0.1 to 10 micrometers and is obtained by a laser diffraction method (paragraph 0104). The particle size of the support effectively makes up the entire particle size of the particles in the catalyst layer.
0.15 * 5 µm = 0.75 µm
0.15 * 30 µm = 4.5 µm
The lower end of the average particle size of the support is less than range of 0.15*pores in the porous partition wall.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 16, Suigura et al. discloses the material of the catalytic metal particles is similar to those in the inlet cell-side catalyst layer (paragraph 0091). The material of the catalytic metal particles in the inlet cell-side includes noble metals such as rhodium, palladium, and platinum (paragraph 0063).
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 3, 7, 9, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suigura et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 13, and 16 above, and further in view of Mochizuki et al. (EP 3795250 A1) (copy provided in office action).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Suigura et al. discloses the method of claim 1 but does not disclose a specific viscosity of the catalyst layer forming material.
Mochizuki et al. discloses a method for producing an exhaust gas purifying catalyst with a catalyst layer (paragraph 0009). The viscosity of the catalyst slurry is preferably 5 to 85 mPa*s (paragraph 0036). The viscosity was measured under conditions of 60 rpm and 25° C (paragraph 0060). The method is suitable for a catalyst slurry having a relatively low viscosity because a high viscosity slurry is less likely to penetrate the pores of the partition wall (paragraph 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the teachings of Mochizuki et al. so a slurry with a low viscosity is used to form a catalyst layer in the porous partition wall of Suigura et al.
A 103 rejection with respect to optimization can also be made. Sugiura discloses the viscosity can be adjusted as appropriate so that the slurry will not penetrate the partition wall (paragraph 0080). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed average through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of the claims 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.
Regarding claim 9, Suigura et al. discloses the partition wall has a porous structure through which exhaust gas can pass and the average diameter of the pores is preferably 5 to 30 micrometers (paragraph 0046). The average particle size of the support in the form of powder is 0.1 to 10 micrometers and is obtained by a laser diffraction method (paragraph 0104). The particle size of the support effectively makes up the entire particle size of the particles in the catalyst layer.
0.15 * 5 µm = 0.75 µm
0.15 * 30 µm = 4.5 µm
The lower end of the average particle size of the support is less than range of 0.15*pores in the porous partition wall.
Regarding claim 11, Suigura et al. discloses the slurry outlet cell side catalyst layer was dried by ventilation at 200° C for two hours (paragraph 0127).
Suigura et al. does not disclose a specific speed of the ventilation. However, the speed of ventilation influences how fast and uniformly the catalyst layer dries in the porous partition wall. One having ordinary skill in the art could have optimized the speed of ventilation through routine experimentation to achieve a dry and uniform catalyst in the partition wall.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed average through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of the claims 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.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Suigura et al. discloses the material of the catalytic metal particles is similar to those in the inlet cell-side catalyst layer (paragraph 0091). The material of the catalytic metal particles in the inlet-cell side includes noble metals such as rhodium, palladium, and platinum (paragraph 0063).
Claims 5, 10, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suigura et al.
Regarding claims 5, 10, and 12, Suigura et al. does not disclose a specific speed of the ventilation. However, the speed of ventilation influences how fast and uniformly the catalyst layer dries in the porous partition wall. One having ordinary skill in the art could have optimized the speed of ventilation through routine experimentation to achieve a dry and uniform catalyst in the partition wall.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed average through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of the claims 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.
Regarding claim 17, Suigura et al. discloses the material of the catalytic metal particles is similar to those in the inlet cell-side catalyst layer (paragraph 0091). The material of the catalytic metal particles in the inlet-cell side includes noble metals such as rhodium, palladium, and platinum (paragraph 0063).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A CALDERON whose telephone number is (571)272-9866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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 5712721176. 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.
/DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights