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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Huang (“Effects of Zr/Ce molar ratio and water content on thermal stability and structure of ZrO2-CeO2 mixed oxides prepared via sol-gel process”, Materials Research Bulletin, Volume 47, 2012).
In regards to claim 1, Huang teaches a method for preparing a ceria-zirconia composite oxide by mixing a cerium precursor compound and a zirconia precursor compound (2.1, “Zirconium oxychloride octahydrate (ZrOCl2·8H2O, 99%, Shanghai Chemicals Ltd.) and cerium (III) nitrate hexahydrate (Ce(NO3)3·6H2O, 99%, Shanghai Chemicals Ltd.) used as the precursors were firstly dissolved into the mixed solvents with different volume ratios of deionized water and absolute ethanol, followed by the addition of glacial acetic acid (HAc, 99.5%, Beijing Chemicals Ltd.)”)
stirring the aqueous precursor solution under a temperature condition of 60°C to 120°C (2.1, “A clear solution was obtained after stirring at 80 °C for 10 h in a sealed round-bottom flask, and then it was held under static condition for 12 h at room temperature”)
and calcining the product (2.1, “For the characterization of thermal stability and phase composition, the ZrO2–CeO2 xerogel powders were obtained by drying the sols at 90 °C for 12 h, and then some of the powders were calcined at different temperatures for 40 min”)
where the cerium precursor compound and the zirconia precursor compound have a molar ratio of 1:1 (Abstract, “Only when the volume ratio of water and ethanol and the Zr/Ce molar ratio were 1:1, tetragonal t″-Zr0.5Ce0.5O2 could be stabilized in powders at temperature as high as 1000 °C”).
In regards to claim 2, Huang teaches that the stirring is conducted for 10 hours (2.1, “A clear solution was obtained after stirring at 80 °C for 10 h in a sealed round-bottom flask, and then it was held under static condition for 12 h at room temperature”).
In regards to claim 3, Huang teaches that the aqueous precursor solution includes acetic acid (2.1, “Zirconium oxychloride octahydrate (ZrOCl2·8H2O, 99%, Shanghai Chemicals Ltd.) and cerium (III) nitrate hexahydrate (Ce(NO3)3·6H2O, 99%, Shanghai Chemicals Ltd.) used as the precursors were firstly dissolved into the mixed solvents with different volume ratios of deionized water and absolute ethanol, followed by the addition of glacial acetic acid (HAc, 99.5%, Beijing Chemicals Ltd.)”).
In regards to claim 8, Huang teaches calcining at a temperature between 400°C to 1,000°C (Fig. 1, “Fig. 1. XRD patterns of powders prepared using different solvent compositions calcined at different temperatures for 40 min: (a) 500 °C, (b) 600 °C, (c) 900 °C…”).
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.
Claims 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (“Effects of Zr/Ce molar ratio and water content on thermal stability and structure of ZrO2-CeO2 mixed oxides prepared via sol-gel process”, Materials Research Bulletin, Volume 47, 2012). in view of Chopin (US5607892A).
In regards to claim 4 and 5, Huang does not teach using the cerium precursor or zirconium precursor compounds as claimed in claims 4 and 5.
Chopin teaches that the cerium and zirconium precursor compounds can also be nitrates and ammonium to form a ceria-zirconia composite oxide (Col. 3 Lines 12-19, “Additionally, the expressions "cerium sols” and "zirconium sols” comprehend any system of finely divided solid particles of colloidal sizes based on cerium or zirconium oxide and/or hydrated oxide (hydroxide), in suspension in an aqueous liquid phase, it optionally being possible for said species to additionally contain residual amounts of bonded or adsorbed ions such as, for example, nitrates, acetates or ammoniums”).
Huang teaches the use of zirconium oxychloride octahydrate and cerium (III) nitrate hexahydrate as the precursors to forming a ceria-zirconia composite oxide (2.1, “Zirconium oxychloride octahydrate (ZrOCl2_8H2O, 99%, Shanghai Chemicals Ltd.) and cerium (III) nitrate hexahydrate (Ce(NO3) 3_6H2O, 99%, Shanghai Chemicals Ltd.) used as the precursors were firstly dissolved into the mixed solvents with different volume ratios of deionized water and absolute ethanol, followed by the addition of glacial acetic acid (HAc, 99.5%, Beijing Chemicals Ltd.).”). Applicant’s claims 4 and 5 disclose groups of cerium and zirconia precursor compounds that can be used for preparing a ceria-zirconia composite oxide. Chopin teaches that cerium and zirconium precursor compounds can be nitrates and ammonium (Col. 3 Lines 12-19, “Additionally, the expressions "cerium sols” and "zirconium sols” comprehend any system of finely divided solid particles of colloidal sizes based on cerium or zirconium oxide and/or hydrated oxide (hydroxide), in suspension in an aqueous liquid phase, it optionally being possible for said species to additionally contain residual amounts of bonded or adsorbed ions such as, for example, nitrates, acetates or ammoniums”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ceria and zirconium precursor compounds taught by Chopin in the method taught by Huang to form the final ceria-zirconia composition as the precursors in both references are known to form ceria-zirconia mixed oxide after calcination, thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known precursor for another in order to predictably produce the mixed oxide. See MPEP § 2143.I.B.
In regards to claim 7, Huang does not teach or suggest using a precipitating agent in the formation of the ceria-zirconia composite oxide.
As discussed above in claims 4 and 5, the compounds taught by Chopin can be substituted into the method taught by Huang to form a ceria-zirconia composite oxide. Chopin also teaches that a base is added to an initial ceria-zirconia mixture for precipitation purposes, such as potassium hydroxide, which would be an alkali metal hydroxide (Col. 4 Lines 64-67, “The initial mixture thus obtained, the addition of a base thereto is then carried out, in accordance with the second stage of the process of the invention. This addition is carried out until the species have completely precipitated; Col. 5 Lines 1-2, “The basic solution is, especially, an aqueous ammonia, sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide solution”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the potassium hydroxide base with the initial mixture of ceria-zirconia precursor compounds, as taught by Chopin and discussed above, to create a ceria zirconia composition. As discussed above in claims 4 and 5, the compounds taught by Chopin can be substituted into the method taught by Huang to form a ceria-zirconia composite oxide as the precursors in both Chopin and Huang are known to produce a ceria-zirconia mixed oxide after calcination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one precursor for another, both known for forming ceria-zirconia mixed oxides upon calcination to predictably produce a mixed oxide. See MPEP § 2143.I.B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks on pages 5-8, filed 08/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 7-8 under 35 USC §102 and claims 2 and 6 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Huang (“Effects of Zr/Ce molar ratio and water content on thermal stability and structure of ZrO2-CeO2 mixed oxides prepared via sol-gel process”, Materials Research Bulletin, Volume 47, 2012). in view of Chopin (US5607892A) as discussed above.
In regards to applicant’s arguments on page 5 under the claim rejections under 35 USC §102, applicant amended claim 1 to incorporate the limitations of claim 6. The new grounds of rejection presented above meets the newly claimed molar ratio.
In regards to applicant’s arguments on pages 6-7 under the claim rejections under 35 USC §103, applicant claims that the molar ratio of the cerium precursor compound is higher and Chopin does not teach the overlap as required. Huang teaches where the cerium precursor compound and the zirconia precursor compound have a molar ratio of 1:1 (Abstract, “Only when the volume ratio of water and ethanol and the Zr/Ce molar ratio were 1:1, tetragonal t″-Zr0.5Ce0.5O2 could be stabilized in powders at temperature as high as 1000 °C”). Therefore, claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 USC §102 and claims 4, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 USC §103.
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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736