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 § 102
Claims 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Valentine (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2005/0164139).
In paragraph 16 Valentine discloses adding a fuel borne catalyst to a diesel fuel. In paragraph 27 Valentine discloses that the composition can comprise a fuel soluble cerium composition, and in paragraph 28 Valentine discloses that the cerium compounds can be trivalent cerium carboxylates, where the carboxylate can be a neodecanoate, stearate, or octoate, all meeting the limitations of the Ce(III) long-chain carboxylate of claim 41. In paragraph 22 Valentine discloses that the diesel fuel can be a blend of fuels, in which case one fuel meets the limitations of the fuel of claims 41-42 and the other meets the limitations of the organic solvent of claims 41-42, noting that the cerium compounds are fuel-soluble. In paragraph 18 Valentine further discloses that the system of the invention further comprises a diesel particulate filter, and in paragraph 13 Valentine discloses that the system is able to oxidize soot at low exhaust temperatures without a need for frequent cleaning. In paragraphs 16 and 18 and the reference’s claim 1, Valentine indicates that a diesel engine is operated with the fuel comprising the catalyst mixture, as recited in claims 41-42. While Valentine does not specifically disclose regenerating the diesel particulate filter at the temperature recited in claims 41-43, since the composition of Valentine meets the limitations of claimed composition, and Valentine teaches that it oxidizes soot at low exhaust temperatures, the method of Valentine will lead to the regeneration of the diesel particulate filter at temperatures meeting the limitations of claims 41 and 43, and also meet the limitations of claim 42 for the case where the optional Ce (III) carboxylates are not present.
In light of the above, claims 41-43 are anticipated by Valentine.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 34 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamlen Europe (GB 1571210) in view of Chane-Ching (CA 2391946 C).
Gamlen Europe discloses on page 1 lines 17-26 a method of preparing cerium salts where a cerium hydroxide is reacted with a long-chain carboxylic acid having at least 8 carbon atoms, and the cerium is a trivalent cerium, as recited in step (a) of claim 34. In the example on page 2 lines 62-76 Gamlen Europe discloses that white spirit, an organic solvent as recited in step (b) of claim 34, is added to the reaction mixture following the reaction. In the example Gamlen Europe discloses performing the reaction at 80° C, within the range recited in claim 37. Gamlen Europe also discloses in the example carrying out the reaction in the presence of white spirit, meeting the limitations of claim 38 under the interpretation set forth in paragraph 3 above. Gamlen Europe does not specifically disclose carrying out the reaction under a non-oxidative atmosphere.
An English-language machine translation of Chane-Ching, which is attached, has been used in setting forth this rejection, and the paragraph numbers referred to herein are those of the machine translation. In paragraph 4 Chane-Ching discloses a reaction of a cerium (III) salt, and that it can be carried out under a nitrogen atmosphere, which is a non-oxidative atmosphere as recited in claim 34. In paragraph 5 Chane-Ching further discloses that the products can be additionally processed, and the atmosphere plays a role in the transformation of cerium (III) into cerium (IV).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the reaction of Gamlen Europe under a non-oxidative atmosphere, such as the nitrogen atmosphere of Chane-Ching, in order to limit the oxidation of cerium (III) into cerium (IV), since Gamlen Europe desires a trivalent cerium salt.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-24 and 27-33 are allowed. Claim 23 and its dependent claims have been amended to incorporate the limitations of previous claim 26, which was indicated as containing allowable subject matter in the office action mailed 6/16/26. The prior art, as exemplified by the references discussed above and in the office action mailed 6/16/26, does not disclose or render obvious further including a cerium (III) carboxylate of a C2-C5 carboxylic acid in the claimed composition, where the components are present in the claimed amounts. Wilderson, as discussed in paragraph 9 of the office action mailed 6/16/26, discloses that a mixture of acids can be used to prepare the cerium carboxylate, where the acids can have as few as 4 carbon atoms, but does not provide motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically combine a long-chain carboxylic acid and a C4 or C5 carboxylic acid to produce carboxylates in the relative amounts recited in amended claim 23 as well as claim 27.
Claims 35-36 and 39-40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 35, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious carrying out the reaction of the cerium (III) precursor with a long-chain carboxylic acid in the presence of a C2-C5 carboxylic acid. The Gamlen Europe reference requires the carboxylic acid reactant to comprise at least 8 carbon atoms. Wilderson, in column 2 lines 46-57, discloses a different synthetic route to the cerium(III) carboxylates than recited in the claims, and does not specifically disclose a mixture of a long-chain carboxylic acid reaction and a shorter-chain carboxylic acid reactant.
Regarding claim 36, Gamlen Europe discloses on page 1 lines 33-44 that the ratio of acid molecules to cerium atoms in the reaction ranges from 0.2 to 1. Since the products of Gamlen Europe have an acid residue to cerium ratio of 3, Gamlen Europe therefore requires the cerium(III) reactant to be present in stoichiometric excess, contrary to the requirements of claim 36.
Regarding claim 39, Gamlen Europe does not disclose or render obvious adding solvent at the temperature recited in claim 39. The examples of Gamlen Europe disclose performing the reaction at a temperature lower than the range recited in claim 39; one of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to raise the temperature after the completion of the reaction.
Regarding claim 40, Gamlen Europe discloses that the reaction is carried out in the presence of an organic medium, and that a separated aqueous phase is eliminated before the addition of additional solvent. In the examples Gamlen Europe indicates that the organic medium can be white spirit, as is the solvent added later. There is no indication in Gamlen Europe that the product is filtered prior to addition of organic solvent, and no motivation to do so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejections of claims 34 and 37-38, applicant argues that Gamlen Europe is “entirely indifferent to the oxidation state of cerium” and “never discusses whether its cerium is in the Ce(III) or Ce(IV) state”. However, as discussed in the rejection, Gamlen Europe teaches in column 1 lines 22-26 that the obtained compounds have a composition according to which a trivalent cerium is linked substantially to three fatty acid molecules. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that trivalent cerium refers to Ce(III), and one of ordinary skill would therefore be motivated to combine Gamlen Europe with Chane-Ching in order to limit the oxidation of Ce(III) to Ce(IV), as discussed in the rejection.
Regarding the rejections of claims 41-43, applicant argues that the fuel of Valentine cannot simultaneously be the fuel and the organic solvent. However, as noted in the rejection, Valentine teaches that the fuel can be a mixture of fuels, in which case one of the fuels meets the limitations of the fuel component of the claims and the other fuel meets the limitations of the organic solvent of the claims. The claims do not place any limitation on the organic solvent and do not require that the organic solvent not be capable of acting as a fuel. Applicants themselves disclose in the specification that a preferred organic solvent comprises C10-C13 alkanes, which is within the range of alkanes generally present in diesel fuels. Applicant’s argument on this point is therefore not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
