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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-4, 6 and 7 are pending and presented for examination. Claim 1 was amended and claim 5 was cancelled via the instant amendment dated 30 December 2025 which is acknowledged and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks dated 30 December 2025 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) are acknowledged and entered.
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 7 under the obviousness type double patenting over US Patent No. 12138618 is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring a portion of the upper layer not comprising Rh comprise a different noble metal.
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 7 under the obviousness-type double patent over US Patent No. 11883797 is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring a portion of the upper layer not comprising Rh comprise a different noble metal.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Deeba is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring a portion of the upper layer not comprising Rh comprise a different noble metal.
Applicant’s traversal is persuassive. The traversal is that Deeba discloses a three-layer catalyst having an inner layer, a middle layer, and an outer layer per “Fig. 1” (Remarks at 4) and that an OSC is present in the outer layer downstream zone (Remarks at 5). However, “Fig. 1” of Deeba in the downstream zone does not require OSC in the outer layer and the upstream layer has it as optional. The claim does not preclude a three-layer catalyst and the first two layers can be considered to be equivalent to the inner layer instantly claimed. Though, if the middle layer of Deeba is taken to be the upper layer of the instant claim then the OSC present in the downstream side would not meet instant claim 1 and this thusly is hy the traversal is persuasive.
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Saito is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring a portion of the upper layer not comprising Rh comprise a different noble metal.
The traversal over Saito is noted. The traversal is that Pd is present in both the upper layer and the surface layer and that since it is present in both the surface and the upper laeyr it does not meet the amended claim and that it also contains Rh as the surface layer containing Rh is allowed to absorb an aqueous solution containing a palladium salt (Remarks at 6-7) and that Applicants “forms its upper layer in the absence of the noble metal contained in its surface layer so that the surface layer contains the noble metal in the entirety of the surface layer”. The latter point appears to be that the upper layer contains non-Rh and a surface layer thereon contains Rh but this is not really how the claim is written, Applicants may want to clarify the claim language to state this succinctly (i.e., “the upper layer comprises a surface layer comprising Rh and a layer beneath the surface layer comprising a noble metal other than Rh which is coated on a support which is itself coated on top of the lower layer” or similar language (if supported adequately)) as it is written there are alternative readings (e.g., half of the upper layer has Rh and half of it has Pd). In Saito the surface layer is Pd with some Rh and the upper layer is Rh which is the opposite of what is claimed.
The rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Matsueda is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring a portion of the upper layer not comprising Rh comprise a different noble metal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2010005566 to Fujita (cited and provided by Applicants with pagination to the attached English machine translation).
Regarding claims 1-3, Fujita discloses an exhaust gas purifying catalyst which is installed in an exhaust gas path of an internal combustion engine (Fujita at [0009] & [0016]) to purify the exhaust gas from said ICE comprising:
A substrate (honeycomb monolith, [0008]) and a catalyst coat layer disposed on a surface of the substrate (“Fig. 1(a)”), wherein
The catalyst coat layer is disposed to have a stacked structure comprising an upper layer and a lower layer, the lower layer provided on the substrate and an upper layer provided on the lower layer (id.);
The lower layer comprises a noble metal (Rh) and an oxygen storage material (Id.);
The upper layer has a noble-metal containing surface layer portion comprising Rh as a noble metal disposed in at least part of the noble metal containing surface layer and it does not contain an OSC (Rh is supported on ZrPr);
The upper layer is disposed from an exhaust gas entrance side end of the substrate to the exhaust gas exit side of the substrate (id.); and
A portion of the upper layer excluding the noble metal containing surface layer portion does not substantially contain Rh in the noble metal containing surface layer, in this case part of the upper layer is Pd supported on alumina ([0008] & “Fig. 1(a)”, alumina is a support material that is not used for OSC so it does not run afoul of the upper layer not having an OSC and ZrPr is an alloy and it only appears to have OSC when doped into ceria).
Concerning claim 4, the OSC is ceria ([0003]).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of US Patent No. 5376610 to Takahata et al. (hereinafter, “Takahata at __”: cited by Applicants).
As to claim 6, Fujita only discloses that the upper layer must be thinner than the lower layer, it says nothing about dimensions.
Takahata also in an exhaust gas purifying catalyst discloses 2-20 microns for the outer layer (Takahata at 5:55-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the thickness of Takahata for the outer layer for that of the outer layer of Fujita. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being efficiency of the TWC (Takahata at 5:60-65).
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7754171 to Chen et al. (hereinafter, “Chen at __”) either alone or in view of US PG Pub No. 20030147796 to Suga et al. (hereinafter, “Suga at __”).
Regarding claims 1-3, Chen discloses an exhaust gas purifying catalyst which is installed in an ICE to purify the exhaust gas (Chen at 1:23-30) comprising:
A substrate (9:40-45) and a multilayer catalyst disposed thereon (“Fig. 1”) wherein,
The catalyst coat layer is disposed to have a stack structure including a lower layer provided on the substrate and an upper layer provided on the lower layer (Id.);
The lower layer contains a noble metal and an oxygen storage component (9:4-6) and the upper layer has a noble metal containing surface layer comprising Rh as a surface layer (6:54-60) and palladium in other layers. As the layers can be broadly containing Rh or Pd it is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the catalysts in each of the layers as necessary.
The claim further requires that the upper layer does not contain an oxide having oxygen storage capacity and Chen states that “at least one layer is substantially free of OSC” (9:6) which is defined to broadly cover “no OSC” (3:25) and thusly one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this can be any of the layers as needed. As Applicants have not shown that the ordering of layers presents an unexpected result there is a prima facie case of obviousness to choose the arrangement of the layers (see MPEP 2144.04 IV).
The claim further requires that the upper layer is disposed from an exhaust gas entry to exit which is covered by the various Figure 4s.
Lastly, the claim requires that a portion of the upper layer excluding Rh does not substantially contain Rh, stated differently that Rh is on the surface layer and there is a non-Rh noble metal below such which is permissible given the broad disclosure of metals and placement thereof in the individual layers.
To the extent Rh being the outermost layer and Pd as inner layers is not covered enough by Chen, Suga also in an exhaust gas purifying catalyst discloses having all of the Rh contained in the outermost layer and Pt/Pd in the inner layers (Suga at [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the layering of Suga in the catalyst of Chen. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being avoiding CO poisoning (Id.).
As to claim 4, the OSC can be ceria (3:51).
Turning to claim 7, Pd can be any layer, including the first or second layer for reasons stated supra.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (with or without Suga) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Takahata.
As to claim 6, Chen does not disclose any layer thickness.
Takahata also in an exhaust gas purifying catalyst discloses 2-20 microns for the outer layer (Takahata at 5:55-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the thickness of Takahata for the outer layer for that of the outer layer of Chen (with or without Suga). The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being efficiency of the TWC (Takahata at 5:60-65).
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Suga.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 7, Saito discloses an exhaust gas purifying catalyst located in an exhaust gas path of an ICE and a noble metal purifying exhaust gas discharged from the ICE ("Table 1") comprising: A substrate (2:66) and a catalyst coat layer disposed on a surface of the substrate (2:67), wherein: The catalyst coat layer is disposed on the substrate ("Figure 1, numeral 12") to have a stack structure including a lower layer (numeral 13) disposed on the substrate and an upper layer (numeral 14 which is numeral 15 and 16 together) disposed on the lower layer, The lower layer contains a noble metal (Pd and Pt, 2:15-16) and an oxygen storage material (4:4-15, ceria is preferred covering claim 4), and the upper layer comprises Rh and Pd (4:60) and the carrier used therein is alumina or zirconia which are not OSC (4:24-30).
The claim further requires that the upper layer is disposed from the exhaust gas entry to the exit end which Saito discloses (Siato “Fig. 1”).
However, Saito discloses that Rh is present below the Pd such that it does not meet “a portion of the upper layer excluding the noble metal-containing surface layer portion does not substantially contain the noble metal contained in the noble metal-containing surface layer portion”.
Suga also in an exhaust gas purifying catalyst discloses having all of the Rh contained in the outermost layer and Pt/Pd in the inner layers (Suga at [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize having Rh all in the surface layer as per Suga in the catalyst of Saito. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being avoiding CO poisoning (Id.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito and Suga as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of WO2010001226 to Sunada et al. (hereinafter, “Sunada at __”).
Regarding claim 6, neither Saito or Suga expressly state the thickness of the Rh coating layer.
Sunada in an exhaust gas catalyst discloses keeping the thickness to 10-20 microns (Sunada at [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the thickness of Sunada in the catalyst of Saito and Suga. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being diffusability (Id.).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 6808687 discloses a first layer of OSC/Pd but the second layer is Pd/OSC with Rh on the surface.
Conclusion
Claims 1-4, 6 and 7 are finally rejected.
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 RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 PM.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759