DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9 and 16-18 was/were rejected in Office Action mailed on 02/20/2026.
Applicant filed a response, amended claim(s) 1, and canceled claim 8, on 05/20/2026.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9 and 11-19 are pending, and claim(s) 5-7, 11-15 and 19 are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9 and 16-18 are rejected.
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 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, 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 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), and a wall flow type substrate (Nozomo, page 3, bottom paragraph), as shown in Fig. 4 as set forth above, which read upon wherein the catalyst carrier has a flow-through structure in which gas flow channels communicate with one another.
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 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
Applicant primarily argues:
“Regarding the cancelled Claim 8, the Office interprets a base material of Nozomi as the catalyst carrier and cites the honeycomb shape of the base material for allegedly teaching "the catalyst carrier has a flow-through structure in which gas flow channels communicate with one another."
Applicant respectfully submits that such an interpretation is unreasonable. The base material 11 is "preferably made of a highly heat-resistant material typified by ceramics such as cordierite, aluminum titanate, silicon carbide (SiC), and alloys such as stainless steel" on Page 4 of Nozomi, which is not the ordinary and customary catalyst carrier material, as a skilled artisan would understand. For instance, the Wikipedia page for a catalyst carrier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalyst support, accessed on May 20, 2026) states:
In chemistry, a catalyst support or carrier is a material, usually a solid with a high surface area, to which a catalyst is affixed. The activity of heterogeneous catalysts is mainly promoted by atoms present at the accessible surface of the material. Consequently, great effort is made to maximize the specific surface area of a catalyst.
Separately on Page 5, Nozomi teaches "The catalyst layer 30 includes a carrier that forms a skeleton of the catalyst layer 30 and a metal catalyst supported on the carrier" and "In addition, a metal oxide having a large specific surface area and high durability (particularly heat resistance) is preferably used for the carrier supporting the metal catalyst. Examples of the metal oxide used in such a carrier include alumina (A1203), ceria (CeO2), zirconia (ZrO2), silica (SiO2), titania (TiO2), and the like."
MPEP 2111 states:
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.
The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.
"[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that
the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Phillips v. AWH Corp.,415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302, 67 USPQ2d
1438, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298, 67 USPQ2d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("In the absence of an express intent to impart a novel meaning to the claim terms, the words are presumed to take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art.").
That is to say, Nozomi teaches a catalyst carrier made of ordinary and customary catalyst carrier materials having a large specific surface area and a base material 11 made of materials that are merely highly heat-resistant and are not ordinary and customary catalyst carrier materials, as a skilled artisan would understand. Therefore, the interpretation of Nozomi's base material 11 as the catalyst carrier is inconsistent with not only Nozomi's own teachings but also the ordinary and customary meaning of "a catalyst carrier" for example as evidenced by the aforementioned Wikipedia page. Therefore, the interpretation of Nozomi's base material 11 as the catalyst carrier is unreasonable. As such, that the base material 11 allegedly has a honeycomb shape is not germane to the cancelled Claim 8.
Referring back to Nozomi's catalyst carrier, there is no teaching or suggestion that "the catalyst carrier has a flow-through structure in which gas flow channels communicate with one another" as recited in Claim 1.
The remaining references are applied in the Office Action for allegedly teaching other features and cannot correct Nozomi's deficiencies as discussed above. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that Claim 1 and claims depending therefrom are not obvious over the cited references. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections are respectfully requested.”
Remarks, p. 6-8
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Nozomi teaches a wall-flow type catalyst substrate (Nozomi, Fig. 4) as set forth on page 6 of Office Action mailed 02/20/2026, and it is honeycomb shape (Nozomi, page 4, 6th paragraph, Figures 2-3), therefore Nozomi teaches a catalyst substrate that is identical the catalyst carrier used in the present invention (specification, [0025], i.e., a flow-through type honeycomb structure catalyst carrier), and reads upon the claimed limitation the catalyst carrier has flow-through structure in which gas flow channels communicate with each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
357
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Nozomi in original Japanese copy
Applicant further argues:
“Additionally or alternatively, Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest "the phosphorus trapping region comprises particles having a particle diameter D90 of 12 pm to 35 pm" as recited in Claim 1.
The Office cites Cole for teaching a refractive oxide having D90 of < 50 pm for
trapping sulfur and thus argues it would be obvious to control D90 of the oxide material coat of Nozomi in view of Zhang.
However, there is no guidance as to which part of the oxide material coat to control the D90 of. In other words, as shown in Figures 2 and 4 of Nozomi, Nozomi's catalyst has a complicated structure with many components, including at least the catalyst layer 30 and the phosphorous collection layer 20. It would not have been obvious to control D90 of the phosphorous collection layer 20, instead of controlling D90 of the catalyst layer 30 or even creating a separate sulfur trapping region, given the complexity of Nozomi's catalyst structure. In other words, it would have required undue experimentation to (1) determine whether to create a separate sulfur trapping region in Nozomi's catalyst and (2) determine which part of the existing components of Nozomi's catalyst to control the D90 of.
Therefore, Cole fails to teach or suggest "the phosphorus trapping region comprises particles having a particle diameter D90 of 12 pm to 35 pm" as recited in Claim 1. The remaining references are applied in the Office Action for allegedly teaching other features and cannot correct Cole's deficiencies as discussed above. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that Claim 1 and claims depending therefrom are not obvious over the cited references. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections are respectfully requested.”
Remarks, p. 8-9
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly, Cole teaches the particles of the refractory oxide as a trapping layer 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]), which is a similar layer of the phosphorus trapping region of the presently claimed; and Cole provides proper motivation to combine, i.e., when the refractory oxide has a smaller d90, better packing and adhesion can be obtained (Cole, [0044]), therefore, Examiner’s position remains that 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, absent evidence to the contrary.
Secondly, Cole is only used as teaching reference in order to teach the particles of the refractory oxide as a trapping layer 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). It is noted that the "test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference Nozomi. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art", In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871,881 (CCPA 1981) and that "combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures", In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USP 224, 226 (CCPA).
Therefore, the Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, but they are found unpersuasive.
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 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
Prosecution Insights