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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group II claims in the reply filed on 7/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are cancelled as being drawn to a nonelected Group I and III claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/20/2026.
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 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lambert et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0291838 (hereinafter referred to as Lambert).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-6, Lambert discloses a method, comprising: predicting a sulfur exposure of one or more copper-zeolite catalysts (Para. [0027]) deployed in an exhaust aftertreatment system (Para. [0059]); comparing the predicted sulfur exposure to a predefined sulfur exposure threshold; and responsive to the determination, heating the exhaust aftertreatment catalyst to a predefined heat treatment temperature for a predefined time period (Para. [0067]) to desulfate the one or more copper-zeolite catalysts.
Lambert further discloses a predefined heat treatment temperature is a range of approximately 500°C to 700°C (see Fig. 5A and Para. [0067]). Lambert discloses determining a status of the copper-zeolite catalysts based on the comparison of the predicted sulfur exposure to the predefined sulfur exposure threshold (Para. [0067]) and that determining a status of the copper-zeolite catalysts based on one or more fault indicators regarding a NOx amount in exhaust gas leaving the exhaust aftertreatment system being above a predefined high NOx amount threshold (Para. [0032] and [0035]).
Lambert also discloses that the predicted sulfur exposure of the copper-zeolite catalysts is below the predefined sulfur exposure threshold (NO in step 418) (see Fig. 4) bypassing a desulfation regeneration event for the copper zeolite catalysts and when predicting the sulfur exposure is based on at least a type of fuel combusted by the engine (sulfur content of fuel supplied to the engine) (Para. [0059]).
Regarding claim 2, Lambert discloses the exhaust gas treatment system is a multi-component system and may include a plurality of emission control devices arranged in a specific order to optimize treatment of exhaust emissions. For example, the exhaust gas treatment system may include a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) disposed along exhaust gas passage. The DOC may include a catalyst configured to oxidize HCs and CO to form carbon dioxide (CO.sub.2) and water (H.sub.2O). The DOC may be included in a pass-through device comprising a substrate and an active layer including one or more catalytic materials. The substrate may have a plurality of channels or openings through which exhaust gas passes. The substrate may be a monolith or extruded material, such as cordierite. The active layer may be applied to the substrate as a washcoat (Para. [0022]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. as obvious over Mital et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0101034 (hereinafter referred to as Mital).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-6, Mital discloses a method, comprising: predicting a sulfur exposure of one or more copper-zeolite catalysts deployed in an exhaust aftertreatment system (Para. [0030] and [0052]); comparing the predicted sulfur exposure to a predefined sulfur exposure threshold; and responsive to the determination, heating the exhaust aftertreatment catalyst to a predefined heat treatment temperature for a predefined time period (Para. [0054]) to desulfate the one or more copper-zeolite catalysts.
Mital further discloses wherein predicting the sulfur exposure is based on at least a type of fuel combusted by the engine (i.e. ultra low sulfur fuel) (Para. [0052]) wherein the predefined heat treatment temperature is a range of approximately 500°C to 700°C (Para. [0004] and [0042]). Mital discloses determining a status of the copper-zeolite catalysts based on one or more fault indicators regarding a NOx amount in exhaust gas leaving the exhaust aftertreatment system being above a predefined high NOx amount threshold (Para. [0041]). Mital discloses in response to the comparison indicating that the predicted sulfur exposure of the copper-zeolite catalyst is at or above the predefined sulfur exposure threshold, initiating a desulfation regeneration event (Para. [0052]).
Regarding claim 2, Mital also discloses an OC device can be of various flow-through, oxidation catalyst devices known in the art. In various embodiments the OC device may include a flow-through metal or ceramic monolith substrate. The substrate may be packaged in a stainless steel shell or canister having an inlet and an outlet in fluid communication with the exhaust gas conduit. The substrate may include an oxidation catalyst compound disposed thereon (Para. [0028]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. as obvious over Phillips et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0136626 (hereinafter referred to as Phillips).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-6, Phillips discloses a catalyst article that comprises an SCR and NOx adsorber catalyst for treatment of combustion from hydrocarbon-based fuel engine exhaust (see Abstract and Para. [0002]-[0004] and [0011]-[0022]). Phillips teaches the SCR catalyst, comprising copper [0063], and the NOx adsorber catalyst, comprising Pd ([0048]), may be combined in a metal-containing molecular sieve (Para. [0048]-[0051]). Phillips further teaches the SCR catalyst metal may be incorporated into a molecular sieve by ion-exchange methods (Para. [0073]) and that the metals may be in one of several forms, including, but not limited to, zero valent metal atoms or clusters, isolated cations, mononuclear or polynuclear oxycations, or as extended metal oxides (Para. [0063]). Phillips further discloses the zeolite may comprise small, medium, or large pore zeolites, including AEI, AFT, AFX, CHA, EAB, ERI, KFI, LEV, SAT, SAV, SFW, and TSC (Para. [0059]-[0061]) while teaching examples that use CHA as the zeolite (Para. [0116]-[0117] and [0123]-[0124]).
Phillips further discloses the catalyst composition a catalyst article that comprises an SCR and NOx adsorber catalyst for treatment of combustion from hydrocarbon-based fuel engine exhaust (see Abstract and Para. [0002]-[0004] and [0011]-[0022]). Phillips teaches the SCR catalyst, comprising copper [0063], and NOx adsorber catalyst, comprising Pd ([0048]) may be combined in a metal-containing molecular sieve ([0048]-[0051]). Phillips teaches the catalyst article includes a substrate upon which the catalyst can be supported by applying it as a washcoat (Para. [0089]-[0090]) in a layered (Para. [0013]) or zoned configuration (Para. [0014]). Phillips teaches the substrate comprises multiple adjacent, parallel channels that generally extend from the inlet face to the outlet face of the substrate and are either open on both ends (flow-through substrates) or are capped on alternating ends in a checker-board type pattern (wall-flow filters) (Para. [0076]-[0078]). Phillips teaches the catalyst article reduces the concentration of NOx in an exhaust gas stream during the cold start of the engine where NOx is adsorbed and reduced by the hydrocarbon SCR (see Abstract and Para. [0017]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 3, Phillips discloses a variety of deposition methods are known in the art for depositing the catalyst on the substrate. Methods for depositing the catalyst on the substrate include, for example, disposing the catalyst in a liquid vehicle to form a slurry and wetting the substrate with the slurry by dipping the substrate into the slurry, spraying the slurry onto the substrate, etc. A washcoat is typically applied to a substrate as a water-based slurry. Typically, the slurry will contain a total water content of at least 20 wt%. The slurry coated substrate can be dried and calcined prior to use (Para. [0090]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL V VASISTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:30 and 7:00-10:00p.
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 5712726381. 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.
/VISHAL V VASISTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights