DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a total amount of a cerium element and a zirconium element contained in the undercoat layer is 0 mol% or less and 5 mol% or less” in lines 2-3. The term “0 mol% or less” is not supported by the instant disclosure.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “an amount of a noble metal element contained in the undercoat layer is 0 mol% or less and 3 mol% or less” in lines 2-3. The term “0 mol% or less” is not supported by the instant disclosure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a total amount of a cerium element and a zirconium element contained in the undercoat layer is 0 mol% or less and 5 mol% or less” in lines 2-3. The term “0 mol% or less” is indefinite because there cannot be a negative molar percentage. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as a range of “0 mol% or more and 5 mol% or less”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “an amount of a noble metal element contained in the undercoat layer is 0 mol% or less and 3 mol% or less” in lines 2-3. The term “0 mol% or less” is indefinite because there cannot be a negative molar percentage. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as a range of “0 mol% or more and 3 mol% or less”.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shah (WO 2018/078513 A1) as evidenced by Ishihara et al. (US 2012/0076699 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Shah teaches an electrically heated exhaust gas purification catalyst comprising a substrate (Abstract, The substrate(s) may advantageously be electrically heated; Page 21, lines 24-25, the present article with a zoned catalytic coating is advantageously an electrically heated catalyst (EHC)).
Shah teaches an undercoat layer provided on the substrate, the undercoat layer containing an aluminum element as a main component, and a catalyst layer provided on the undercoat layer, the catalyst layer containing a noble metal element, wherein the undercoat layer contains a Group 2 element (Page 14, lines 23-25, the LNT coating composition may comprise an undercoat containing alumina containing ceria and BaO, ceria, MgO and ZrO2, which can, in some embodiments, further contain Pt and Pd and a topcoat containing Pt and Pd supported on alumina).
Shah discloses at least one pair of electrodes provided on the substrate. Shah discloses examples of electrically heated catalysts, one of which is Ishihara, which is incorporated by reference into Shah. Ishihara teaches at least one pair of electrodes provided on the substrate (Figs. 1-4 of Ishihara; positive electrode 3 and negative electrode 4).
Shah teaches the catalyst wherein a total amount of the aluminum element and the Group 2 element contained in the undercoat layer is 95 mol% or more and 100 mol% or less based on a total molar amount of all metal elements contained in the undercoat layer (Page 24, lines 3-5, The LNT compositions contain a NOx sorbent applied from 1 g/in3 to 5 g/in3, a PGM component applied from 50 g/ft3 to 150 g/ft3 and a support applied from 2 g/in3 to 4 g/in3; Page 7, lines 15-17, A suitable NOx sorbent comprises a basic oxygenated compound of an alkaline earth element selected from magnesium, calcium, strontium, barium and mixtures thereof and an oxygenated compound of a rare earth element, such as cerium (i.e., a ceria component); Page 7, lines 9-10, LNT compositions may optionally contain other components such as oxygen storage components; Page 7, lines 32-34, The support comprises at least a high surface area refractory metal oxide such as alumina, titania, zirconia; mixtures of alumina with one or more of titania, zirconia and ceria; ceria coated on alumina or titania coated on alumina; Page 14, lines 24-26, a topcoat containing Pt and Pd supported on alumina and Rh supported on ceria with substantially no alkaline earth component in the topcoat).
Calculating the ranges of NOx sorbent (Group 2 element), PGM component, and support (aluminum element) gives the following:
NOx sorbent (Group 2 element, using magnesium oxide): 1 g/in3 / (40.3044 g/mol MgO) = 0.0248 mol/in3 MgO 5 g/in3 / (40.3044 g/mol MgO) = 0.1241 mol/in3 MgO
PGM component (platinum group metal component, using platinum): 50 g/ft3 = (0.0289 g/in3 Pt) / (195.084 g/mol Pt) = 0.000148 mol/in3 Pt
150 g/ft3 = (0.0868 g/in3 Pt) / (195.084 g/mol Pt) = 0.000445 mol/in3 Pt
Support (using Al2O3): 2 g/in3 / (101.6 g/mol alumina) * 2 = 0.0394 mol/in3 alumina
4 g/in3 / (101.6 g/mol alumina) * 2 = 0.0787 mol/in3 alumina
Taking the lowest values of NOx sorbent and support, and highest value of PGM component gives the following:
0.0248 + 0.0394 + 0.000445 = 0.064645
(0.0248 mol/in3 MgO)/(0.064645 total) x 100% = 38.36% MgO
(0.000445 mol/in3 Pt)/(0.064645 total) x 100% = 0.688% Pt
(0.0394 mol/in3 alumina)/(0.064645 total) x 100% = 60.95% alumina
This gives a total amount of the aluminum element and the Group 2 element of 99.31 mol%.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05.I, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to Claims 2-3, Shah teaches the catalyst wherein an amount of the aluminum element contained in the undercoat layer is 50 mol% or more, wherein an amount of the Group 2 element contained in the undercoat layer is 1 mol% or more and 40 mol% or less based on the total molar amount of all metal elements contained in the undercoat layer (Page 24, lines 3-5, The LNT compositions contain a NOx sorbent applied from 1 g/in3 to 5 g/in3, a PGM component applied from 50 g/ft3 to 150 g/ft3 and a support applied from 2 g/in3 to 4 g/in3; Page 7, lines 15-17, A suitable NOx sorbent comprises a basic oxygenated compound of an alkaline earth element selected from magnesium, calcium, strontium, barium and mixtures thereof and an oxygenated compound of a rare earth element, such as cerium (i.e., a ceria component); Page 7, lines 9-10, LNT compositions may optionally contain other components such as oxygen storage components; Page 7, lines 32-34, The support comprises at least a high surface area refractory metal oxide such as alumina, titania, zirconia; mixtures of alumina with one or more of titania, zirconia and ceria; ceria coated on alumina or titania coated on alumina). From the calculations above (see Claim 1 rejection), these ranges are met.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05.I, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to Claim 5, Shah teaches the catalyst wherein the aluminum element contained in the undercoat layer and the Group 2 element contained in the undercoat layer are in the form of a composite. Shah discloses an exemplary lean NOx trap (LNT) composition in Wan, which is incorporated by reference into Shah. Wan teaches the catalyst wherein the aluminum element contained in the undercoat layer and the Group 2 element contained in the undercoat layer are in the form of a composite (Col. 10, lines 32-35 of Wan, the LNT catalyst composition is preferably disposed as a washcoat or as a combination of washcoats (to form a layered catalyst composite) on a ceramic or metallic substrate).
With regard to Claim 6, Shah teaches the catalyst wherein the Group 2 element contained in the undercoat layer is selected from a magnesium element, a calcium element, a strontium element, and a barium element (Page 14, lines 23-25, the LNT coating composition may comprise an undercoat containing alumina containing ceria and BaO, ceria, MgO and ZrO2, which can, in some embodiments, further contain Pt and Pd and a topcoat containing Pt and Pd supported on alumina; Page 3, lines 14-16, The LNT composition can comprise, e.g., a basic oxygenated compound of an alkaline earth element selected from magnesium, calcium, strontium, barium and mixtures thereof).
With regard to Claim 7, Shah teaches the catalyst wherein the Group 2 element contained in the undercoat layer is a magnesium element (Page 14, lines 23-25, the LNT coating composition may comprise an undercoat containing alumina containing ceria and BaO, ceria, MgO and ZrO2, which can, in some embodiments, further contain Pt and Pd and a topcoat containing Pt and Pd supported on alumina; Page 3, lines 14-16, The LNT composition can comprise, e.g., a basic oxygenated compound of an alkaline earth element selected from magnesium, calcium, strontium, barium and mixtures thereof).
With regard to Claim 8, Shah teaches the catalyst wherein the substrate is an electroconductive ceramic substrate (Page 12, lines 5-7, the substrate of the catalytic article may be constructed of any material typically used for preparing automotive catalysts and typically comprises a metal or ceramic monolithic honeycomb structure, such as a wall-flow substrate).
With regard to Claim 9, Shah teaches the catalyst wherein the ceramic substrate contains a silicon-element-containing inorganic conductor as a main component (Page 12, lines 23-26, Ceramic materials used to construct the disclosed substrate may include any suitable refractory material, e.g., cordierite, mullite, cordierite-a alumina, aluminum titanate, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, zircon mullite, spodumene, alumina-silica magnesia, zircon silicate, sillimanite, magnesium silicates, zircon, petalite, a alumina, aluminosilicates and the like).
Furthermore, Shah discloses examples of electrically heated catalysts, one of which is Ishihara, which is incorporated by reference into Shah. Ishihara teaches the catalyst wherein the ceramic substrate contains a silicon-element-containing inorganic conductor as a main component (Paragraph 0055 of Ishihara, porous ceramics composed of silicon carbide SiC, etc. is prepared and the honeycomb body 2 made of silicon carbide SiC, etc. is formed. Electrode material sheets are molded in order to produce the positive electrode 3 and the negative electrode 4. The electrode material sheet is made of fired SiC-Si composite).
With regard to Claim 10, Shah teaches the catalyst wherein the noble metal element contained in the catalyst layer is a palladium element (Page 14, lines 23-25, the LNT coating composition may comprise…a topcoat containing Pt and Pd supported on alumina).
With regard to Claim 11, Shah is silent to the catalyst wherein locations of the Group 2 element and the aluminum element coincide at a correlation coefficient of 50% or more.
However, the production method disclosed by the prior art and of the instant invention are substantially identical and thus would produce substantially identical products. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
According to the instant specification, the correlation coefficient is a measure of the aluminum element coinciding with the Group 2 element. Paragraph 0066 of the instant specification discloses: “In the cases where the locations of the Group 2 element and the aluminum element coincide at the correlation coefficient of 50% or more, it can be said that the Group 2 element is present uniformly in the undercoat layer 30”.
Paragraph 0087 of the instant specification discloses the method of making the undercoat layer: “The undercoat layer 30 can be formed by mixing a supply source of an aluminum element (for example, an aluminum oxide powder), a supply source of a Group 2 element (for example, an acetate salt of a Group 2 element, an oxide of a Group 2 element, or the like), and (an)other component(s) (for example, a binder, a solvent, and/or the like) to prepare a slurry for forming an undercoat layer, coating the substrate 10 with the slurry for forming an undercoat layer, drying the resulting material, and calcining the resulting material”. It is evident that this method of making the undercoat layer results in the limitation of Claim 11 being met.
Shah discloses a substantially identical method of making the undercoat layer (Page 23, lines 31-32, catalytic coatings containing LNT compositions are also disposed via the washcoat process on the substrates followed by drying and calcination; Page 6, lines 32-34, A washcoat is formed by preparing a slurry containing a certain solid content (e.g., 30%-90% by weight) of particles in a liquid vehicle, which is then coated onto a substrate and dried to provide a washcoat layer).
In this regard, Shah teaches the catalyst wherein locations of the Group 2 element and the aluminum element coincide at a correlation coefficient of 50% or more.
With regard to Claims 14 and 15, Shah teaches the catalyst wherein a total amount of a cerium element and a zirconium element contained in the undercoat layer is 0 mol% or more and 5 mol% or less, and wherein an amount of a noble metal element contained in the undercoat layer is 0 mol% or more and 3 mol% or less (Page 14, lines 23-24, the LNT coating composition may comprise an undercoat containing alumina containing ceria and BaO, ceria, MgO and ZrO2, which can, in some embodiments, further contain Pt and Pd and a topcoat containing Pt and Pd supported on alumina; Page 3, lines 13-16, In some embodiments, the LNT composition comprises a NOx sorbent and a platinum group metal component dispersed on a refractory metal oxide support. The LNT composition can comprise, e.g., a basic oxygenated compound of an alkaline earth element selected from magnesium, calcium, strontium, barium and mixtures thereof; Page 7, lines 9-10, LNT compositions may optionally contain other components such as oxygen storage components).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9, filed November 25, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112, claims 1-3 and 5-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102, claims 2-4 over 35 U.S.C. 103, and claims 1 and 12-13 over 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made over claims 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112 and claims 1-3, 5-11, and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Shah (WO 2018/078513 A1) as evidenced by Ishihara et al. (US 2012/0076699 A1).
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 ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736