会员体验
专利管家（专利管理）
工作空间（专利管理）
风险监控（情报监控）
数据分析（专利分析）
侵权分析（诉讼无效）
联系我们
交流群
官方交流：
QQ群： 891211   
微信请扫码    >>>
现在联系顾问~
下载
著录项
PDF全文
热词
    • 3. 发明专利
      AU2010246349B2 Methods for reducing particulate matter emissions from diesel engine exhaust using ethanoldiesel fuel blends in combination with diesel oxidation catalysts 未知
    • Methods for reducing particulate matter emissions from diesel engine exhaust using ethanoldiesel fuel blends in combination with diesel oxidation catalysts
    • AU2010246349B2
    • 2012-07-12
    • AU2010246349
    • 2010-11-19
    • O2DIESEL CORP
    • RAE ALAN ROBERT SEMPLE , HALL ROBERT LESLIE
    • B01J8/00 , B01D53/34 , B01D53/94 , C09K23/00 , C10L1/00 , C10L1/02 , C10L1/14 , C10L1/18 , C10L1/22 , C10L1/32 , C10L10/02 , F01N3/035 , F01N3/20 , F02M25/00
    • Datum Blatt Anmelde-Nr: Date 30.05.2011 Sheet 1 Application No: 05 712 924.9 Date Feuille Demande n': The examination is being carried out on the following application documents Description, Pages 1-13 as published Claims, Numbers 1-10 as published 1 Introduction 1.1 The Applicant's efforts to overcome the objections raised in the last communication are appreciated. However, several objections remain. 2 Clarity and Inventive Step 2.1 The arguments submitted by the Applicant as to the synergistic effect between the addition of ethanol and a diesel oxidation catalyst are acknowledged. Consequently, it is not maintained that the addition of a DOC downstream of the ethanol/diesel fuelled diesel engine is merely a "juxtaposition" of features. 2.2 However, essential features are missing in claim 1 (Art. 84 EPC) and it is therefore considered that the effect is not achieved over the whole claimed range : 2.2.1 - the surprising degree of particulate matter removal shown in the example of the application (pp.11-13) with an ethanol admixture and a diesel oxidation catalyst is only shown for a diesel / ethanol blend with a 1% addition of a fuel additive, namely of diethanolamide of oleic acid and ethoxylated oleic acid in the ratio 1:1. Yet, it is not plausible that this surprising effect would also occur in the absence of an oleic alkanolamide and an alkoxylated oleic acid, as currently claimed (claims 1 and 2). 2.2.2 - similarly, the effect is only shown for an ethanol content of 7.7% ethanol. It is not plausible that a 25% reduction of particulate matter (as compared to the case where no ethanol is admixed) would be achieved for any ethanol content (and especially not for very small ethanol additions). EPO Form 2906 01.91TRI Datum Blatt Anmelde-Nr: Date 30.05.2011 Sheet 2 Application No: 05 712 924.9 Date Feuille Demande n': 2.3 The objection of 2.1 not withstanding, D4 is considered as closest prior art of the subject-matter of current claim 1. It is remarked that, contrary to the Applicant's assertion, the use of a diesel/ethanol blend is well disclosed (p.7 Ii. 24). It is still considered that the skilled person would chose the contact time on the oxidation catalyst according to what the circumstances make desirable and thus fall in the claimed range of particulate matter removal. Hence, the inventive step objection of the last communication (item 2.3) is maintained (Art. 56 EPC). 3 Further objections 3.1 The Applicant's argument as to the term DOC is judged convincing. The Applicant is however asked to remove the parentheses itself and to leave the abbreviation DOC. 3.2 It is however maintained that the term "clear" in claim 7 is a relative term (Art. 84 EPC). The definition on p.5, whether the blend is at or near its cloud point is also unclear : For a given blend, the skiled person would not know whether it falls under the wording of this claim or not. 3.3 The application contains several non-SI units, such as horsepower hp, feet It, pound lb (pp.12 and 13). 4 Conclusions and Perspectives 4.1 In conclusion, the claims are unclear and the independent claim is not inventive. 4.2 It is suggested that the Applicant inserts features as to the nature of the fuel additive (e.g. along the lines of p.8 §3) and as to the amount of ethanol (e.g. along the lines of p.7 #2) [dependent claims 3 and 5 are not disclosed in combination and can therefore not be used together as basis]. In this event, D1 would probably be considered as closest prior art and lacks the DOC. However, even then the Applicant should explain why the skilled person is not in a "one way street" situation (GL C-IV, 11.10.2) since a DOC is the common measure to reduce the level of particulate matter in exhaust gas from both diesel and ethanol fuelled engines (see for example D3 or D4), in which case the over-proportional degree of PM removal would only be a bonus-effect. EPO Form 2906 01.91TRI Datum Blatt Anmelde-Nr: Date 30.05.2011 Sheet 3 Application No: 05 712 924.9 Date Feuille Demande n': 4.3 Should not all objections raised herewith be overcome by amendments, the refusal of the application may be contemplated after the applicant will have been given the opportunity to present his case in oral proceedings to be summoned. 4.4 Upon filing claims comprising new features, the applicant is invited to comment on novelty and inventive step associated with said features. Inventive step shall be discussed in terms of the problem-solution approach as defined in the Guidelines C-IV, 11.7. 4.5 To meet the requirements of Rule 42(1)(b) EPC, the documents D1 and D4 should be identified in the description and its relevant contents should be indicated. The applicant should ensure that it is clear from the description, which features of the subject-matter of independent claim 1 are known from the documents D1 and D4. 4.6 If the applicant files amended claims it should be indicated, on which passages of the original application these amendments are based (Guideline, E-II, 1). Care should be taken during revision not to introduce subject-matter, which extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed (Article 123(2) EPC). 4.7 The applicant should adapt the description to the new claims (Art. 84, R. 42(1) (c) EPC). EPO Form 2906 01.91TRI Eut~ro shEuropean Patent Office Eur Pean80298 MUNICH Patent Office GERMANY Office europ6en Tel: +49 89 2399 0 des brevets Fax: +49 89 2399 4465 Formalities Officer Name: Sloan, Mary Tel: +49 89 2399 - 2606 Wells, Andrew +31 (0)70 340 45 00 Harrison Goddard Foote Substantive Examiner 4th Floor, Merchant Exchange Name: Burkhardt, Thorsten 17-19 Whitworth Street West Tel: +49 89 2399 - 7808 Manchester M1 5WG ROYAUME-UNI Application No. Ref. Date 05 712 924.9 - 2113 AWE/P128725EP 30.05.2011 Applicant 02Diesel Corporation Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC The examination of the above-identified application has revealed that it does not meet the requirements of the European Patent Convention for the reasons enclosed herewith. If the deficiencies indicated are not rectified the application may be refused pursuant to Article 97(2) EPC. You are invited to file your observations and insofar as the deficiencies are such as to be rectifiable, to correct the indicated deficiencies within a period of 4 months from the notification of this communication, this period being computed in accordance with Rules 126(2) and 131(2) and (4) EPC. One set of amendments to the description, claims and drawings is to be filed within the said period on separate sheets (R. 50(1) EPC). If filing amendments, you must identify them and indicate the basis for them in the application as filed. Failure to meet either requirement may lead to a communication from the Examining Division requesting that you correct this deficiency (R. 137(4) EPC). Failure to comply with this invitation in due time will result in the application being deemed to be withdrawn (Art. 94(4) EPC). egistered Letter Date 30.05.2011 Sheet 2 Application No.: 05 712 924.9 es Patent, Burkhardt, Thorsten Primary Examiner For the Examining Division Enclosure(s): 3 page/s reasons (Form 2906) egistered Letter Harrison Goddard Foote Patent andTrae Miark AttornleyS European Patent Office 80298 MUNICH Germany 27 January 2011 Our ref: AWE/P128725EP Electronically Filed Dear Sirs European Patent Application No 05712924.9 Methods for reducing particulate matter emissions from diesel engine exhaust O2Diesel Corporation In response to the Communication under Rule 112(1) EPC dated 27 December 2010, we hereby request further processing under Article 121(1) EPC. Please deduct the further processing fee from our EPO deposit account no. 28050228. To complete the omitted act, we have set out a response to the Examination Report dated 10 May 2010 below. No claim amendments are filed herewith because, as will be apparent from the comments set out below, we believe claims 1-10 currently on file already comply with the requirements for patentability. Novelty - Article 54 EPC We are pleased to note that the Examiner finds claims 1-10 novel over the cited prior art. Inventive Step - Article 56 EPC Partial Problems The Examiner objects to claims 1-10 on the basis that they lack an inventive step. The Examiner bases this objection on a formulation of the objective technical problem consisting of two partial problems relating to the following two features: a) Use of a fuel blend with reduced particulate emissions (i.e. choosing an ethanol/diesel mix); b) Use of a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) to further reduce particular emissions. However, contrary to the Examiner's contention that there is "no interaction" between these two factors, the present application clearly demonstrates, via examples and supporting data, the synergistic effect of the combined presence of both ethanol and a DOC: "A synergy of action can be seen in the reduction of PM [particulate matter].. the combined use of a DOC with an Ethanol / Diesel #1 mixture is seen to synergistically reduce PM by about 0.028 g/hp-hr, or a 39.43% reduction in PM...[where] an 11.27% reduction in PM would be expected [were there no synergistic effects]' (see page 12 of the application). Aberdeen Glasgow Leeds London Manchester Sheffield York A list of th e e nd profsnsi qu!ification of the pr tners opn to inspect!o; e ;e address b~lov and alo ! www ;r?.corn Harrison Goddard C oote is reguifed by fthe e !!ctLrua? Propoy !,Regufitcn Board 4 Hrrion Goddar cte and GFN! are registred tra0 4nI 24 4th Finnr M rrhant FYchaqnan TP1l- +44(n) 1 F;1 947 4q0 Ann E' rY~n 27 January 2011 As such, a partial problem approach is not appropriate (see T389/86), and use of this approach would under the circumstances represent an ex-post facto analysis involving formulation of the objective technical problem by hinting at the solution, which is forbidden (see, for example, T229/85). The present invention The invention involves manipulating exhaust emissions to allow the DOC to per
    • 基本信息 添加关注 加入工作空间 PDF全文 PDF下载 全文下载 相似专利 双屏查看 权利要求书 说明书全文 Espacenet 法律信息 同族专利 专利引用
每页展示10个专利
每页展示10个专利
每页展示20个专利
每页展示50个专利
每页展示100个专利

IPRDB

最新中国发明专利 最新美国发明专利 技术领域 专利库 专利分类库 国际专利分类库

热门服务

会员版试用 API 数据接口 找代理 知嘟嘟专利交易 排行榜 大学排行榜 专利百科

关于我们

平台介绍 战略合作 网站地图

友情链接

知嘟嘟专利交易 国家知识产权局 中国商标网

联系方式


©2019-2023 上海吉码数字技术有限公司 版权所有，并保留所有权利 沪ICP备20016256号-6 沪公网安备31011702005475号