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 [Nakano]
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1,3,4, 6-8, 10-14 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakano (US 20090324454 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 21, Nakano discloses a gas purification device that contains a catalytic coating layer, a substrate, and a noble metal. Furthermore, Nakano specifies the zeolite has a particle size of 2 microns. There are also inorganic oxide materials, such as alumina being used in certain catalysts (Catalysts: 4,5,6,and 8). The alumina has a particle size of 5 microns. The ratio of zeolite particle size to inorganic oxide particle size is 0.4 (Nakano [0013]). The prior art meets the limitations of the instant claim requiring a catalytic device that contains a substrate, a catalytic noble metal, and a catalytic coating layer which is comprised of zeolite particles and inorganic oxide particles in the form of alumina. The prior art also meets the limitations requiring a dzeo/dox ratio of 2.6 or less.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Nakano discloses the presence of a noble metal supported by zeolites (Nakano [0078]). Therefore, this disclosure fulfils the limitations of the instant claim requiring wherein the catalytic noble metal is supported by the zeolite particles.
Regarding claim 4, Nakano teaches the use of noble metals in the device, some of these metals include platinum and palladium (Nakano [0088]). Therefore, this disclosure fulfils the limitations of the instant claim requiring the catalytic noble metal to be one selected from Pt and Pd or both thereof.
Regarding claim 6, Nakano teaches a number of zeolites used in the device one of which is ZSM-5 which has an average pore diameter of 5.6 Angstroms. Therefore, this disclosure fulfils the limitations of the instant claim requiring a zeolite constituting the zeolite particles has an average pore diameter of 6.0 A or less.
Regarding claim 7, Nakano teaches using MFI type zeolites in the device (Nakano [0080]). Therefore, this disclosure fulfils the limitations of the instant claim requiring a zeolite constituting the zeolite to be an MFI type zeolite.
Regarding claim 8, Nakano discloses that the zeolite containing a silica to alumina ratio of 3 or higher (Nakano [0113]) and the examples teach zeolites with silica to alumina ratios in the claimed range. Therefore, this disclosure fulfils the limitations of the instant claim requiring a silica-alumina ratio SAR of 25 or less.
Regarding claim 10 and 18-20, Nakano teaches a weight ratio between zeolite and inorganic oxide particles is 0.5, as catalyst 4 shows a 50:50 weight ratio of zeolite to inorganic materials (Nakano [0145]). Therefore, this disclosure fulfils the limitations of the instant claim requiring a ratio MZEO/MOX of a mass MZEO of the zeolite particles to a mass MoX of the inorganic oxide particles other than the zeolite particles in the catalytic coating layer is 0.125 or more and 8.00 or less.
Regarding claim 11, Nakano discloses the claim nots that the invention would be a “cold start catalyst”, however it does not limit the structure of the catalyst. Therefore, in view of Nakano, which teaches a catalyst that is the same as the catalyst in the application, Nakano’s catalyst can function as a cold start catalyst (Nakano [0036]). Therefore, this disclosure fulfils the limitations of the instant claim requiring a cold start catalyst.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Nakano teaches a molar ratio of silica to alumina in the zeolite of 5.9 (Nakano [0139]) which anticipates the claimed range. Therefore, this disclosure fulfils the limitations of the instant claim requiring the zeolite particles to have a silica-alumina ratio of 25 or less.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 9 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (20090324454 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 15-17, Nakano teaches a particle size of zeolite particles is between 0.1 - 100 µm (Nakano [0113]) which overlaps the claimed range. The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable without producing any new or unexpected results in within the ambit of a person or ordinary skill in the art. See In Re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (See MPEP § 2144.05 II.). Thus, it would be prima faice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain a range between the what is specified in the prior art, for the benefit of optimizing the efficiency of the purification catalyst.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (20090324454 A1), and in further view of Hiramoto (JP 2006035130 A).
Regarding claim 2, Nakano does not disclose the ratio required by the instant claim. However, Hiramoto discloses the ratio of the average particle size of the metal element containing alumina to zeolite (Hiramoto [0032, Table 1]). Since table 1 shows the dox/dzeo ratio, the dzeo/dox ratio is the inverse of said value. Therefore, based on Example 1 column 6 of the table, the dzeo/dox ratio is 0.9. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to combine the teachings of Hiramoto to Nakano in order to improve the infusibility of the zeolite and ensure a favorable HC adsorption performance. (Hiramoto [0012])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 [Hiramoto]
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10,11, 13,14 and 18- 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiramoto (JP 2006035130 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Hiramoto discloses a gas purification device that includes a catalytic coating layer, a substrate, and a noble metal (Hiramoto [0019]). Using the data given from Table 1 representing experiment 1, the dox/dzeo ratio in column 6 is 1.1. Since dzeo/dox is the inverse of the ratio in the table the dzeo/dox ratio is 0.9 (Hiramoto [Table 1]) Therefore, Hiramoto fulfils the limitations set in the instant claim requiring a catalytic device comprising a substrate, a catalytic coating layer that contains zeolite particles, inorganic oxide particles such as alumina, and a catalytic noble metal. The prior art further meets the limitation requiring the ratio of zeolite to inorganic oxide particles to the particle size of the inorganic oxides, to be less than 2.6.
Regarding claim 2, Hiramoto discloses the ratio of the average particle size of the metal element containing alumina to zeolite (Hiramoto [0032, Table 1]). Since the table displays the dox/dzeo ratio, the dzeo/dox ratio would be the inverse of said value. Therefore, based on Example 1 column 6 of the table the dzeo/dox ratio is 0.9. This means that the prior art meets the limitations requiring the ratio of zeolite to inorganic oxide particles to the particle size of the inorganic oxides, to be more than 0.5.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Hiramoto teaches a layer of metal element alumina on top of a zeolite layer (Hiramoto [0015]). Hiramoto further describes how palladium is one such metal element that can be used (Hiramoto [0016]). Therefore, the prior art meets the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the presence of a catalytic noble metal to be supported by a zeolite layer.
Regarding claim 4, Hiramoto teaches potential noble metals used in the device would include Pt and Pd (Hiramoto [0019]). Therefore, Hiramoto fulfils the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the catalytic noble metal used in the device to be Pt and/or Pd.
Regarding claim 6, Hiramoto teaches the use of a MFI type zeolite, which has an average pore diameter between 5.1 to 5.6 Angstroms (Hiramoto [0093]). Therefore, Hiramoto fulfils the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the zeolite particles to have a pore diameter of 6 Angstroms or less.
Regarding claim 7, Hiramoto teaches using MFI and BEA type zeolites in the device (Hiramoto [0024]). Therefore, Hiramoto fulfils the limitations set in the instant claim requiring an MFI or BEA type zeolite to be used in the gas purification catalytic device.
Regarding claims 8, 13, and 14, Hiramoto teaches a silica-alumina molar ratio for an MFI zeolite as 23 (Hiramoto [0025]). Therefore, Hiramoto fulfils the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the silica to alumina ratio to be less than 25.
Regarding claims 10 and 18-20, Hiramoto teaches a weight ratio between zeolite and inorganic oxide particles is between 0.6 to 1.5, the prior art shows a 40:60 to 60:40 weight ratio of zeolite to inorganic materials (Hiramoto [0013]). Therefore, Hiramoto fulfils the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the ratio MZEO/MOX of a mass MZEO of the zeolite particles to a mass MOX of the inorganic oxide particles other than the zeolite particles in the catalytic coating layer is 0.125 or more and 8.00 or less.
Regarding claim 11, the claim notes that the invention would be a "cold start catalyst"
however, it does not limit the structure of the catalyst. In view of Hiramoto, which teaches a catalyst that is the same as the catalyst in the application, Hiramoto's catalyst can function as a "cold start catalyst" as well (Hiramoto [0022]). Therefore, the prior art meets the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the catalyst to function as a “cold start catalyst”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 9 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramoto (JP 2006035130 A), and further in view of Nagata (WO 201405296 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 15-17, Hiramoto does not disclose a particle size of a zeolite within the claimed range. However, Nagata discloses a zeolite particle used in its catalytic device to be 7.2 µm (Nagata [0049]). One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve used the particle size in Nagata to Hiramoto in order to modify the molar ratio of dzeo/dox which will improve its heat resistance (Nagata [0031])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 6-7, filed November 7, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 and 6-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 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 Hiramoto, Nakano, and Nagata.
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.
/ANNETTE PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736