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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-19 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1 October 2025.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 20-21 are directed to an allowable product. Claims 13-19 appear to be drawn to a method of making the allowable product; however, claims 13-19 do not require all the limitations of an allowable product claim, and therefore have NOT been rejoined.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, and 8 are amended; claim 22 is cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-21 remain pending in the application with claims 1, 3-12, and 20-21 considered in this Office Action. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 27 October 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 3-12, and 20-21 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 1 recites the limitation "the other oxides" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3, line 6, recites "other oxides". It is unclear if this is referring to "the other oxides" of claim 1. This limitation is interpreted as requiring 0-20% by mole of the other oxides.
Claims 4-12 and 20-21 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-12, and 20-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 would be allowable for disclosing a cerium-zirconium-based composite oxide with a core-shell structure, wherein the composite oxide comprises yttrium oxide, cerium oxide, zirconium oxide, and other oxides, the other oxides are one or a combination of more than one of oxides of rare earth elements except cerium and yttrium and oxides of non-rare earth elements except zirconium, wherein in percentage by mole (%), the content of yttrium oxide in the shell layer of the composite oxide is higher than that in the composite oxide, and the core layer of the composite oxide is cerium-zirconium-based composite oxide; the content of yttrium oxide in the core layer of the composite oxide is lower than that in the composite oxide, and the content of yttrium oxide in the shell layer of the composite oxide is 1.1-5.0 times that in the composite oxide; the content of zirconium oxide in the core layer of the composite oxide is higher than that in the composite oxide, and the content of zirconium oxide in the shell layer is 5%-40% of that in the composite oxide.
Long (CN 103182302) discloses a rare earth zirconium-based composite oxide with a core-shell structure composed of rare earth oxide and zirconium oxide [0012], wherein the rare earth oxide includes at least one of oxides of lanthanum, cerium, yttrium, etc. [0017], such that Long meets the limitation of a cerium-zirconium-based composite oxide with a core-shell structure, wherein the composite oxide comprises yttrium oxide, cerium oxide, zirconium oxide, and other oxides.
Long further discloses an example wherein the rare earth zirconium-based composite oxide is composed of zirconium oxide, cerium oxide, lanthanum oxide, and yttrium oxide, wherein the core (aka kernel) layer comprises zirconium oxide and cerium oxide (Table 1, Example 2), such that Long meets the limitation wherein the core layer of the composite oxide is cerium-zirconium-based composite oxide.
Long further discloses during the synthesis process, the difference in the feeding speed or the order of the rare earth and zirconium feeding is controlled to achieve a certain difference in the concentration of rare earth and zirconium in the center and surface of the composite oxide powder, forming a core-shell structure [0012].
Long further discloses an example wherein the rare earth zirconium-based composite oxide is composed of zirconium oxide and yttrium oxide, wherein yttrium oxide in the shell is 9.78%, in the composite is 9.04%, and in the core is 3.30% (Table 1, Example 8), such that the content of yttrium oxide in a shell layer of the composite oxide is higher than that in the composite oxide, the content of yttrium oxide in the core layer of the composite oxide is lower than that in the composite oxide, and the content of yttrium oxide in the shell layer of the composite oxide is 1.08 times that in the composite.
Long further discloses an example wherein the content of zirconium oxide in the core layer of the composite oxide is higher than that in the composite oxide, said another way, the content of zirconium oxide in the shell layer of the composite oxide is lower than that in the composite oxide (Table 1, Example 8-9).
Long is silent to the content of zirconium oxide in the shell layer being 5%-40% of that in the composite oxide.
Murakami (JP 2018134618) discloses a cerium-zirconium-based composite oxide with a core-shell structure [0034], wherein the composite oxide is yttrium-doped, and comprises ceria and zirconia [0034]. Murakami further discloses an oxide molar ratio of yttrium [0034], such that the composite oxide of Murakami comprises yttrium oxide. Murakami further discloses a yttrium-doped shell [0034], such that the content of yttrium oxide in a shell layer of the composite oxide is higher than that in the composite oxide and the content of yttrium oxide in the core layer of the composite oxide is lower than that in the composite oxide. Murakami further discloses a zirconia core [0034], such that the content of zirconium oxide in the core layer of the composite oxide is higher than that in the composite oxide. Murakami further discloses ceria-zirconia is the main component of the shell wherein ceria: zirconia = 60:40 in terms of weight ratio, and the composite has an oxide weight ratio of Y:La:Zr:Ce=7:3:60:30 [0034], such that the content of zirconium oxide in the shell layer is approximately 33% of that in the composite oxide, which meets the limitation of 5%-40%.
However, the content of zirconium oxide in the shell layer in Murakami is an incidental result, rather than a technical feature whose importance is recognized and intentionally controlled. There is no motivation to modify Long to control the content of zirconium oxide in the shell layer to 5%-40% of that in the composite oxide.
The precise control of oxides in the shell layer of a cerium-zirconium-based composite oxide improves high-temperature aged specific surface area, oxygen storage capacity, and thermal stability. Specifically, the thermal stability of cerium-zirconium composite oxides is enhanced by controlling the content of zirconium oxide in the shell layer of the composite oxide is 5%-40% of that in the overall composite oxide (“Specification”, [0008]).
Long does not identify the problem of needing to improve high-temperature stability, and Murakami aims to provide a co-catalyst that has high oxygen storage capacity at relatively low temperatures, thereby improving low-temperature activity, whereas the composite oxide of the claim exhibits high temperature thermal stability.
Long and Murakami, alone or in combination, do not suggest forming a cerium-zirconium-based composite oxide with the content of zirconium oxide in the shell layer of 5-40% of that in the composite oxide AND the content of yttrium oxide in the shell layer of the composite oxide is 1.1-5 times that in the composite oxide (Murakami discloses a zirconia core, whereas the claim requires yttrium oxide in the core). The cerium-zirconium-based composite oxide as claimed exhibits high heat resistance and is capable of maintaining a large specific surface area even when used in a high temperature environment (“Specification”, [0045]).
Therefore, the elements of claim 1 would be considered allowable.
Claims 3-12 and 20-21 would be considered allowable because they are dependent on claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see "Remarks", pg. 8-15, filed 6 January 2026, with respect to claims 1, 3-12, and 20-21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 27 October 2025 has been withdrawn.
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 SLONE ELZABETH SIMKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/S.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735