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 Status
The claims are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 7/22/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under the Non-Final 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 the reference below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiffey (US Pub.: 2016/0236178).
Chiffey describes a catalyst (abstract) used as a SCR catalyst (para. 6) coated on a substrate (para. 11). The SCR includes an oxidation component (para. 25), which includes a Pt component disposed on a support material (para. 8). The support is a substrate (para. 11). The Pt is disposed on the support and therefore, the catalyst of Chiffey does not include an inorganic oxide carrier that is not part of the substrate itself. The Pt has a mean crystallite size of 10-35nm (para. 19, 108, 109). The Pt loading in the first washcoat is from 5-300 g/ft3 (para. 163), which ranges from 0.0114-0.68 g/L.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
As to Claim 2, Chiffey teaches that the Pt in the washcoat is from 0.2 to 15wt% (para. 162).
As to Claims 4 and 5, Chiffey teaches that the catalyst can include copper-CHA (para. 149, 198).
As to Claim 6, Chiffey teaches that the catalyst can include Pt (para. 48) and Pd (para. 49, 50).
As to Claim 7, Chiffey teaches that the first composition can include Pt directly supported on a support (para. 44) and that the first composition can “consist essentially of” particles of Pt (para. 44). Therefore, in some embodiments, the first composition can include just Pt as the noble metal component.
As to Claim 11, Chiffey teaches that the catalyst can optionally include a second composition that can include platinum metals (para. 95).
As to Claims 12 and 14, Chiffey teaches that the catalyst can alternatively include just a first composition (para. 44). The first composition includes just a Pt metal disposed on the support (para. 44).
As to Claim 17, Chiffey teaches that the vehicle can be a diesel-run vehicle (para. 290) and the system can employ an ammonia reducing agent (para. 271, 270).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiffey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 6921261.
JP ‘261 describe an SCR catalyst that contains a precious metal (abstract). The precious metal has an average particle size of 30-120nm (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ noble metals within a size range of 30-120nm, as taught by JP ‘261 for use with the SCR of Chiffey because this would lead to expected and predictable results.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 13, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiffey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baba (WO 2014/192219).
Chiffey explains that the refractory metal oxide contains a cerium oxide component (para. 121, 123, 136), but the reference does not explain that the cerium oxide component is a layer.
Baba describes an oxidizing catalytic component (see “abstract”, layer (2)) combined with a catalytic reduction component (“abstract”, layer (3)). The catalytic reduction component is used to reduce NOx (abstract, para. 1) and contains a Pt catalytic component (abstract, para. 1). Baba explains that the oxygen catalyst material is in the form of a layer (see “inorganic chemistry”, “preferred composition”, para. 1).
The oxidizing feature oxidizes HC and CO (abstract, “Novelty”, para. 1), while the other catalytic component is used to reduce NOx (abstract, “Novelty”, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ cerium oxide as a layer, as taught by Baba for use with Chiffey because it is known to lead to predictable and expected results.
As to Claims 10, 13, 15 and16, Baba describes an oxidizing catalytic component (see “abstract”, layer (2)) combined with a catalytic reduction component (“abstract”, layer (3)). The catalytic reduction component is used to reduce NOx (abstract, para. 1) and contains a Pt catalytic component (abstract, para. 1). Baba explains that the oxygen catalyst material is in the form of a layer (see “inorganic chemistry”, “preferred composition”, para. 1).
The oxidizing feature oxidizes HC and CO (abstract, “Novelty”, para. 1), while the other catalytic component is used to reduce NOx (abstract, “Novelty”, para. 1).
In the structure, Baba teaches that the catalyst includes a support layer (1), followed by a lower catalyst layer (2), which includes the oxidation catalyst (abstract, “Novelty”, para. 1), followed by the SCR layer (3) (abstract, “Novelty”, para. 1 and see Fig. 2). The OSC unit is in the lower catalyst layer (2), which sits between the support layer and the SCR layer (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the OCR layer in the middle layer of the oxidation catalyst and under the SCR and above the substate, as taught by Baba for use with Chiffey because this would lead to predictable and expected results.
Claim(s) 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiffey and Baba as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Voss (US Pub.: 2004/0219077).
The reference does not describe including zirconia with the ceria.
Voss describes a catalyst material (abstract) comprising ceria (para. 38). Voss explains that zirconia can be used to stabilize ceria against thermal degradation (para. 39) because ceria is known to lose surface area and a reduction in catalytic efficiency upon prolonged exposure to high temperatures (para. 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stabilize ceria with zirconia, as taught by Voss for use with the ceria of Chiffey and Baba because zirconia is known to stabilize ceria from thermal degradation.
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 SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 September 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights