DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-9 were rejected in the Office Action mailed 05/19/2025.
Applicants filed a Request for Continued Examination, and amended claim(s) 1 and 5, and added claim(s) 11-19 on 12/05/2025.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9 and 11-19 are subjected to species election, as mailed 10/07/2025.
Applicant elected species (a-iii) and species (b-i) with traverse, which read on claims 1-2, 8-9 and 16-18.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9 and 11-19 are pending, and claim(s) 5-7, 11-15 and 19 are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, and 16-18 are rejected.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/19/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species (a-iii) and species (b-i), which read on claims 1-2, 8-9 and 16-18, in the reply filed on 12/05/2025 is acknowledged. This is not found persuasive because the reason set forth below.
Applicants primarily argue:
“Applicant respectfully traverses the Election of Species Requirement because the Office Action simply states that, "[t]his application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention," and the Office has not provided sufficient rem,ons to support that the species are indeed patentably distinct
Also, MPEP §803 states:
If the search and examination of all the claims in an application can be made without serious burden, the examiner must examine them on the merits, even though they include claims to independent or distinct inventions.
There does not appear to be serious burden on the Examiner to search and examine all the claimed subject matter under MPEP §803, and Applicant traverses the Election of Species Requirement on that ground as well.”
Remarks, p. 1-2
The examiner respectively traverses as follows:
Firstly, examiner discusses that “Species (a-i) to (a-iii) lack unity of invention because these species are drawn to catalyst region with different structures, and they do not share common properties or are regarded as being of a similar nature.” and “Species (b-i) to (b-ii) lack unity of invention because these species are drawn to catalyst region with different compositions, and they do not share common properties or are regarded as being of a similar nature.”, on page 3 of Office Action mailed 10/07/2025, absent evidence to the contrary.
Secondly, while applicant argues that
“There does not appear to be serious burden on the Examiner to search and examine all the claimed subject matter”,
applicants have provided no evidence to support this position. Therefore, the examiner’s position remains that there is a search and/or examination burden for species (a-i) to (a-iii) , and Species (b-i) to (b-ii) for the reasons set forth on page 3 of the Office Action mailed on 10/07/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-7, 11-15 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/05/2025.
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozomi et al., JP 2018171615A (Nozomi) (provided in IDS received on 09/17/2021) in view of Zhang et al., Research status and prospect on vanadium-based catalysts for NH3-SCR denitration, Materials, 2018 (Zhang) and Cole et al., US 2018/0036680 A1 (Cole).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Nozomi et al., JP 2018171615A (Nozomi). The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation, except figures, which refer to the Japanese original copy.
Regarding claims 1 and 16-17, Nozomi teaches a catalyst for purifying exhaust gas, capable of suitably suppressing phosphorus poisoning of a metal catalyst, and retaining sufficient exhaust gas-purifying property for a long term; the catalyst comprises: a base material (reading upon a catalyst carrier) in which a plurality of cells 15 are partitioned by partition walls 16; a catalyst layer 30 (reads upon a catalyst region) formed on a partition wall 16 surface of the base material 11; and a phosphorous collection layer 20 provided on the catalyst layer (a phosphorous collection layer reads upon a phosphorus trapping region provided on at least the catalyst region) (Nozomi, Abstract), also as illustrated in Figure 4 as shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
357
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Nozomi in original Japanese copy
Nozomi further teaches the metal catalyst included in the catalyst layer 30 can be for example an SCR catalyst (i.e., selective catalytic reduction) that reduces NOx in an atmosphere in which a predetermined reducing agent is present (Nozomi, page 5, 2nd paragraph);
the carrier constituting the skeleton portion of the phosphorus collection layer 20 mainly contains a metal oxide. As the metal oxide, a material having predetermined heat resistance and strength can be preferably used; for example, alumina (Al2O3), ceria (CeO2) (Nozomi, page 5, 7th paragraph);
the coating amount per 1 L of the volume of the substrate 11 of the phosphorus collection layer 20 is not particularly limited, but from the viewpoint of bringing the harmful component into contact with the metal catalyst more efficiently, it is generally 100 g / L or less, preferably 50 g / L. L or less (Nozomi, page 6, 4th paragraph), which encompasses the range of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further regarding claims 1 and 16-17, Nozomi does not explicitly disclose (a) the catalyst region comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of a zeolite-based catalyst containing at least a zeolite and a transition metal element supported on the zeolite, a composite oxide-based catalyst containing W, and a vanadium-based catalyst, the catalyst region is substantially free of a platinum group element or a noble metal element; or wherein: the catalyst region comprises the vanadium-based catalyst; or wherein: the vanadium-based catalyst comprises vanadium oxide supported on titanium oxide or zeolite.
or (b) the phosphorus trapping region comprises particles having a particle diameter D90 of 12 µm to 35 µm.
With respect to the difference (a), Zhang teaches selective catalytic reduction of NOx (Zhang, Abstract). Zhang specifically teaches vanadium-based catalyst such as V2O5/WO3(MoO3)TiO2 as a commercial catalyst (Zhang, Abstract).
As Zhang expressly teaches, V2O5/WO3(MoO3)TiO2 as a commercial catalyst has excellent catalytic activity in the medium temperature range (Zhang, Abstract); the vanadium-based catalyst is the most mature catalyst, and has a high catalytic activity at medium temperatures (Zhang, page 11, bottom paragraph).
Zhang is analogous art as Zhang is drawn to selective catalytic reduction of NOx.
In light of the motivation of using vanadium-based catalyst for selective catalytic reduction, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use vanadium-based catalyst in the catalyst layer of Nozomi, such as V2O5/WO3(MoO3)TiO2 (reading upon vanadium supported on titanium oxide), in order to achieve excellent catalytic activity in the medium temperature range, and thereby arrive at the claimed limitation.
Furthermore, given that Nozomi in view of Zhang does not require the use of a platinum group metal, therefore it is clear that Nozomi in view of Zhang would necessarily read upon the claimed limitation of the catalyst region is substantially free of a platinum group element or a noble metal element.
With respect to the difference (b), Cole teaches a catalyst for treating an exhaust gas (Cole, Abstract). Cole specifically teaches a capture material for capturing or trapping at least one sulfur impurity in the exhaust gas produced by the diesel engine (Cole, [0026]); the sulfur trapping metal is typically supported on a refractory oxide (Cole, [0029]); the refractory oxide may be alumina (Cole, [0037]); the particles of the refractory oxide may have a d90 of <100 micron, the particles of the refractory oxide may preferably have a d90 of <75 micron, such as <50 micron (e.g. <30 micron) (Cole, [0044]).
As Cole expressly teaches, when the refractory oxide has a smaller d90, better packing and adhesion can be obtained (Cole, [0044]).
Cole is analogous art as Cole is drawn to a catalyst for treating an exhaust gas.
In light of the motivation of controlling d90 of refractory oxide of a capture material in a catalyst for treating an exhaust gas, as taught by Cole, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to control the d90 of the oxide material coat (e.g., alumina) (reading upon a phosphorus trapping region) of Nozomi in view of Zhang, to e.g. <50 micron, in order to achieve better packing and adhesion on the catalyst coat layer, and thereby arrive at a range that encompasses the range of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, given that Nozomi in view of Zhang and Cole does not require the use of a platinum element in the phosphorous collection layer, therefore it is clear that Nozomi in view of Zhang and Cole meets that wherein the phosphorus trapping region is substantially free of a platinum element.
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1, Nozomi in view of Zhang and Cole teaches the shape of the base material 11 can be, for example a honeycomb shape (Nozomi, page 4, 6th paragraph; Figures 2-3 in original Japanese copy), which read upon wherein the catalyst carrier has a flow-through structure in which gas flow channels communicate with one another.
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 1, given that Nozomi in view of Zhang and Cole does not require the use of a platinum group element in the catalyst layer, therefore, it is clear that Nozomi in view of Zhang and Cole would necessarily meet the claimed limitation of wherein: the catalyst region is substantially free of a platinum group element.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozomi in view of Zhang and Cole as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakao et al., US 2018/0250658 A1 (Nakao).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1, Nozomi in view of Zhang and Cole does not explicitly disclose wherein a loading amount of the catalyst region supported per L of the catalyst carrier is 100 g/L or more.
With respect to the difference, Nakao teaches honeycomb catalytic body (Nakao, Abstract); onto which a vanadium catalyst is loaded and usable for selective catalytic reduction of nitrogen oxides (Nakao, [0002]). Nakao specifically teaches an amount of the vanadium catalyst to be loaded is in a range of 150 g/L to 400 g/L (Nakao, [0010]).
As Nakao expressly teaches, for the purpose of obtaining the high catalytic activity in the low-temperature region, it has been important to increase the amount of the catalyst to be loaded onto the honeycomb structure. However, due to the increase of the amount of the catalyst to be loaded, a catalyst thickness increases, and it has been worried that a defect of “catalyst peel-off”, i.e., the defect that the loaded catalyst peels off especially easily occurs (Nakao, [0008]).
Nakao is analogous art as Nakao is drawn to honeycomb catalytic body; onto which a vanadium catalyst is loaded and usable for selective catalytic reduction of nitrogen oxides.
In light of the motivation of loading proper amount of vanadium catalyst onto a honeycomb catalytic body, as taught by Nakao, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to load proper amount of vanadium catalyst as the catalyst layer of the exhaust gas purify catalyst of Nozomi in view of Zhang and Cole, in order to achieve high catalytic activity and avoid catalyst peel-off, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
In response to the amended claim 1, which recites, “the catalyst region is substantially free of a platinum group element or a noble metal element”, it is noted that Hisashi in view of Cole would not meet the present claims. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Hisashi in view of Cole are withdrawn from the record. However, the amendment necessitates a new set of rejections over Nozomi in view of Zhang and Cole, and Nozomi in view of Zhang, Cole and Nakao, as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732