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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/16/2024 and 04/17/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20-27 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/17/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-19, 28 in the reply filed on 10/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
With regard to Claims 13-15, “OSC” is interpreted to mean oxygen storage capacity in light of the instant specification [0026].
With regard to Claim 28, the claim contains limitations directed to a process of making the composition that is set forth in Claim 1. These process of making limitations in Claim 28 are product-by-process limitations. MPEP § 2113 states that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”. Therefore, the structure implied by the process of making steps set forth in Claim 28 will be considered when assessing patentability of Claim 28. However, the Applicant should note that “the Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2113(II).
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 recites "wherein the dopant is Sn and Nb", but since there are two dopants, it should be corrected to "wherein the dopants are Sn and Nb". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 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 9 recites “the ratio of Sn to Nb” but does not specify if the ratio is on a molar or mass basis. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as the mass ratio of Sn to Nb.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito et al. (EP 2692432 A1, cited in IDS 05/16/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses a Ce-Z type oxide (72% by mass of ZrO2-21% by mass of CeO2-5% by mass of Nd2O3-2% by mass of La2O3) ([0041] meeting limitation “a composition comprising cerium, zirconium, lanthanum, and neodymium”) was impregnated with … a lactic acid solution containing iron, and was then kept under reduced pressure for an hour ([0041]) meeting limitation “and a dopant selected from the group consisting of Ti, Mn, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, Ga, Ge, Ta, W, Mo, Nb, In, Sn, Ba, and mixtures thereof”).
Regarding claim 2, Ito discloses a Ce-Z type oxide (72% by mass of ZrO2-21% by mass of CeO2-5% by mass of Nd2O3-2% by mass of La2O3) ([0041] meeting limitation “a composition consisting essentially of cerium, zirconium, lanthanum, and neodymium” since the disclosed mass percentages sum to 100) was impregnated with … a lactic acid solution containing iron, and was then kept under reduced pressure for an hour ([0041]) meeting limitation “and a dopant selected from the group consisting of Ti, Mn, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, Ga, Ge, Ta, W, Mo, Nb, In, Sn, Ba, and mixtures thereof”).
Regarding claim 4, Ito discloses a Ce-Z type oxide (72% by mass of ZrO2-21% by mass of CeO2-5% by mass of Nd2O3-2% by mass of La2O3) was impregnated with … a lactic acid solution containing iron, and was then kept under reduced pressure for an hour ([0041]) meeting limitation “A composition consisting of cerium, zirconium, lanthanum, neodymium, one or more dopant elements, and less than 0.5% by weight other elements, wherein the dopant elements are selected from the group consisting of Ti, Mn, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, Ga, Ge, Ta, W, Mo, Nb, In, Sn, Ba, and mixtures thereof and wherein the other elements are any elements that are not Ce, Zr, La, Nd, Ti, Mn, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, Ga, Ge, Ta, W, Mo, Nb, In, Sn, or Ba” since the disclosed mass percentages sum to 100).
Regarding claim 5, Ito discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including a Ce-Z type oxide (72% by mass of ZrO2-21% by mass of CeO2-5% by mass of Nd2O3-2% by mass of La2O3) ([0041]). 72% by mass of ZrO2 is within the claimed “65-75 wt% on an equivalent oxide basis”. 21% by mass of CeO2 is within the claimed “15-25 wt% on an equivalent oxide basis”. 5% by mass of Nd2O3 is within the claimed “2-8 wt% on an equivalent oxide basis”. 2% by mass of La2O3 is within the claimed “0.5-3 wt% on an equivalent oxide basis”.
Regarding claim 7, Ito discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including impregnated with … a lactic acid solution containing iron ([0041]) where iron is one dopant.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (CN 109926041 A, machine translation used for citations, cited in IDS 05/16/2024).
Regarding claim 28, Huang discloses the method for preparing the tin-niobium-doped cerium-zirconium solid solution of the present invention includes the following steps: ([0010]) (a) Prepare an acidic solution of a compound containing cerium and zirconium, wherein the cerium content is 15-45 wt%, the zirconium content is 35-75 wt%, and the other components are one or more of La, Y, Nd or Pr, in a content of 2-20 wt% ([0011]). (b) Prepare an acidic solution of a compound containing Sn and/or Nb; ([0012]). (c) Add the acidic solution formed in (b) to (a) to form a mixture, wherein the content of Sn and /or Nb is 0.1-5wt%, water is added to adjust the concentration to 100-200g/L ([0013] meeting limitation “mixing Zr, La and Nd slats, Ce salts, and dopant X in water, to provide a mixture”). (d) Prepare an alkaline solution with a concentration of 3-6 mol/L ([0014] meeting limitation “adding the mixture to an ammonia water solution to form a precipitate”). (g) Separate the precipitate formed in (f), wash, filter, and calcine to obtain the product ([0017] meeting limitation “calcining the precipitate”).
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 3, 6, 8, 13-15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (EP 2692432 A1, cited in IDS 05/16/2024) in view of Huang et al. (CN 109926041 A, machine translation used for citations, cited in IDS 05/16/2024).
Regarding claims 3, 6 and 8, Ito discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose “wherein the composition contains two dopants” (claim 3), “wherein the dopant(s) are present in the composition in an amount of about 0.1-10 wt % of composition” (claim 6), “wherein the dopant is Sn and Nb” (claim 8).
Huang discloses a method for preparing a tin-niobium-doped cerium-zirconium solid solution, which yields a cerium-zirconium solid solution with good stability, large specific surface area, and high oxygen storage capacity ([0009]). The method for preparing the tin-niobium-doped cerium-zirconium solid solution of the present invention includes the following steps: ([0010]) (a) Prepare an acidic solution of a compound containing cerium and zirconium, wherein the cerium content is 15-45 wt%, the zirconium content is 35-75 wt%, and the other components are one or more of La, Y, Nd or Pr, in a content of 2-20 wt% ([0011]). (b) Prepare an acidic solution of a compound containing Sn and/or Nb; ([0012]). (c) Add the acidic solution formed in (b) to (a) to form a mixture, wherein the content of Sn and /or Nb is 0.1-5wt% ([0013]). 0.1-5 wt % is within the range of 0.1-10 wt % claimed in claim 6.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the composition to contain two dopants, for the dopants to be present in the composition in an amount of about 0.1-10 wt % of the composition, and for the dopants to be Sn and Nb in the composition of Ito in order for the composition to have good stability, large specific surface area and high oxygen storage capacity as taught by Huang.
Regarding claim 9, Ito in view of Huang discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but Ito does not disclose “wherein the ratio of Sn to Nb is about 1.5 to 0.2”.
Huang discloses the Sn/Nb oxides were mixed at a mass ratio of 2.5/1 to obtain an acidic solution of tin oxalate and ammonium niobate oxalate ([0036]). (c) Add the acidic solution formed in (b) to (a) to form a mixture, wherein the oxide content of Sn and Nb is 3.5% ([0037]). The obtained cerium-zirconium solid solution has a specific surface area of 82 m²/g and an oxygen storage capacity of 1028 μmol/g ([0042]). Example 2 discloses (c) Add solution (b) to (a) to form a mixture, wherein the content of Sn oxide is 2% ([0047]). The obtained cerium-zirconium solid solution has a specific surface area of 61 m²/g and an oxygen storage capacity of 1023 μmol/g ([0052]). Example 3 discloses (c) Add solution (b) to solution (a) to form a mixture, wherein the oxide content of Nb is 0.4% ([0057]). The obtained cerium-zirconium solid solution has a specific surface area of 72 m²NER60/g and an oxygen storage capacity of 1036 μmol/g ([0062]).
While Huang does not explicitly teach the ratio of Sn to Nb is about 1.5 to 0.2, Huang does teach that the amount of Sn and Nb may be manipulated in order to modify the specific surface area and oxygen storage capacity. As the specific surface area and oxygen storage capacity are variables that can be modified, among others, by optimizing the Sn/Nb ratio, the precise Sn/Nb ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed Sn/Nb ratio of 1.5 to 0.2 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the diameter of the members in the apparatus of Beal to obtain desired bypassing of the top layer of the catalyst bed (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 13-15, Ito discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose “wherein the composition has an OSC after aging at 1000°C for 10 hours in an oxidizing environment which is improved by about 1 to 50% (claim 13), 1 to 35% (claim 14), 10 to 30% (claim 15), compared to an undoped composition comprising cerium, zirconium, lanthanum, and neodymium”.
Huang discloses after aging at 1000 °C for 10 h, the obtained solid solution has a specific surface area of 49 m²/g and an oxygen storage capacity of 961 μmol/g ([0042]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the composition to be aged at 1000°C for 10 hours in an oxidizing environment in the composition of Ito in order to obtain an oxygen storage capacity of 961 μmol/g and a specific surface area of 49 m²/g as taught by Huang.
Ito in view of Huang
Present disclosure
Composition: Ce-Z type oxide (72% by mass of ZrO2-21% by mass of CeO2-5% by mass of Nd2O3-2% by mass of La2O3) was impregnated with … a lactic acid solution containing iron (Ito [0041])
Composition: a composition comprising cerium, zirconium, lanthanum, and neodymium and a dopant selected from the group consisting of … Fe… (claim 1)
Concentration: Ce-Z type oxide (72% by mass of ZrO2-21% by mass of CeO2-5% by mass of Nd2O3-2% by mass of La2O3 (Ito [0041])
Concentration: the ratio of Ce/Zr/La/Nd is approximately 15-25 wt% / 65-75 wt% / 0.5-3 wt% / 2-8 wt% on an equivalent oxide basis (claim 4)
Method of making:
(a) Prepare an acidic solution of a compound containing cerium and zirconium, wherein the
cerium content is 15-45 wt%, the zirconium content is 35-75 wt%, and the other components
are one or more of La, Y, Nd or Pr, in a content of 2-20 wt% (Huang [0011]).
(b) Prepare an acidic solution of a compound containing Sn and/or Nb; (Huang [0012])
(c) Add the acidic solution formed in (b) to (a) to form a mixture, wherein the content of Sn and
/or Nb is 0.1-5wt%, water is added to adjust the concentration to 100-200g/L, and the
temperature is adjusted to 20-50℃; (Huang [0013])
(d) Prepare an alkaline solution with a concentration of 3-6 mol/L and adjust the temperature
to 20-50℃; (Huang [0014])
(e) Add an additive to the alkaline solution obtained in step (d) to obtain a mixture; wherein
the additive is one or a combination of several of … carboxylic acids … (Huang [0015])
(f) Use the mixture obtained in step (e) to adjust the pH of the acidic solution obtained in step
(c) to be greater than 8.5 for a period of not less than 1 hour; (Huang [0016])
(g) Separate the precipitate formed in (f), wash, filter, and calcine to obtain the product (Huang [0017])
In step (g), the calcination temperature is 700-1000℃ and the calcination time is 4-8h (Huang [0025]).
Method of making: Example 2 [0064]
1) A Zr/La/Nd nitrate precursor solution of appropriate relative component concentrations was weighed and placed in a beaker.
2) Appropriate amount of ceric ammonium nitrate (CAN) solid was weighed and dissolved in deionized water.
3) Tin oxalate and ammonium oxalate solids were weighed and dissolved completely in approximately 50 mL of deionized water.
4) Niobium ammonium oxalate solid was weighed and dissolved completely in approximately 50 mL of deionized water.
5) The CAN solution was added to the Zr/La/Nd mixture and stirred for one minute. The Sn oxalate solution was added to the Ce/Zr/La/Nd mixture and stirred for one minute. The Nb solution was added last. Stirring was carried out by way of a magnetic stirring pan and magnetic stir bar.
6) The CeZrLaNdSnNb mixture was diluted to a final volume of 1 liter to give an
equivalent oxide concentration of 100 g/L. The mixture was stirred for five minutes. The pH was about 0.40-0.60; the temperature was about 30 degrees Celsius.
7) A 1.5 liter, 4.5M aqueous ammonia was prepared separately.
8) 50 g of lauric acid was weighed and added to aqueous ammonia solution, and was completely dissolved under stirring for five minutes.
9) The final pH of the ammonia water/lauric acid was about 10.5-11.0 and the temperature was about 30 degrees Celsius.
10) After the stirring was started, the CeZrLaNdSnNb mixture was added to the
ammonia water. The CeZrLaNdSnNb mixture was added over a period of about 4 minutes. After the addition was completed, stirring was continued for one hour. After one hour, the pH was about 9.5-10.0, and the temperature was about 25 degrees Celsius.
11) The precipitates were then washed with deionized water to a wash-water conductivity of less than 8 mS/cm.
12) Water was removed by vacuum filtration to obtain a wetcake, and
13) The wetcake was calcined at 750°C for five hours.
While Ito in view of Huang does not explicitly disclose oxygen storage capacity improved by about 1 to 50% (claim 13), 1 to 35% (claim 14), 10 to 30% (claim 15) compared to an undoped composition comprising cerium, zirconium, lanthanum, and neodymium, since the composition of Ito is the same as the composition of claim 1, and the method of making the composition including the aging step is the same as the method of Huang, as shown in the above comparison, the composition of Ito in view of Huang would be the same as the composition in claim 13-15. Therefore, the property of oxygen storage capacity being improved compared to an undoped composition would necessarily be present in the composition of Ito in view of Huang.
The Patent and Trademark Office can require Applicant to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on Applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 U.S.P.Q. 431 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 19, Ito discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose “wherein the composition has an OSC after air aging at 1000°C for 10 hours in an oxidizing environment exhibit X-ray diffractogram that is devoid of extraneous peaks other than those of the cubic or tetragonal or intermediate martensitic phases”.
Huang discloses after aging at 1000 °C for 10 h, the obtained solid solution has a specific surface area of 49 m²/g and an oxygen storage capacity of 961 μmol/g ([0042]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the composition to be aged at 1000°C for 10 hours in an oxidizing environment in the composition of Ito in order to obtain an oxygen storage capacity of 961 μmol/g and a specific surface area of 49 m²/g as taught by Huang.
While Huang does not explicitly disclose X-ray diffractogram that is devoid of extraneous peaks other than those of the cubic or tetragonal or intermediate martensitic phases, since the composition of Ito is the same as the composition of claim 1, and the method of making the composition including the aging step is the same as the method of Huang, as reasoned above fore claim 13-15, the composition of Ito in view of Huang would be the same as the composition in claim 19.
Therefore, an X-ray diffractogram that is devoid of extraneous peaks other than those of the cubic or tetragonal or intermediate martensitic phases would necessarily be exhibited by the composition of Ito in view of Huang.
The Patent and Trademark Office can require Applicant to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on Applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 U.S.P.Q. 431 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (EP 2692432 A1, cited in IDS 05/16/2024) in view of Kozlov et al (US 7943104 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Ito discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose “wherein the dopant is Sn and Fe, Sn and Ba, or Nb and In”.
Kozlov discloses a solid solution material comprises, based upon 100 mole %: about 30 mol% about 95 mol % zirconium, about 0.5 mol % to about 50 mole% cerium, up to about 20 mole % of a stabilizer selected from the group consisting of yttrium, rare earths, and combinations comprising at least one of the stabilizers, and about 0.01 to about 25 mole % of a metal selected from the group consisting of indium, tin, and mixtures comprising at least one of the foregoing metals (abstract) where the stabilizer can comprise a metal such as… lanthanum… neodymium… as well as combinations comprising at least one of the foregoing metals (Col. 3 lines 62-67). 0.01 to about 25 mole % of a metal selected from the group consisting of indium, tin, and mixtures comprising at least one of the foregoing metals is interpreted as meeting the claimed limitation “wherein the dopant is Sn and Fe, Sn and Ba, or Nb and In”, since Kozlov discloses mixtures comprising at least one of the foregoing metals could include Sn and Fe, Sn and Ba and In and Nb.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (EP 2692432 A1, cited in IDS 05/16/2024) in view of Bradshaw et al. (US 8414835 B2, cited in IDS 04/17/2025) and Huang et al. (CN 109926041 A, machine translation used for citations, cited in IDS 05/16/2024).
Regarding claim 11, Ito discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose “wherein the composition has a surface area after aging at 1000 °C for 10 hours in an oxidizing environment which is maintained in the range of about 50% to 100% or more of that for the undoped composition comprising cerium, zirconium, lanthanum, and neodymium.”
Bradshaw discloses the elemental composition of each sample was 47 wt % zirconia, 47 wt % ceria and 6 wt % other rare earths (Col. 3 lines 59-60). Tin was added at different levels and at different stages in the method as set out below and in Table 1 (Col. 4 lines 1-2). In the Tables the following expressions are used (Col. 4 line 50): ASA 1000/4: This is the value of the surface area of the OSC after ageing at 1000 °C. for 4 hours (Col. 4 lines 56-57). Table 1 discloses Example No. 2 with no tin, i.e. undoped, having an ASA 1000/4 value of 32. Example No. 6 discloses tin being added at the caustic stage, having a ASA 1000/4 value of 25. For such "caustic stage addition" the tin solution is added to the suspension (Col. 4 lines 8-9). Since 25 is 78 % of 32, the disclosed surface area is in the claimed range of about 50% to 100% or more.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the composition to have a surface area after aging at 1000 °C in an oxidizing environment which is maintained in the range of about 50% to 100% or more of that for the undoped composition comprising cerium, zirconium, lanthanum, and neodymium in the composition of Ito as taught by Bradshaw in order for the composition to maintain oxygen storage capacity.
While Bradshaw does disclose ageing at 1000 °C. for 4 hours (Col. 4 lines 56-57), neither Ito or Bradshaw disclose aging for 10 hours.
Huang discloses the present invention also relates to solid solutions based on zirconium oxide and cerium oxide… having an oxygen storage capacity of at least 900 μmol/g after calcination in air at 1000°C for 10 hours ([0028]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the aging to be for 10 hours in the composition of Ito in view of Bradshaw as taught by Huang in order to evaluate the surface area after an extended period of time at high temperatures.
Regarding claim 12, Ito discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose “wherein the composition has a surface area after aging at 1100 °C for 10 hours in an oxidizing environment which is maintained in the range of about 60% to 100% or more of that for the undoped composition comprising cerium, zirconium, lanthanum, and neodymium.”
Bradshaw discloses the elemental composition of each sample was 47 wt % zirconia, 47 wt % ceria and 6 wt % other rare earths (Col. 3 lines 59-60). Tin was added at different levels and at different stages in the method as set out below and in Table 1 (Col. 4 lines 1-2). In the Tables the following expressions are used (Col. 4 line 50): ASA 1000/4: This is the value of the surface area of the OSC after ageing at 1000 °C. for 4 hours (Col. 4 lines 56-57). Table 1 discloses Example No. 2 with no tin, i.e. undoped, having an ASA 1000/4 value of 32. Example No. 6 discloses tin being added at the caustic stage, having a ASA 1000/4 value of 25. For such "caustic stage addition" the tin solution is added to the suspension (Col. 4 lines 8-9). Since 25 is 78 % of 32, the disclosed surface area is in the claimed range of about 50% to 100% or more.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the composition to have a surface area after aging which is maintained in the range of about 50% to 100% or more of that for the undoped composition comprising cerium, zirconium, lanthanum, and neodymium in the composition of Ito as taught by Bradshaw in order for the composition to maintain oxygen storage capacity.
While Bradshaw does disclose ageing at 1000 °C. for 4 hours (Col. 4 lines 56-57), neither Ito or Bradshaw disclose aging at 1100 °C for 10 hours.
Huang discloses the solid solution of the present invention is based on zirconium oxide and cerium oxide and is characterized by having a specific surface area of at least 15 mNER41/g after calcination at 1100°C for 10 hours ([0027]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the aging to be 1100 °C for 10 hours in the composition of Ito in view of Bradshaw as taught by Huang in order to evaluate the surface area after an extended period of time at high temperatures.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (EP 2692432 A1, cited in IDS 05/16/2024) in view of Bradshaw et al. (US 8414835 B2, cited in IDS 04/17/2025).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Ito discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose “wherein the composition has a PRT (peak reduction temperature) which is reduced by about 0 °C to 300°C, compared to an undoped composition comprising cerium, zirconium, lanthanum, and neodymium” or “wherein the composition has a PRT (peak reduction temperature) which is reduced by about 0 °C to 210°C, compared to an undoped composition comprising cerium, zirconium, lanthanum, and neodymium”
Bradshaw discloses the elemental composition of each sample was 47 wt % zirconia, 47 wt % ceria and 6 wt % other rare earths (Col. 3 lines 59-60). Tin was added at different levels and at different stages in the method as set out below and in Table 1 (Col. 4 lines 1-2). In the Tables the following expressions are used (Col. 4 line 50): TPR low T: This is the peak position ( °C.) of the low temperature peak in the TPR on the named reduction cycle, TPR high T: This is the equivalent high temperature peak (Col. 4 lines 51-53). Table 1 discloses for Example No. 2 with no tin doped, the 1st cycle TPR high T is 572. Example No. 7 with tin doped during the washing stage, the 1st TPR high T is 568.3, which is a reduction of 3.7 °C which is within the claimed ranges of 0 °C to 300°C (claim 16) and 0 °C to 210°C (claim 17).
Bradshaw further discloses an approach to try to reduce the Tmax of the OSC since this would also be useful in meeting the cold start regulations (Col. 1 lines 65-67).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the composition to have a PRT (peak reduction temperature) which is reduced by about 0 °C to 300°C and 0 °C to 210°C, compared to an undoped composition comprising cerium, zirconium, lanthanum, and neodymium in the composition of Ito in order to meet the cold start regulations as taught by Bradshaw.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (EP 2692432 A1, cited in IDS 05/16/2024).
Regarding claim 18, Ito discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose “wherein the composition has a H2-TPR profile having at least two maxima and the maxima are at a lower temperature compared to an undoped composition comprising cerium, zirconium, lanthanum, and neodymium”.
Ito
Present disclosure
Composition: Ce-Z type oxide (72% by mass of ZrO2-21% by mass of CeO2-5% by mass of Nd2O3-2% by mass of La2O3) was impregnated with … a lactic acid solution containing iron (Ito [0041])
Composition: a composition comprising cerium, zirconium, lanthanum, and neodymium and a dopant selected from the group consisting of … Fe… (claim 1)
Concentration: Ce-Z type oxide (72% by mass of ZrO2-21% by mass of CeO2-5% by mass of Nd2O3-2% by mass of La2O3 (Ito [0041])
Concentration: the ratio of Ce/Zr/La/Nd is approximately 15-25 wt% / 65-75 wt% / 0.5-3 wt% / 2-8 wt% on an equivalent oxide basis (claim 4)
However, since the composition of Ito is the same as the composition of claim 1, as shown by the above comparison, a H2-TPR profile having at least two maxima and the maxima are at a lower temperature compared to an undoped composition comprising cerium, zirconium, lanthanum, and neodymium would necessarily be exhibited by the composition of Ito.
The Patent and Trademark Office can require Applicant to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on Applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 U.S.P.Q. 431 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE L QUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/N.L.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738