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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 09/02/2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claim 1 has been amended; claim 2 has been canceled; claim 8 has been added; no claims have been withdrawn. Claims 1 and 3-8 are now pending and under consideration.
Applicant’s arguments on page 4 of the remarks with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0288096 to Fujiwara et al. in view of EP 0830199 B1 to Williamson et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Fujiwara and Williamson, alone or in combination, do not appear to fully teach or render obvious the new amendments to claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection of amended claim 1 is now made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara in view of Williamson, and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0161236 to Vjunov et al.
Claim Objections
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).
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 5 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
Applicant is also advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 introduces “an exhaust gas” in each of line 5, line 9, and line 11, which should be amended in each instance to instead recite --[[an]] the exhaust gas-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “an exhaust gas” as previously introduced in lines 2-3 of the claim.
Claim 1 recites “toward to” in each of line 10 and line 13, which appears to be a misstating of --toward [[to]]-- in each instance.
Claim 4 introduces “an exhaust gas” in line 2, which should be amended in each instance to instead recite --[[an]] the exhaust gas-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “an exhaust gas” as previously introduced in lines 2-3 of claim 1.
Claim 4 introduces “an internal combustion engine” in lines 2-3, which should be amended in each instance to instead recite --[[an]] the internal combustion engine-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “an internal combustion engine” as previously introduced in line 2 of claim 1.
Claim 6 introduces “an exhaust gas” in line 2, which should be amended in each instance to instead recite --[[an]] the exhaust gas-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “an exhaust gas” as previously introduced in lines 2-3 of claim 1.
Claim 6 introduces “an internal combustion engine” in lines 2-3, which should be amended in each instance to instead recite --[[an]] the internal combustion engine-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “an internal combustion engine” as previously introduced in line 2 of claim 1.
Claim 7 introduces “an exhaust gas” in line 2, which should be amended in each instance to instead recite --[[an]] the exhaust gas-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “an exhaust gas” as previously introduced in lines 2-3 of claim 1.
Claim 7 introduces “an internal combustion engine” in lines 2-3, which should be amended in each instance to instead recite --[[an]] the internal combustion engine-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “an internal combustion engine” as previously introduced in line 2 of claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 3-8 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.
Claim 1, as amended, now refers to each of “the molar amount A of palladium contained in the unit volume of the substrate” and “the molar amount B of platinum contained in the unit volume of the substrate” in the last three lines of the claim; however, it is unclear what exactly is meant by each of said recitations in the claim, as the claim fails to previously introduce each of a unit volume of the substrate, palladium contained in a unit volume of the substrate, a molar amount A of palladium contained in a unit volume of the substrate, platinum contained in a unit volume of the substrate, and a molar amount B of platinum contained in a unit volume of the substrate. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claims 3-8 depend from claim 1, such that claims 3-8 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
New claim 8 recites “the palladium layer overlaps the platinum layer and an overlap between the palladium layer and the platinum layer is 10% or more and 50% or less when the total length of the substrate is 100%” in lines 1-4. First, it is unclear what exactly is meant by the range “10% or more and 50% or less” in “an overlap between the palladium layer and the platinum layer is 10% or more and 50% or less” because no part of “the palladium layer overlaps the platinum layer and an overlap between the palladium layer and the platinum layer is 10% or more and 50% or less when the total length of the substrate is 100%” appears to identify a point of reference for which the percentage of the range “10% or more and 50% or less” is to be understood. Next, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “when the total length of the substrate is 100%,” as “100%” is not measure of a length and therefore cannot be a measure of a “total length,” no part of “the palladium layer overlaps the platinum layer and an overlap between the palladium layer and the platinum layer is 10% or more and 50% or less when the total length of the substrate is 100%” appears to identify a point of reference for which the percentage of “100%” is to be understood.
Additionally, it is unclear whether presence of “when the total length of the substrate is 100%” in claim 8 is intended to set forth a condition which is optional (e.g., in comparison to other instances when the total length of the substrate is less than, or different from, 100%). A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites “when the total length of the substrate is 100%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation, such that the claim also includes the broader instance in which “when the total length of the substrate is 100%” is not met. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0288096 to Fujiwara et al. (hereinafter: “Fujiwara”) in view of EP 0830199 B1 to Williamson et al. (hereinafter: “Williamson”), and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0161236 to Vjunov et al. (hereinafter: “Vjunov”).
With respect to claim 1, Fujiwara discloses an exhaust gas purification catalyst configured to be disposed in an exhaust path of an internal combustion engine and purify an exhaust gas discharged from the internal combustion engine, comprising:
a substrate that divides cells through which an exhaust gas flows (see par. [27]); and
a catalyst layer that is provided on a surface of the substrate (1) (Fig. 2), wherein the catalyst layer includes a palladium layer (21) (Fig. 2, par. [32 ]) containing palladium and an alkaline earth metal (note that the palladium layer contains an alkaline earth metal 5% weight or less ( par. [40]) that extends from a first end part which is an end part on a side of the cells into which an exhaust gas flows toward to a second end part, which is an end part on a side of the cells from which an exhaust gas flows out (see Fig. 1), a platinum layer (22) (Fig. 2, par. [32]) containing platinum that extends from the second end part toward to the first end part, wherein the platinum layer does not contain an alkaline earth metal.
PNG
media_image1.png
298
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a rhodium layer (3) (Fig. 2, par. [ 60]) containing rhodium that is laminated on both the palladium layer and the platinum layer and extends from the first end part toward the second end part (Fig. 2).
However, Fujiwara fails to specifically disclose that the palladium layer contains the alkaline earth metal at a content of 0.04 mol or more and 0.16 mol or less per 100 g of the palladium layer, thereby promoting removal of methane in the exhaust gas from the engine.
Williamson teaches using an exhaust purification catalyst including Pd layer and alkaline earth metal (Barium) at a content of 5.3g/L barium for purifying exhaust gas by removing methane in the exhaust gas of a natural gas fueled engine (see title, par. [0001, 0003, 0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fujiwara by using the purification catalyst including Pd layer and alkaline earth metal content as taught by Williamson for removing methane emission of the natural gas fueled engine.
Since Williamson teaches the alkaline earth metal (Barium) content with respect to the palladium in the palladium layer (see par. [0026]), the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure that the alkaline earth metal at a content of 0.04 mol or more and 0.16 mol or less per 100 g of palladium layer since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Il.
Fujiwara further appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether a ratio A/B of the molar amount A of palladium contained in the unit volume of the substrate to the molar amount B of platinum contained in the unit volume of the substrate is 1 or more and 3 or less.
Vjunov teaches an analogous exhaust gas purification catalyst (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 5), where a weight ratio of palladium to platinum in respective catalyst layers provided on a surface of a substrate is in a range of 1.0:0.4 to 1.0:2.0 (apparent from at least Fig. 1 in view of at least ¶ 0007-0011).
The examiner takes Official Notice (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.03) that it is common knowledge in the art the molar mass of palladium is 106.42 g/mol and the molar mass of platinum is 195.08 g/mol. Therefore, the examiner notes that: (A) a first weight ratio of palladium to platinum of 1.0:0.4, which defines a first end of the range of 1.0:0.4 to 1.0:2.0 taught by Vjunov, equates to a first ratio A/B = (1.0 g/106.42 g/mol)/(0.4 g/195.08 g/mol) = 4.583; and (B) a second weight ratio of palladium to platinum of 1.0:2.0, which defines a second end of the range of 1.0:0.4 to 1.0:2.0 taught by Vjunov, equates to a second ratio A/B = (1.0 g/106.42 g/mol)/(2.0 g/195.08 g/mol) = 0.917. Thus, the examiner notes that Vjunov teaches selection of ratio A/B of the molar amount A of palladium contained in the unit volume of the substrate to the molar amount B of platinum contained in the unit volume of the substrate is 0.917 or more and 4.583 or less, which entirely overlaps the claimed range of 1 or more and 3 or less.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the exhaust gas purification catalyst of Fujiwara with the teachings of Vjunov, if even necessary, such that a ratio A/B of the molar amount A of palladium contained in the unit volume of the substrate to the molar amount B of platinum contained in the unit volume of the substrate is 1 or more and 3 or less since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.05_Il).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, the modified Fujiwara discloses the exhaust gas purification catalyst according to claim 1; however, fails to disclose wherein, in the palladium layer, the molar ratio of the alkaline earth metal with respect to the palladium is 1 or more and 3 or less.
Since Williamson teaches that the alkaline earth metal (Barium) content is 5.3 g/L and 2.65g/L Pd in the palladium layer (see par. [0026]), the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure that the molar ratio of the alkaline earth metal with respect to the palladium being 1 or more and 3 or less in the palladium layer in Williamson, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Il.
Regarding claims 4, 6, and 7, the modified Fujiwara discloses the exhaust gas purification catalyst according to claims 1 and 3; Williamson further teaches that the internal combustion engine uses natural gas as a fuel (see title).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara in view of Williamson, in view of Vjunov, and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0202611 to Chiffey et al. (hereinafter: “Chiffey”).
With respect to claim 8, Fujiwara modified supra teaches the exhaust gas purification catalyst according to claim 1; however, Fujiwara appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the palladium layer overlaps the platinum layer and an overlap between the palladium layer and the platinum layer is 10% or more and 50% or less when the total length of the substrate is 100%.
Chiffey teaches an analogous exhaust gas purification catalyst (as discussed by at least the Abstract), where a palladium layer overlaps a platinum layer (apparent from at least Fig. 3 in view of at least ¶ 0033, 0049, 0090-0091, 0171 & 0187) in the alternative to the platinum layer overlapping the palladium layer (apparent from at least Fig. 4 in view of at least ¶ 0034 & 0188) or the palladium layer adjoining the platinum layer without overlap (apparent from at least Fig. 1 in view of at least ¶ 0031 & 0185), and an overlap between the palladium layer and the platinum layer is 10% or more and 50% or less when the total length of a substrate is 100% (apparent from at least Fig. 3 in view of at least ¶ 0033, 0171, 0182, 0184, 0187, 0189 & 0275).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the exhaust gas purification catalyst of Fujiwara with the teachings of Chiffey such that the palladium layer overlaps the platinum layer because Chiffey demonstrates that partial overlap between the palladium layer and the platinum layer (e.g., the palladium layer partially overlaps the platinum layer) is simply an alternative to the palladium layer adjoining the platinum layer, such that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not reasonably expect that configuring the palladium layer to partially overlap the platinum layer in place of the palladium layer adjoining the platinum layer would destroy functionality of the exhaust gas purification catalyst, especially since Chiffey prefers the overlap to be at least 10% (as discussed by at least 0187-0189 & 0275 of Chiffey). Therefore, such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_B). It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the exhaust gas purification catalyst of Fujiwara with the teachings of Chiffey such that an overlap between the palladium layer and the platinum layer is 10% or more and 50% or less when the total length of the substrate is 100% since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.05_Il).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights