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Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 12,2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on May 12,2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups are related as they require a catalyst with a high porosity support with a pore size greater than 15nm, and thus the groups should be considered to have unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because though the groups relating to each other as a catalyst with a high porosity support with a pore size greater than 15nm shows unity a priori, that is before considering the prior art, unity of invention still requires a common special technical feature that makes a contribution over the prior art (a posteriori), a requirement which is not met in this case as explained in the Restriction Requirement and below in the prior art rejections. See also PCT International Search and Preliminary Examination (ISPE) Guidelines, Chapter 10, paragraph 10.21 (Example 1).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 14 and 16 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation "about 15nm to 200nm", and the claim also recites "from about 20nm to 50nm" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation "about 1% to 10%", and the claim also recites "from about 3% to about 7%" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kazi (US 9333490 B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kazi discloses an embodiment of an oxidation catalyst comprising a high surface alumina (Kazi[C7 L30-35]), with additional metal oxides such as titania (Kazi[C8 L1-10]). The prior art further teaches that the catalyst is made up of multiple layers one of which contains platinum group metal(s) and is supported by the doped alumina (Kazi[C6 L29-35]). Furthermore, the alumina support material is said to have an average pore opening radius of 100 to 150 Å (Kazi[C5 L47-51]), upon converting the values and doubling the radius to calculate the size (as pore size refers to the diameter), the result is between 20nm to 30nm, falling within the greater than 15nm range. This disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claims requiring an oxidation catalyst to be comprised of a high surface area alumina support material with a pore opening size of at least about 15 nm, doped with at least one metal oxide; and a platinum group metal (PGM) supported on the doped alumina support material.
Due to the similarities in structure and composition, the catalyst disclosed in the prior art would necessarily have substantially identical properties as the product of the instantly claimed invention such as being operative at a space velocity of 100,000h-1 or greater to light off hydrocarbons at a temperature between 250°C with the support having a total acidity of 300µmol per gram and a Brönsted acidity greater than 1 µmol per gram.
Regarding claims 3-5, Kazi discloses the use of a metal oxide in the catalyst in the form of titania (Kazi[C8 L1-10]). This disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claims requiring the use of a metal oxide comprised of titanium, silicon, manganese, iron, nickel, zinc, zirconium, tin, or any combination thereof, with at least one metal oxide being titania.
Regarding claim 6, Kazi teaches an example where lantana (lanthanum oxide) makes up 4% of the alumina support (Kazi[Examples 1,2, and 3, C15 L55-60]). With lantana being a type of metal oxide, this disclosure meets the limitation set in the instant claim requiring an oxidation catalyst to comprise of 1 to 20% by weight of a metal oxide in the support based on the total weight of the oxidation catalyst composition.
Regarding claim 7, Kazi teaches that the total washcoat loading of the topcoat is approximately 2.1 g/in3 with a PGM loading of 40g/ft3 (Kazi[Example 1, C16 L14-15]). Under the consideration that the loading of the topcoat represents the catalyst claimed, 2.1 g/in3 is converted to 3628.8 g/ft3, to which the PGM loading is compared over to find the weight percent of the PGM, which is 1.1%. Therefore, this disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the oxidation catalyst to comprise between 1 to 10% by weight PGM based on the total weight of the oxidation catalyst composition.
Regarding claim 8, Kazi discloses a catalyst in which the wash coat is comprised of platinum and palladium (Kazi[C7 L1-5]) while another wash coat is described as containing only platinum (Kazi[C7 L20-23]). Therefore, this disclosure meets the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the PGM used in the catalyst to be platinum or a combination of platinum and palladium.
Regarding claim 9, Kazi discloses a catalyst with a layer containing platinum and palladium where the ratio is 1 to 2 (Kazi[C7 L6-8]), while a second wash coat zone/layer has a Pt to Pd ratio of 5 to 10 (Kazi[C7 L15-20]). This disclosure meets the limitations set in the instant claim requiring platinum and palladium to have a weight ratio between 1 to 10.
Regarding claim 10, Kazi discloses an embodiment of an oxidation catalyst comprised of a high surface alumina (Kazi[C7 L30-35]), with additional metal oxides such as titania (Kazi[C8 L1-10]). The prior art further teaches that the catalyst is made up of multiple layers one of which contains platinum group metal(s) and is supported by the doped alumina (Kazi[C6 L29-35]). Furthermore, the alumina support material is said to have an average pore opening radius of 100 to 150 Å (Kazi[C5 L47-51]), upon converting the values and doubling the radius to calculate the size, the result is between 20 to 30nm, falling within the greater than 15nm range.
Due to the similarities of the composition and structure of the catalyst between the prior art and the claimed invention, both share properties inherent to each other, such as the effectiveness of the oxidation reaction when an exhaust stream is applied to it.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Kazi teaches the structure of the alumina support material which has an average pore opening radius of 100 to 150 Å (Kazi[C5 L47-51]), upon converting the values and doubling the radius to calculate the size the result is between 20 to 30nm, falling within the greater than 15nm range. This disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claims requiring the use of a support material with a pore size of at least 15nm to 200nm.
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(s) 11-12 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazi (US 9333490 B2).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Kazi discloses the surface area of the support being between 60m2/g to “200 m2/g or higher”. The overlap between the range in the prior art with the range required by the instant claims (90 m2/g to 150 m2/g), forms a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, while Kazi does not disclose the amount of titania in the support material, the prior art does teach an example where lantana (lanthanum oxide) makes up 4% of the alumina support (Kazi[Example 1, C15 L55-60]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to produce a diesel oxidation catalyst by substituting lantana with another metal oxide such as titania (Kazi[C8 L5-10]), as lantana and titania are both listed as metal oxides that make up a diesel oxidation catalyst. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the proper amount of dopant with the motivation of providing stabilization of the support.
Regarding claim 17, Kazi does not disclose the use of manganese oxide. However, the prior art does note the use of manganese in the catalyst as a part of an alloy (Kazi[C9 L17-20]), which is then oxidized on the surface of the substrate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply manganese oxide as a part of the catalyst in order to enhance the adherence of the refractory metal oxide support and the catalytically promoting metal components of the substrate (Kazi[C9 L17-20]).
Regarding claim 18, Kazi discloses that the total washcoat loading of the topcoat is approximately 2.1 g/in3 for a PGM loading 40g/ft3 (Kazi[Example 1, C16 L14-15]). Under the consideration that the loading of the topcoat represents the catalyst claimed, 2.1 g/in3 is converted to 3628.8 g/ft3, to which the PGM loading is compared over to find the weight percent of the PGM, resulting in 1.1% (Kazi[Example 1, C16 L14-15]). Kazi also teaches that the alumina support used in the prior art has an average pore opening radius of 100 to 150 Å (Kazi[C5 L47-51]), upon converting the values and doubling the radius to calculate the size (as pore size refers to the diameter), the result is between 20nm to 30nm. Furthermore, , Kazi discloses the surface area of the support being between 60m2/g to “200 m2/g or higher”. The overlap between the range in the prior art with the range required by the instant claims (90 m2/g to 150 m2/g), forms a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. -
While Kazi does not disclose the amount of titania in the support material, the prior art does teach an example where lantana (lanthanum oxide) makes up 4% of the alumina support (Kazi[Example 1, C15 L55-60]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to produce a diesel oxidation catalyst by substituting lantana with another metal oxide such as titania (Kazi[C8 L5-10]), as lantana and titania are both listed as metal oxides that make up a diesel oxidation catalyst. It is noted that 4% is considered to be “about 5%”. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the proper amount of dopant with the motivation of providing stabilization of the support.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNETTE H PHAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:30 EST.
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 5712703591. 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.
/ANNETTE PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights