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 Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 23
Lines 2-12 recite the language “the NH3 oxidation catalyst is selected from: cobalt catalysts, … ; manganese catalysts; … ; copper catalysts; … ; silver catalysts;”. The claim language should be amended such that it reads –the NH3 oxidation catalyst is selected from: cobalt catalysts[[,]]; … ; manganese catalysts; … ; copper catalysts; … ; and silver catalysts;—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
Claims 1-4, 10, 20, 22-23, 25, 28, 30-31, 35, 41, and 59 are 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.
Regarding Claim 1
Lines 10-11 recite the limitation “reducing agent”. However, reducing agent was previously disclosed in line 8. Therefore, it is unclear if the reducing agent of lines 10-11 is the same reducing agent as line 8.
Regarding Claim 4
Line 3 recites the limitation "the NH3 oxidation catalyst". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 is dependent upon claim 1. A NH3 oxidation catalyst was introduced in claim 3.
Lines 4-5 recite the language “preferably”, “in particular”, “more preferably”, and “even more preferably”. It is unclear if the limitations following the recited language are required. For examination purposes, the limitations following the recited language are interpreted as not being required. Please note that this language is present throughout the claims and is considered indefinite.
Regarding Claim 10
Line 3 recites the limitation "the NH3 oxidation catalyst". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 is dependent upon claim 1. A NH3 oxidation catalyst was introduced in claim 3.
Regarding Claim 22
Line 2 recites the language “preferably” and “preferably”. It is unclear if the limitations following the recited language are required. For examination purposes, the limitations following the recited language are interpreted as not being required.
Regarding Claim 23
Lines 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 recite the language “especially”, “preferably”, “preferably”, “especially”, “preferably”, “preferably”, “especially”, “preferably”, “preferably”, “especially”, and “preferably”. It is unclear if the limitations following the recited language are required. For examination purposes, the limitations following the recited language are interpreted as not being required.
Regarding Claim 25
Line 2 recites the language “preferably”. It is unclear if the limitation following the recited language are required. For examination purposes, the limitation following the recited language is interpreted as not being required.
Regarding Claim 30
Lines 3, 5, and 7 recite the language “preferably”, “preferably”, “more preferably”, and “preferably”. It is unclear if the limitations following the recited language are required. For examination purposes, the limitations following the recited language are interpreted as not being required.
Regarding Claim 31
Line 3 recites the language “preferably”. It is unclear if the limitation following the recited language are required. For examination purposes, the limitation following the recited language is interpreted as not being required.
Regarding Claim 41
Line 2 recites the limitation "the air ratio". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Lines 3 and 4 recite the language “preferably”, “more preferably”, “even more preferably”, and “most preferably”. It is unclear if the limitations following the recited language are required. For examination purposes, the limitations following the recited language are interpreted as not being required.
Regarding Claim 59
Lines 3 and 4 recite the language “more preferably”, “even more preferably”, “most preferably”, and “in particular”. It is unclear if the limitations following the recited language are required. For examination purposes, the limitations following the recited language are interpreted as not being required.
Regarding Claims 2-3, 20, 28, and 35
Claims 2-3, 20, 28, and 35 are rejected insofar as they are dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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)(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) 1-4, 20, 25, 28, 30-31, and 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Friedberg, JP 2024052583A, as evidenced by Angelides et al., US 2013/0156672.
Regarding Claim 1
Friedberg discloses an apparatus comprising:
(i) an internal combustion engine [internal combustion engine] which is configured to be powered by combustion of NH3 (Friedberg, [0046]-[0047]]) and which is mounted in a ship and configured to move the ship (Friedberg, [0002]); and
(ii) an offgas treatment system (43, 40, and catalytic N2O removal system) configured to reduce the content of NOx and N2O in an offgas produced by combustion from the NH3 (Friedberg, [0007] and [0026]) and comprising N2, H2O, NOx and N2O [while Friedberg does not explicitly disclose that the offgas comprises N2, H2O, NOx, and N2O, Angelides teaches that it is well known in the art that the combustion of ammonia results in the generation of nitrous oxide (N2O) in addition to nitrogen oxide (NOx), nitrogen (N2), and water vapor (H2O) (Angelides, [0010] and [0012])], wherein the offgas treatment system comprises:
- an N2O decomposition catalyst [catalytic N2O removal system] configured to decompose N2O (Friedberg, [0026] and [0061]); and/or an N2O reduction catalyst configured for chemical reduction of N2O with reducing agent; and
- an NOx reduction catalyst [selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst] configured for chemical reduction of NOx with reducing agent [ammonia] (Friedberg, [0058]-[0059]).
Regarding Claim 2
Friedberg discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Friedberg further discloses that the offgas comprises NH3 and wherein the offgas treatment system is configured to reduce the NH3 content in the offgas (Friedberg, [0059] and [0062]).
Regarding Claim 3
Friedberg discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Friedberg further discloses that the offgas treatment system comprises an NH3 oxidation catalyst (43) configured for chemical oxidation of NH3 with O2 (Friedberg, [0059]).
Regarding Claim 4
Friedberg discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the N2O decomposition catalyst and/or the N2O reduction catalyst and/or the NOx reduction catalyst and/or the NH3 oxidation catalyst independently comprise a zeolitic material (Friedberg, [0026]).
Regarding Claim 20
Friedberg discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Friedberg further discloses an NH3 oxidation catalyst (43) in addition to the N2O decomposition catalyst and/or N2O reduction catalyst [catalytic N2O removal system] and the NOx reduction catalyst (40) [SCR] (Friedberg, [0026] [0048] and [0059], Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 25
Friedberg discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Friedberg further discloses that the internal combustion engine comprises a reciprocating piston engine (Friedberg, [0012]).
Regarding Claim 28
Friedberg discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Friedberg further discloses that the internal combustion engine is an ammonia dual-fuel engine (Friedberg, [0046]-[0047]).
Regarding Claim 30
Friedberg discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Friedberg further discloses that the internal combustion engine is configured for combustion of NH3 in mixture with a further combustible gas [H2] (Friedberg, [0046]-[0047]).
Regarding Claim 31
Friedberg discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Friedberg further discloses that the internal combustion engine is configured for combustion of NH3 in a mixture with H2 and/or natural gas (Friedberg, [0046]-[0047]).
Regarding Claim 59
Friedberg discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Friedberg further teaches that the apparatus is configured such that the offgas on entry into the offgas treatment system has a degree of oxidation of NOx of at least 10% (Friedberg, [0059]).
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedberg, JP 2024052583A, as evidenced by Angelides et al., US 2013/0156672, in view of Sung et al., US 2022/0323905.
Regarding Claim 10
Friedberg teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 1. However, Friedberg does not explicitly teach that the N2O decomposition catalyst and/or the N20 reduction catalyst and/or the NOx reduction catalyst and/or the NH3 oxidation catalyst independently have a honeycomb monolithic structure.
Sung teaches a SCR catalyst and an oxidation catalyst in an offgas treatment system of a dual fuel internal combustion engine [ammonia and hydrogen] (Sung, [0078]), wherein one or more of the SCR catalyst and oxidation catalyst are disposed on a flow-through substrate in the form of a monolithic honeycomb (Sung, [0043] and [0142]).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the SCR catalyst of Friedberg (NOx reduction catalyst) for the SCR catalyst of Sung in order to have a honeycomb monolithic structure since an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding Claim 35
Friedberg teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 30. However, Friedberg does not teach a cracking apparatus for thermal and/or catalytic cracking of NH3.
Sung teaches a cracking catalyst in an offgas treatment system of a dual fuel internal combustion engine [ammonia and hydrogen] (Sung, [0078]).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a cracking catalyst within the offgas treatment system of Friedberg in order to produce hydrogen from the ammonia within the offgas for use within the internal combustion engine, thereby improving system efficiency.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedberg, JP 2024052583A, as evidenced by Angelides et al., US 2013/0156672, in view of Andersen et al., US 2015/0352492.
Regarding Claim 22
Friedberg teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 20. However, Friedberg does not explicitly teach that the NH3 oxidation catalyst is free of platinum group metals.
Andersen teaches a catalyst for oxidizing ammonia in exhaust gases that is free of platinum group metals (Andersen, [0009]-[0010]).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the NH3 oxidation catalyst of Friedberg for the NH3 oxidation catalyst of Andersen to provide a catalyst free of platinum group metals since an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding Claim 23
Friedberg teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 20. However, Friedberg does not explicitly teach that the NH3 oxidation catalyst is selected from: cobalt catalysts, manganese catalysts, copper catalysts, and silver catalysts.
Andersen teaches a NH3 oxidation catalyst comprising cobalt, manganese, or copper (Andersen, [0010]).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the NH3 oxidation catalyst of Friedberg for the NH3 oxidation catalyst of Andersen to provide a catalyst selected from: cobalt catalysts, manganese catalysts, copper catalysts, and silver catalysts since an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06).
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedberg, JP 2024052583A, as evidenced by Angelides et al., US 2013/0156672, in view of Welsch, DE 102018121503 A1.
Regarding Claim 41
Friedberg teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 1. However, Friedberg does not explicitly disclose that the internal combustion engine is configured such that the air ratio on combustion is in the range from 0.9 to 1.7.
Welsch teaches an exhaust gas purification system with an oxidation catalyst and SCR catalyst, wherein the internal combustion engine is configured to have a combustion air ratio in the range from 0.9 to 1.7 (Welsch, [0040]-[0042]).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the internal combustion engine to have a combustion air ratio in the range from 0.9 to 1.7 as taught by Welsch in order to achieve the desired exhaust gas purification efficiency (Welsch, [0043]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY L STANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3565. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, DEVON KRAMER can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/K.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights