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 .
This application is in response to a response to an amendment filed on 12/02/2025.
Claims 1-13, 15, 18-23, 25, 27-28, 51 and 70 are presently pending in this application. Applicant has amended claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-11, 18, 20, 23, 25, 27 and claims 28, 51, 70 are withdrawn as non-elected Group II-IV claims.
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 9-11 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 9 recites the limitation "”the ceria” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if “the ceria” is refers to base metal oxide of claim 7 or refers to first refractory metal oxide support material of claim 1. Clarification is requested. For examination purpose, examiner has interpreted “the ceria” as part of the base metal.
Claim 10 recites “ceria in an amount from about 1% to 99%, by weight,…” which is not clear if ceria is separate additional component of oxidation catalyst or if ceria is part of first refractory metal oxide support material of claim 1 Clarification is requested. For examination purpose, Examiner has interpreted “ceria” as part of the first refractory metal oxide support material.
Claim 11 recites palladium is loaded in amount from about 0-10 wt., platinum is load in an amount from about 0-10 wt.% and then followed by at least one of the palladium or the platinum is present in an amount of about 0.1 wt.% or greater which is not clear if lower range of palladium and/or platinum being present is about 0 wt.% or 0.1 wt.% and upper range of platinum or palladium is 10 wt.% or greater than 10 wt.% wherein “greater” can include any value above 10 wt.%. Clarification is requested. For examination purpose, examiner has interpreted Pt and/or Pd loaded in an amount from about 0.1 wt.% or greater.
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.
Claims 1-13, 15, 18-23, 25, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chiffey et al (US PGPUB No.: 2015/0202611 A1) in view of Dang et al (US PGPUB No.: 2011/0044874 A1, IDS cited reference by applicant).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5 and 12, Chiffey discloses an oxidation catalyst composition comprising a platinum, palladium (abstract, paragraphs 0046, 0049, 0051, reads also on claim 12),
a manganese component (paragraph 0046), wherein manganese is in oxide basis and supported on first refractory metal oxide support material (paragraphs 0056-0057, reads on claim 3), and
a first refractory metal oxide support material comprising of zirconia, alumina, silica, titania, ceria and a mixed or composite oxide thereof, such as a mixed or composite oxide of two or more thereof. For example, the refractory metal oxide may be selected from the group consisting of alumina, silica, titania, zirconia, ceria, silica-alumina, titania-alumina, zirconia-alumina, ceria-alumina, titania-silica, zirconia-silica, zirconia-titania, ceria-zirconia and alumina-magnesium oxide (paragraph 0062-0063, reads on claims 1, 5) and the concentration of refractory metal oxide support material comprising 50-99 wt.% (paragraph 0075, reads on claim 4). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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).
Chiffey discloses ceria and zirconia as first refractory metal oxide support material but does not explicitly suggest or disclose ceria present in an amount from about 1% to 10 % based on weight of the first refractory metal oxide support material.
However, Dang discloses an oxidation catalyst composition comprising a platinum group metal (i.e., platinum palladium rhodium rhenium osmium ruthenium, paragraph 0021), a first refractory metal oxide support material comprising of cerium oxide, zirconium oxide, alumina, silica, titania, zirconia, silica-alumina, alumina-zirconia, alumina-titania, silica-titania, silica-zirconia, and titania-zirconia, oxides of one or more compounds of Group IIIB, III and IV wherein the concentration of refractory metal oxide support material such as ceria and zirconia comprising 10-95 wt.% (paragraph 0030, reads on claims 4, 5). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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).
Given Chiffey and Dang both discloses oxidation catalyst substantially similar to presently claimed invention, therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of applicant invention to modify the oxidation catalyst of Chiffey to include the amount of ceria of Dang to enhance the capabilities and stabilities of the refractory oxides to receive platinum group metals as taught by Dang (paragraphs 0025 and 0030).
Regarding Claim 2, Chiffey discloses the oxidation catalyst as disclosed above in claim 1 where oxidation catalyst composition comprising of PGM comprising palladium, platinum; a manganese component and a first refractory oxide support material comprising zirconia but does not explicitly disclose or suggest the manganese in amount by weight, on an oxide basis, from about 0.1 to about 90% based on the first refractory metal oxide support material.
However, Chiffey discloses the weight ratio of Mn:Pt 5:1 to 0.2:1 (paragraph 0056-0061) and further discloses manganese loading in amount of 5 to 500 g/ft3 (paragraph 0058), therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of applicant invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges, which includes the range of 0.1 wt.% to about 90 wt.% of manganese through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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).
Regarding claim 6, Chiffey discloses first refractory metal oxide support material is doped with lanthanum, oxide basis, in amount of from 0.25-5 wt.% (paragraphs 0064, 0066). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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).
Regarding claims 7-9, Chiffey discloses first refractory metal oxide support is doped (i.e., reads on base metal of claim 7) and the dopant may be selected from group consisting of oxide of magnesium, barium, cerium, yttrium, lanthanum, silicon, titanium, zirconium, in an amount from 0.5 to 3wt.% (reads on claims 8-9, paragraphs 0064-0068). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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).
Regarding Claim 10, Chiffey discloses the oxidation catalyst as disclosed above in claim 1 where oxidation catalyst composition comprising of PGM comprising palladium, platinum; a manganese component and a first refractory oxide support material comprising zirconia. Further, Chiffey discloses first refractory metal oxide support containing zirconia-ceria in amount of from 50-95 wt.% of ceria (encompasses claimed range of ceria from about 1-99 wt.%) and 5-50 wt.% of zirconia (paragraph 0076) but does not explicitly disclose or suggest the manganese in amount by weight, on an oxide basis, from about 0.1 to about 60% based on the first refractory metal oxide support material.
However, Chiffey discloses the weight ratio of Mn:Pt 5:1 to 0.2:1 (paragraph 0056-0061) and further discloses manganese loading in amount of 5 to 500 g/ft3 (paragraph 0058), therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of applicant invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges, which includes the range of 0.1 wt.% to about 60 wt.% of manganese through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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).
Regarding claim 11, Chiffey in view of Dang discloses the oxidation catalyst as disclosed above in claim 1 where oxidation catalyst composition comprising of PGM, a first oxide and a first refractory oxide support material but does not explicitly disclose or suggest the palladium loaded on the first refractory oxide support material amount of 0 to 10 wt.% based on the weight of the first refractory oxide support, the platinum is loaded on the first refractory metal oxide support in an amount by weight from about 0% to about 10%, based on the weight of the first refractory metal oxide support and wherein at least one of the platinum or the palladium is present in an amount by weight of about 0.1% or greater, based on the weight of the first refractory metal oxide support material.
However, Chiffey discloses the weight ratio of platinum to palladium is from 10:1 to 1:1 or 1:0 to 10:1 (paragraph 0050) while Dang discloses ratio of platinum to palladium from 1:20 to 20:1 (paragraph 0021), therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of applicant invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges, which includes the range of 0.1 wt.% or greater of Pt and/or Pd or about 0 to 10 wt.% of palladium and/or platinum, through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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).
Regarding claim 13, Chiffey discloses the ratio of platinum to palladium is from 1:0 to 10:1 or 10:1 to 1:1 (paragraph 0050) while Dang discloses ratio of platinum to palladium from 1:20 to 20:1 (paragraph 0021). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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).
Regarding claim 15,19, Chiffey discloses oxidation catalyst further comprising a second refractory metal oxide support material comprising of ceria, zirconia, silica, alumina, titania, silica-alumina, titania-alumina, zirconia-alumina, ceria-alumina, titania-silica, zirconia-silica, zirconia-titania, ceria-zirconia and alumina-magnesium oxide (paragraph 0101).
Further Claim 15 discloses second refractory metal oxide support material “optionally comprising..” and further “optionally comprising a base metal oxide chosen from…” are optional and not required and are rejected based on similar reasons of claims 1 and 15.
Regarding claim 18, Chiffey discloses PGM component comprising platinum and palladium supported on second refractory metal oxide support material (paragraphs 0100-0101) and further discloses weight ratio of platinum to palladium of 20:1 to 1:1 but does not disclose PGM component in amount of 0.1 to 10 wt.%.
However, Chiffey discloses the weight ratio of platinum to palladium is from 20:1 to 1:1 (paragraph 0099), therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of applicant invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges, which includes the range of 0.1 wt.% to 10 wt.% of Pt and/or Pd through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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).
Regarding claim 20, Chiffey discloses second support material (i.e., zirconia, paragraph 0101) doped with dopant (i.e., lanthanum, paragraph 0102) in amount from 0.25-5 wt.% (paragraph 0103). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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).
Regarding claim 21, Chiffey discloses second support material optionally doped with a dopant and therefore dopant is not required and can be substantially free of lanthanum (paragraph 0102).
Regarding claim 22, Chiffey discloses second refractory metal oxide support material comprising manganese (paragraph 0104).
Regarding Claim 23, Chiffey discloses manganese component is supported on first refractory metal oxide support material and PGM component supported on second refractory metal oxide support material in weight ratio of 20:1 to 1:1 (paragraphs 0056-0057, 0099). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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).
Regarding claim 25, Chiffey discloses the oxidation catalyst comprising of PGM comprising palladium, platinum; a manganese component (paragraphs 0056-0057) and PGM supported on a second refractory oxide support material comprising alumina, silica doped alumina, titania, zirconia in amount from 1 to 40% (paragraphs 0100, 0105, 0107, 0108) but does not explicitly disclose or suggest the manganese in amount by weight, on an oxide basis, from about 0.1 to about 40% based on the first refractory metal oxide support material.
However, Chiffey discloses the weight ratio of Mn:Pt 5:1 to 0.2:1 (paragraph 0056-0061) and further discloses manganese loading in amount of 5 to 500 g/ft3 (paragraph 0058), therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of applicant invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges, which includes the range of 0.1 wt.% to about 40 wt.% of manganese through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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).
Regarding Claim 27, Chiffey discloses oxidation catalyst composition is free of copper as Chiffey does not disclose oxidation catalyst containing copper.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant remarks on pages 9-11, filed on 12/02/2025 with respect to the rejections of Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) over Chiffey et al. (US PG PUB No.: 2015/0202611 Al) and Claims 2, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18-23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Chiffey et al. (US PG PUB No.: 2015/0202611 Al) are persuasive and therefore the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration and further amendment (which includes claim limitation of first refractory metal oxide support material further comprises ceria in an amount by weight from about 1% to about 10%) filed by applicant which constituted a new ground(s) of rejection for Claims 1-13, 15, 18-23, 25, 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Chiffey et al (US PGPUB No.: 2015/0202611 A1) in view of Dang et al (US PGPUB No.: 2011/0044874 A1) as set forth above and therefore applicant’s argument are moot in related to Chiffey does not disclose the first refractory metal oxide support material further comprises ceria in an amount by weight from about 1% to about 10%. Applicant has moved claim 26 limitation into claim 1 and further narrowed the range of claim 26 from about 1-50 wt.% to about 1-10wt% in the amendment filed on 12/02/2025. Chiffey disclosing oxidation catalyst comprising PGM component comprising palladium, platinum or a combination thereof, a manganese component and a first refractory metal oxide material comprising zirconia and ceria while Dang discloses oxidation catalyst comprising PGM component comprising palladium, platinum or combination thereof and first refractory metal oxide comprising ceria, zirconia in amount from about 10-95 wt.% which overlaps claimed range therefore the combination of Chiffey in view Dang discloses presently claimed invention as set forth above in the rejections.
Further, amendment to claims overcomes the claim objections of record.
Further, amendment to the claims 2-3, 10-11 overcomes the 112(b) rejections of record. However, amendment necessitated new 112(b) rejection of claims 9-10 and new rejection of claim 11 for the lower and upper range for Pt and/or Pd.
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 SMITA S PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5837. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM EST M-W.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached on 5712705713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SMITA S PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 03/03/2026