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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11-14, and 16-27 are pending in the application. Claims 22-27 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not introduced new matter and are supported in the specification in at least Pg. 5, line 35 of the instant specification.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(d) and 112(d) rejections previously set forth in the office action mailed 03/24/2026.
Examiner notes that the term “essentially free of rhodium” is interpreted according to the definition of the analogous term “essentially free of palladium” in par. [0038] of the instant specification, which is consistent with the explanation provided by Applicant on Pg. 8 of the remarks filed 06/22/2026. Examiner acknowledges that a skilled artisan would understand the concept of the term and easily extend the defined term in the case of palladium to that of rhodium, where “essentially free of rhodium” is equivalent to less than 0.001% present in the layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 9-10 that Liu discloses a broad numerical range for Pt/Pd/Rh (e.g. 0.5-5/5-15/0.1-5) and that the disclosure of Liu teaches away from a near-equal Pd:Pt ratio as now claimed. Applicant argues Liu teaches a “high-palladium” catalyst where high-palladium means having a palladium content 3-10-fold higher than the total non-palladium PGM content. Applicant argues a person of ordinary skill would understand the purpose of Liu’s catalyst design is to maintain palladium dominance and would not be motivated to select a near equal Pd:Pt ratio from Liu’s broad range.
However, newly amended claim 1 recites “the weight ratio of palladium to platinum in the layered catalytic article in total ranges from 1.0:0.7 to 1.0:1.3.” The range taught by the prior art of record Liu is a Pd:Pt weight range of 5-15:0.5-5. Not only does the end points of the range of Liu overlap the claimed range (i.e. 5:5 = 1:1), the claimed range allows for an excess of platinum to palladium when the ratio of Pd:Pt exceeds 1:1 (i.e. 1:1.3), which is also encompassed by the range taught by Liu. While the prior art Liu may indicate a preference, the claimed range encompasses values considered "high palladium" by Liu, by the definition provided by Applicant. The indication of a preference is not a teaching away. Absent evidence of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims, a proper prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
Applicant argues on Pg. 10 that Kumar and Arnold do not teach the Pd:Pt ratio.
However, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Kumar and Arnold are not relied on to teach the Pd:Pt ratio but rather Liu is. Liu teaches the ratio of PGM (platinum group metal) content in the catalyst article is typically about 0.5-5:5-15:0.1-5 by weight (Pt/Pd/Rh) ([0043]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Liu (5-15:0.5-5, Pd:Pt weight range) overlaps with the claimed range (1.0:1.0 to 1.0:1.3, Pd:Pt). Therefore, the range in Liu renders obvious the claimed range.
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.
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, 3, 5-9, 11-14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US20110217216A1) in view of Kumar et al. (US7189376) and Arnold et al. (US20140205523A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a catalyst article comprising a first catalyst layer formed on a substrate with a second catalyst layer formed on the first catalyst layer (Abstract). In the context of the claims, the first layer of Liu is equivalent to “a bottom layer” and the second layer, on top of the first layer, is equivalent to a “top layer”.
Liu teaches the first (bottom) catalyst layer comprises palladium impregnated on a ceria-free oxygen storage component, palladium impregnated on alumina, and platinum impregnated on a refractory metal oxide while the second (top) catalyst layer comprises platinum and rhodium impregnated on a ceria-containing oxygen storage component (Abstract; Claims 1, 3, and 4).
Liu teaches the ratio of PGM (platinum group metal) content in the catalyst article is typically about 0.5-5:5-15:0.1-5 by weight (Pt/Pd/Rh) ([0043]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Liu (5-15:0.5-5, Pd:Pt weight range) overlaps with the claimed range (1.0:1.0 to 1.0:1.3, Pd:Pt). Therefore, the range in Liu renders obvious the claimed range.
Liu teaches the first (bottom) layer comprises palladium impregnated on a ceria-free oxygen storage component and palladium impregnated on alumina (Claims 1, 3, and 4). Liu further teaches the first (bottom) layer is prepared by mixing Pd impregnated on alumina and Pd impregnated on oxygen storage component, including Pr-doped zirconia, in an aqueous slurry ([0058]). Liu teaching mixing separate Pd impregnated on alumina and Pd impregnated on Pr-doped zirconia components meets the limitation of “the first portion and the second portion are separately prepared to be supported on the corresponding support.”
Liu further teaches the second (top) layer is palladium free ([0010]; Claim 1). Liu teaches the second layer comprises platinum and rhodium ([0011]; [0017]-[0018]; [0058]-[0059]). Regarding the limitation “essentially free of rhodium” Liu teaches the first (bottom) layer comprises palladium and platinum only, with every mention in the text of the first layer comprising solely palladium and platinum. Liu further teaches an example where the first (bottom) layer is prepared with Pd and Pt exclusively ([0058]). Accordingly, a skilled artisan viewing the disclosure of Liu would conclude the bottom layer containing Pd and Pt as being “essentially free of rhodium,” where rhodium is never discussed as present in the first catalytic layer, nor is there teaching or suggestion in Liu that the bottom layer may include rhodium.
The claim further requires “the bottom layer comprising a front zone and a rear zone, wherein the front zone comprises palladium supported on an oxygen storage component and an alumina component and the rear zone comprises platinum supported on one or more of an alumina component, a ceria component, and an oxygen storage component.” As outlined above, Liu teaches all of these components in the bottom layer but is silent regarding the zoning of the catalyst.
Kumar teaches a coated, multi-zoned exhaust treatment catalyst, where the zones can be formed by deposition of segregated coating compositions (i.e. washcoats) containing platinum group metals and pollutant adsorbent materials (Abstract). Kumar teaches the exhaust treatment catalyst has an inlet end and an outlet end wherein the substrate surface has a trap layer, a first catalytic layer and a second catalytic layer (col. 1, line 63-col. 2, 14). Kumar teaches an embodiment where the first catalytic layer (i.e. bottom layer) has an inlet segment comprising a palladium component and an outlet segment containing a platinum component, where the palladium segment is present from about 30 to about 520 g/ft3 and the platinum component is present from about 2 to 112 g/ft3 (col. 4, lines 55-67).
Advantageously, positioning the platinum group metals according to Kumar provides improve zone-coated catalysts where the optimized platinum placement improves bulk exhaust gas flows and pollutant conversion (col. 9, lines 35-56).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to zone the palladium in an inlet (front) zone and the platinum in an outlet (rear) zone, in the catalytic article of Liu in order to optimize platinum placement to improve bulk exhaust gas flows and pollutant conversion with the catalyst article, as taught by Kumar.
The claim further requires ceria is present at “from 5.0 wt.% to 15 wt.% based on the total weight of the oxygen storage component.” Liu and Kumar do not teach ceria is present within this range.
Arnold teaches an automotive catalyst composite having a two-metal layer (Title; Abstract) where the second, top layer comprises rhodium and a lower amount of oxygen storage component to alumina, where the cerium oxide concentration is kept low, at approximately 10 wt.% or even 5 to 20 wt.% ([0052]). Arnold further teaches the rhodium component is preferably supported by aluminum oxide and cerium-containing composites, such as ceria-zirconia composites, with a low proportion of ceria (less than 40% by weight of the composite) ([0056]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Arnold (10 wt.%, or even 5 to 20 wt.%) overlaps with the claimed range (ceria ranging from 5.0 wt.% to 15 wt.%). Therefore, the range in Arnold renders obvious the claimed range
Advantageously, OSC support material with low ceria concentration provides a catalyst with good NOx conversion activity and limits rhodium migration effects that occur when the OSC material contains ceria in greater than 30 weight % ([0005]; [0052]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to limit the amount of oxygen storage component supporting the rhodium component to approximately 10 wt.%, or even 5 to 20 wt.%, in the catalytic article of Kumar in order to limit rhodium migration effects and afford a catalyst that has good NOx conversion as taught by Arnold.
Regarding claim 3, Liu in view of Kumar and Arnold teach the layered catalytic article of claim 1 and Liu further teaches the ratio of PGM (platinum group metal) content in the catalyst article is typically about 0.5-5:5-15:0.1-5 by weight (Pt/Pd/Rh) ([0043]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Liu (5-15:0.5-5:0.1-5, Pd:Pt:Rh weight range) overlaps with the claimed range (1.0:0.7:0.1 to 1.0:1.3:0.3, Pd:Pt:Rh). Therefore, the range in Liu renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Liu in view of Kumar and Arnold teach the layered catalytic article of claim 1.
Liu teaches the second (top) catalyst layer comprises platinum and rhodium impregnated on a ceria-containing oxygen storage component (Abstract; Claims 1, 3, and 4). Liu teaches the first (bottom) layer comprises palladium impregnated on a ceria-free oxygen storage component and palladium impregnated on alumina (Claims 1, 3, and 4). Liu teaches the first (bottom) layer is prepared by mixing Pd impregnated on alumina and Pd impregnated on oxygen storage component, including Pr-doped zirconia, in an aqueous slurry ([0058]). Liu further teaches the platinum in the first (bottom) layer is impregnated on alumina ([0039]).
The claim further requires the platinum in the top layer is “supported on an alumina component” and that the palladium is located in a front zone while the platinum is in a rear zone. Liu is silent regarding the top layer platinum being on alumina and the zoning of the palladium and platinum.
Kumar teaches a catalyst configuration where the first catalytic layer comprises a first inlet catalytic segment with a palladium component and an upstream outlet catalytic segment comprising platinum, where the platinum group metals may be supported on materials selected from the group consisting of alumina and alumina-ceria (col. 22, lines 24-48). Kumar teaches the second, top layer, comprises platinum (col.23, lines 20-28).
Advantageously, fixing platinum to alumina in the top layer allows for all of the platinum component to be absorbed such that no platinum is left unabsorbed (col. 26, lines 16-24). Additionally, positioning the platinum group metals according to Kumar provides improved zone-coated catalysts where the optimized platinum placement improves bulk exhaust gas flows and pollutant conversion (col. 9, lines 35-56).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to zone the palladium in an inlet (front) zone and the platinum in an outlet (rear) zone in a bottom layer, while supporting platinum on alumina in a top layer, in the catalytic article of Liu in order to optimize platinum placement to improve bulk exhaust gas flows and pollutant conversion with the catalyst article, as well as fix platinum to a support such that no platinum is wasted, as taught by Kumar.
Regarding claim 6, Liu in view of Kumar and Arnold teach the layered catalytic article of claim 1.
Liu teaches the second (top) catalyst layer comprises platinum and rhodium impregnated on a ceria-containing oxygen storage component (Abstract; Claims 1, 3, and 4). Liu teaches the platinum component can be supported on zirconia doped alumina ([0030]; [0058]).
The claim further requires “the front zone comprises palladium supported on an oxygen storage component and an alumina component, and the rear zone comprises platinum supported on an oxygen storage component and alumina component, and palladium supported on an alumina component.” Liu teaches the first (bottom) layer comprises palladium impregnated on a ceria-free oxygen storage component, palladium impregnated on alumina, and platinum impregnated on a refractory metal oxide (Abstract; Claims 1, 3, and 4). Liu is silent regarding front and rear zoning and platinum being supported on a ceria component.
Kumar teaches a catalyst configuration with a second, top layer, comprising platinum supported on an oxygen storage component and a first layer with an inlet segment that comprises palladium and an outlet segment that comprises palladium and platinum which may comprise an oxygen storage component and a refractory oxide support such as alumina (col. 22-line 23-col. 23, line 27). Kumar teaches the second catalytic layer can include zirconia for stabilization of the metals (col. 14, lines 44-52; col. 24, line 63-col. 25, line 11).
Advantageously, supporting platinum on an oxygen storage component improves the catalyst ability to store oxygen in air/fuel ratios that are lean in oxygen, enabling combustion to occur (col. 14, line 66-col. 15, line 4). Additionally, positioning the platinum group metals according to Kumar provides improved zone-coated catalysts where the optimized platinum placement improves bulk exhaust gas flows and pollutant conversion (col. 9, lines 35-56).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to zone the palladium in an inlet (front) zone and the platinum in an outlet (rear) zone in a bottom layer, while supporting platinum on an oxygen storage component, in the catalytic article of Liu in order to optimize platinum placement to improve bulk exhaust gas flows and pollutant conversion with the catalyst article, as well as improve combustion of oxygen lean air/fuel mixtures, as taught by Kumar.
Regarding claim 7, Liu in view of Kumar and Arnold teach the layered catalytic article of claim 1.
The claim further requires “the rear zone ranges from 30 % to 60 % of platinum supported on the alumina component based on the total amount of platinum in the bottom layer; and ranges from 30 % to 60 % of platinum supported on the ceria component based on the total amount of platinum in the bottom layer,” to which Liu is silent.
Kumar further teaches a catalyst configuration the where the first layer has an inlet amount of platinum from about 12.5 to 200 g/ft3 and an outlet platinum component from 12.5 to 100 g/ft3 (col. 2, lines 37-50). Kumar effectively teaches a range of platinum in the outlet zone (i.e. rear zone) from 50 to 100%, which overlaps the range required by the claim. Kumar further teaches the platinum component is supported on a refractory oxide which includes an oxygen storage component, which may comprise alumina and ceria, respectively (col. 2, line 65-col. 3, line 11). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Kumar (platinum in the outlet zone (i.e. rear zone) from 50 to 100% in the bottom layer) overlaps with the claimed range (the rear zone ranges from 30 % to 60 % of platinum supported on the alumina component based on the total amount of platinum in the bottom layer; and ranges from 30 % to 60 % of platinum supported the ceria component based on the total amount of platinum in the bottom layer). Therefore, the range in Kumar renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, positioning the platinum group metals according to Kumar provides improved zone-coated catalysts where the optimized platinum placement improves bulk exhaust gas flows and pollutant conversion (col. 9, lines 35-56). Additionally, the concentration of platinum group metal in the coating compositions ensure high concentration of platinum group metals are in regions wherein the bulk exhaust gas flows occur, which improves conversion (col. 9, lines 35-56).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to zone the palladium in an inlet (front) zone and the platinum in an outlet (rear) zone in a bottom layer, while supporting platinum in the outlet zone (i.e. rear zone) from 50 to 100% in the bottom layer in the catalytic article of Liu in order to optimize platinum placement to improve bulk exhaust gas flows and pollutant conversion with the catalyst article, as taught by Kumar.
Regarding claim 8, Liu in view of Kumar and Arnold teach the layered catalytic article of claim 1.
The claim further requires “the weight ratio of the alumina component to the ceria component in the rear zone ranges from 1.0:1.0 to 2.0:1.0,” to which Liu is silent.
Kumar teaches the first outlet catalytic segment comprises 0.15 g/in3 to about 1.5 g/in3 of a support and about 0.1 to about 2.0 g/in3 of an oxygen storage composition (col. 23, lines 55-64). Kumar teaches the support may include alumina and the oxygen storage component is preferably ceria (col. 24, line 63-col. 25, line 2). Kumar effectively teaches an alumina support to ceria-containing oxygen storage component range of about 15:1 to 1:13.3. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Kumar (of about 15:1 to 1:13.3) overlaps with the claimed range (weight ratio of the alumina component to the ceria component in the rear zone ranges from 1.0:1.0 to 2.0:1.0). Therefore, the range in Kumar renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, including alumina in the taught amounts of Kumar provides a high-surface area support that prevents unabsorbed platinum group metal components while including ceria in the oxygen storage component in the taught amounts of Kumar provides improved combustion of air/fuel ratios that are lean in oxygen, enabling combustion to occur (col. 14, line 66-col. 15, line 4)
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a ratio of alumina to a ceria-containing component in the range of about 15:1 to 1:13.3 in the catalytic article of Liu in order to avoid unabsorbed platinum group metal components and improve the combustion of air/fuel ratios that are lean in oxygen, as taught by Kumar.
Regarding claim 9, Liu in view of Kumar and Arnold teach the layered catalytic article of claim 1.
The claim further requires “the weight ratio of the alumina component to the oxygen storage component in the rear zone and front zone ranges from 3.0:1.0 to 0.5:1.0.,” to which Liu is silent.
Kumar further teaches the inlet segment has about 0.15 to about 2.0 g/in3 of support and from about 0.2 g/in3 to about 1.0 g/in3 of rare earth metal oxide-zirconia (particularly ceria-zirconia), while the first outlet catalytic segment comprises 0.15 g/in3 to about 1.5 g/in3 of a support and about 0.1 to about 2.0 g/in3 of an oxygen storage composition (col. 23, lines 55-64). Kumar teaches the ceria-zirconia composite is preferably 30 weight percent ceria and 70 weight percent zirconia (col. 15, lines 30-47). Kumar effectively teaches a total support amount (e.g. alumina) of 0.3 to 3.5 g/in3 and a ceria amount of about 1.03 to 2.3 g/in3, which provides a range of ratios of alumina to ceria of about 0.13:1.0 to 3.4:1.0, which overlaps the range required by the claims. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Kumar (alumina to oxygen storage component ratio in inlet and outlet zones of about 0.13:1.0 to 3.4:1.0) overlaps with the claimed range (weight ratio of the alumina component to the oxygen storage component in the rear zone and front zone ranges from 3.0: 1.0 to 0.5: 1.0). Therefore, the range in Kumar renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, including alumina in the taught amounts of Kumar provides a high-surface area support that prevents loss of unabsorbed platinum group metal components while including ceria in the oxygen storage component in the taught amounts of Kumar provides improved combustion of air/fuel ratios that are lean in oxygen, enabling combustion to occur (col. 14, line 66-col. 15, line 4)
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an alumina to oxygen storage component ratio in inlet and outlet zones of about 0.13:1.0 to 3.4:1.0 in the catalytic article of Liu in order to avoid unabsorbed platinum group metal components and improve the combustion of air/fuel ratios that are lean in oxygen, as taught by Kumar.
Regarding claim 11, Liu in view of Kumar and Arnold teach the layered catalytic article of claim 1.
The claim further requires “the proportion of amount of platinum in the bottom layer and the top layer ranges from 50:50 to 80:20, based on the total amount of platinum present in the layered catalytic article,” to which Liu is silent.
Kumar teaches an embodiment where the first layer has an inlet platinum component from about 12.5 to 200 g/ft3, an outlet rhodium component from about 12.5 to 100 g/ft3, and the second layer comprises about 12.5 to 100 g/ft3 of platinum (col. 2, lines 27-58). Kumar effectively teaches a skilled artisan the first layer contains about 25 to 300 g/ft3 of platinum and the second layer contains about 12.5 to 100 g/ft3 of platinum for a ratio of 24:1 to 1:4, which overlaps the proportions of 50:50 to 80:20. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Kumar (24:1 to 1:4) overlaps with the claimed range (50:50 to 80:20). Therefore, the range in Kumar renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, providing the concentration of platinum group metal in the coating compositions as taught by Kumar ensures high concentrations of platinum group metals are in regions wherein the bulk exhaust gas flows occur, which improves conversion (col. 9, lines 35-56).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a ratio of platinum in the bottom layer and top layer of 24:1 to 1:4 in the catalytic article of Liu in order to provide platinum group metal in regions of bulk exhaust gas flow to improve conversion, as taught by Kumar.
Regarding claim 12, Liu in view of Kumar and Arnold teach the layered catalytic article of claim 1.
Liu further teaches that typically platinum is present at 1-90 g/ft3, palladium is present at 1-90 g/ft3, and rhodium is present at 1-30 g/ft3 ([0037]). Liu teaches the first (bottom) catalyst layer comprises palladium impregnated on a ceria-free oxygen storage component, palladium impregnated on alumina, and platinum impregnated on a refractory metal oxide while the second (top) catalyst layer comprises platinum and rhodium impregnated on a ceria-containing oxygen storage component (Abstract; Claims 1, 3, and 4). Liu further teaches the second (top) layer is palladium free ([0010]; Claim 1). Regarding the limitation “essentially free of rhodium” Liu teaches the first (bottom) layer comprises palladium and platinum only, with every mention in the text of the first layer comprising solely palladium and platinum. Liu further teaches an example where the first (bottom) layer is prepared with Pd and Pt exclusively ([0058]). Accordingly, a skilled artisan viewing the disclosure of Liu would conclude the bottom layer containing Pd and Pt as being “essentially free of rhodium,” where rhodium is never discussed as present in the first catalytic layer, nor is there teaching or suggestion in Liu that the bottom layer may include rhodium.
Accordingly, the palladium loading of 1-90 g/ft3 in Liu is entirely in the bottom layer, while the rhodium loading of 1-30 g/ft3 is entirely in the top layer. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Liu (palladium loading of 1-90 g/ft3; rhodium loading of 1-30 g/ft3) overlaps with the claimed range (palladium range from 1.0 g/.ft3 to 300 g/ft3; rhodium ranging from 1.0 g/ft3 to 100 g/ft3). Therefore, the range in Liu renders obvious the claimed range.
The claim further requires the bottom layer is zoned and that the “…the rear zone of the bottom layer is loaded with platinum ranging from 1.0 g/ft3 to 200 g/ft3 supported on the alumina (and) ceria component or oxygen storage component; the top layer is loaded with…platinum ranging from 1.0 g/ft3 to 200 g/ft3 supported on the alumina component or zirconia component,” to which Liu is silent.
Kumar teaches a series of preferred embodiments where the first catalytic layer has an inlet catalytic segment containing an inlet palladium component from about 30 to 520 g/ft3 and an outlet platinum component from about 2 to about 112 g/ft3 (col. 4, line 55-col. 5, line 3), while teaching a further preferred embodiment where the second catalytic layer contains a platinum component present from about 25 to 100 g/ft3 and a rhodium component from about 25 to 100 g/ft3 (col. 4, lines 3-17). Kumar teaches the catalytic platinum group metals (i.e. palladium, platinum, rhodium, combinations thereof) can be supported on refractory oxides with oxygen storage components present in the catalytic segment (see at least col. 2, lines 37-67; col. 14, lines 8-29). Given the teachings of Kumar disclosing the first layer with inlet palladium and outlet platinum, along with a second layer comprising platinum and rhodium, where the first and second layers may have an oxygen storage component present, a skilled artisan could readily arrive at the configuration required by the instant claim as motivated by Kumar who teaches refined zoned-coatings can optimize catalytic article to treat pollutants along the catalysts length and radius (col. 1, lines 51-59). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Kumar (first layer with an outlet (i.e. rear zone) containing platinum from about 2 to about 112 g/ft3; second catalytic layer contains a platinum component present from about 25 to 100 g/ft3) overlaps with the claimed ranges (rear zone with platinum ranging from 1.0 g/ft3 to 200 g/ft3; top layer platinum ranging from 1.0 g/ft3 to 200 g/ft3). Therefore, the range in Kumar renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, including platinum at the locations and concentrations taught by Kumar can optimize catalytic articles to treat particular pollutants along the catalysts length and radius (col. 1, lines 51-59) while ensuring a high concentration of platinum group metals are in regions wherein the bulk exhaust gas flows occur, which improves conversion (col. 9, lines 35-56).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a ratio of platinum in the locations and concentrations taught by Kumar in the catalytic article of Liu in order to optimize treatment of pollutants along the catalysts length and radius while provide platinum group metal in regions of bulk exhaust gas flow to improve conversion, as taught by Kumar.
Regarding claim 13, Liu in view of Kumar and Arnold teach the layered catalytic article of claim 1.
Liu further teaches the oxygen storage component can include ceria-zirconia, ceria-zirconia-lanthana, zirconia-praseodymia, yttria-Zirconia, Zirconia-neodymia and zirconia-lanthana and Liu further teaches the ceria oxygen storage component in the second catalytic layer is typically present in an amount of 20-100%, 40-100%, 60-100% or 80-100% by weight of the components of the second catalytic layer ([0025]; [0036]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Liu (oxygen storage component present from 20-100%, 40-100%, 60-100% or 80-100% by weight of the components of the second catalytic layer) overlaps with the claimed ranges (oxygen storage component ranges from 20 wt.% to 80 wt.% based on total weight of the bottom or top layer). Therefore, the range in Liu renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Liu in view of Kumar and Arnold teach the layered catalytic article of claim 1.
Liu further teaches the high surface area refractory metal oxide alumina supports include activated compounds selected from the group consisting of alumina, alumina-zirconia, alumina-ceria-zirconia, lanthana-alumina, lanthana-zirconia-alumina, baria-alumina, baria lanthana-alumina, baria lanthana-neodymia-alumina, and alumina-ceria ([0025]). Liu teaches the alumina component ranges from 77 to 81.8% in example ([0054]; Table 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Liu (alumina from 77 to 81.8%) overlaps with the claimed range (10 wt.% to 90 wt.%). Therefore, the range in Liu renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 16, Liu in view of Kumar and Arnold teach the layered catalytic article of claim 1.
Liu further teaches the ceria-containing oxygen storage component may comprise about 55-65% ceria, about 2-4% lanthana, about 6-8% praseodymia and about 25-35% zirconia, or; about 40-50% ceria, about 4-5% neodymia and about 45-50% zirconia ([0032]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Liu (lanthana from 2-4% +praseodymia 6-8% = 8-12%) overlaps with the claimed range (1.0 wt.% to 20 wt.%). Therefore, the range in Liu renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, Liu in view of Kumar and Arnold teach the layered catalytic article of claim 1.
Liu further teaches the oxygen storage component of the first catalytic layer is a praseodymia-zirconia composite, a yttria-zirconia composite, a neodymia-zirconia composite or a lanthana-zirconia composite wherein the rare earth component of the composite represents about 1-40% by weight ([0030]). Liu teaching the rare earth component represents 1-40 wt.% of the rare earth-zirconia composite would require the remaining weight percent to be zirconia, effectively teaching a zirconia concentration ranging from 60 to 99%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Liu (zirconia ranging from 60 to 99%) overlaps with the claimed range (70 to 100 wt.%). Therefore, the range in Liu renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, Liu in view of Kumar and Arnold teach the layered catalytic article of claim 1.
Liu further teaches the substrate is ceramic ([0045]).
Regarding claim 19, Liu in view of Kumar and Arnold teach the layered catalytic article of claim 1.
The claim further requires “the front zone further comprises one or more alkaline earth metal oxides comprising barium oxide, strontium oxide, or any combination thereof, in an amount ranging from 1.0 wt.% to 20 wt.%, based on the total weight of the front zone,” to which Liu teaches barium can be added as a stabilizer ([0048]), however Liu is silent regarding the concentration of the one or more alkaline earth metal oxides and is silent regarding zoning.
Kumar teaches the bottom layer of the catalytic article can include thermal stabilizers comprising alkaline earth metals such as barium, calcium, and strontium may be included (col. 15, lines 54-62) while teaching a catalyst configuration that includes 0.025 to 0.5 g/in3 of a first inlet alkaline earth metal component (col. 23, line 39-54). Calculated as a total of the components in the first inlet, Kumar teaches the alkaline earth metal component is present from about 0.74% to about 72%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Kumar (alkaline earth metal component is present from about 0.74% to about 72%) overlaps with the claimed range (an amount ranging from 1.0 wt.% to 20 wt.%). Therefore, the range in Kumar renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, including thermal stabilizers comprising alkaline earth metals such as barium, calcium, and strontium in the concentration taught by Kumar serves to retard undesirable alumina phase transformations at elevated temperatures (col. 15, lines 54-62).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an alkaline earth metal such as barium, calcium, and strontium in the concentration taught by Kumar in the catalytic article of Liu in order to retard undesirable alumina phase transformations at elevated temperatures, as taught by Kumar.
Regarding claim 20, Liu in view of Kumar and Arnold teach the layered catalytic article of claim 1.
Liu teaches the second (top) catalyst layer comprises platinum and rhodium impregnated on a ceria-containing oxygen storage component (Abstract; Claims 1, 3, and 4). Liu teaches the platinum component can be supported on zirconia doped alumina ([0030]; [0058]). Liu teaches the first (bottom) catalyst layer comprises palladium impregnated on a ceria-free oxygen storage component, palladium impregnated on alumina, and platinum impregnated on a refractory metal oxide (Abstract; Claims 1, 3, and 4).
The claim further requires “wherein the front zone comprises palladium supported… barium oxide, and the rear zone comprises platinum supported on a ceria component…, wherein the weight ratio of palladium to platinum ranges from 1.0:0.7 to 1.0:1.3,” to which Liu is silent.
Kumar teaches a catalyst configuration where the first catalytic layer comprises a first inlet catalytic segment with a palladium component and an upstream outlet catalytic segment comprising platinum, where the platinum group metals may be supported on materials selected from the group consisting of alumina and alumina-ceria (col. 22, lines 24-48). Kumar further teaches thermal stabilizers comprising alkaline earth metals such as barium, calcium, and strontium may be included (col. 15, lines 54-62), where the stabilizer may be included in each of the catalytic layers (col. 14, lines 8-28). Kumar further teaches the palladium segment is present from about 30 to about 520 g/ft3 and the platinum component is present from about 2 to 112 g/ft3 (col. 4, lines 55-67).
Converting the gram per cubic feet coverage ratio of Kumar to a weight ratio gives a range for palladium to platinum of 0.27:1 to 15:1 (col. 4, lines 55-67), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Kumar (0.27:1 to 15:1) overlaps with the claimed range (1.0:0.7 to 1.0:1.3). Therefore, the range in Kumar renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, including thermal stabilizers comprising alkaline earth metals such as barium, calcium, and strontium in the concentration taught by Kumar serves to retard undesirable alumina phase transformations at elevated temperatures (col. 15, lines 54-62). Additionally, including alumina in the taught amounts of Kumar provides a high-surface area support that prevents unabsorbed platinum group metal components during production (col. 14, line 66-col. 15, line 4) while including platinum at the locations and concentrations taught by Kumar ensure a high concentration of platinum group metals are in regions wherein the bulk exhaust gas flows occur, which improves conversion (col. 9, lines 35-56).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide support platinum on alumina in a top layer while including barium in an inlet (front zone) in a bottom layer, where the palladium to platinum ratio is 0.27:1 to 15:1 in the catalytic article of Liu in order to retard undesirable alumina phase transformations at elevated temperatures, prevent loss of platinum during production, and ensure a high concentration of platinum group metals are in regions wherein the bulk exhaust gas flows occur, which improves conversion, as taught by Kumar.
Regarding claim 21, Liu in view of Kumar and Arnold teach the layered catalytic article of claim 1.
Liu teaches the second (top) catalyst layer comprises platinum and rhodium impregnated on a ceria-containing oxygen storage component (Abstract; Claims 1, 3, and 4). Liu teaches the platinum component can be supported on zirconia doped alumina ([0030]; [0058]). Liu teaches the first (bottom) catalyst layer comprises palladium impregnated on a ceria-free oxygen storage component, palladium impregnated on alumina, and platinum impregnated on a refractory metal oxide, where the refractory oxide can include zirconia (Abstract; Claims 1, 3, and 4; [0025]; [0030]).
The claim further requires “The claim further requires “wherein the front zone comprises palladium supported on… barium oxide, and the rear zone comprises platinum supported on a ceria component…, wherein the weight ratio of palladium to platinum ranges from 1.0:0.7 to 1.0:1.3,” to which Liu is silent.
Kumar teaches a catalyst configuration with a first layer with an inlet segment that comprises palladium and an outlet segment that comprises palladium and platinum which may comprise an oxygen storage component and a refractory oxide support including zirconia (col. 22-line 23-col. 23, line 27; col. 24, line 63-col. 25, line 11). Kumar further teaches thermal stabilizers comprising alkaline earth metals such as barium, calcium, and strontium may be included (col. 15, lines 54-62), where the stabilizer may be included in each of the catalytic layers (col. 14, lines 8-28). Kumar further teaches the palladium segment is present from about 30 to about 520 g/ft3 and the platinum component is present from about 2 to 112 g/ft3 (col. 4, lines 55-67).
Converting the gram per cubic feet coverage ratio of Kumar to a weight ratio gives a range for palladium to platinum of 0.27:1 to 15:1 (col. 4, lines 55-67), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Kumar (0.27:1 to 15:1) overlaps with the claimed range (1.0:0.7 to 1.0:1.3). Therefore, the range in Kumar renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, including thermal stabilizers comprising alkaline earth metals such as barium, calcium, and strontium in the concentration taught by Kumar serves to retard undesirable alumina phase transformations at elevated temperatures (col. 15, lines 54-62). Additionally, including zirconia in the taught amounts of Kumar enhances stabilization of the catalytic compositions (col. 25, lines 3-11) while including platinum at the locations and concentrations taught by Kumar ensure a high concentration of platinum group metals are in regions wherein the bulk exhaust gas flows occur, which improves conversion (col. 9, lines 35-56).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to support platinum on zirconia in a top layer while including barium in an inlet (front zone) in a bottom layer, where the palladium to platinum ratio is 0.27:1 to 15:1 in the catalytic article of Liu in order to enhance stabilization of the catalytic layer while ensuring a high concentration of platinum group metals are in regions wherein the bulk exhaust gas flows occur, which improves conversion, as taught by Kumar.
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 Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights