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Claims 20-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 30, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on January 30,2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups are related as [insert relationship here] 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 [insert relationship here] 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.
Claims 3-8 and 15-17 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 3 recites the broad recitation "the front zone of the top layer comprises about 20 to about 70% of the substrate length and the rear zone of the top layer comprises about 30 to about 80% of the substrate length", and the claim also recites "the front zone of the top layer comprises about 30 to about 50% of the substrate length and the rear zone of the top layer comprises about 50 to about 70% of the substrate length." 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 4 recites the broad recitation "range of about 2 : 3 to about 1: 200", and the claim also recites "about 1 : 3 to about 1:10" 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 5 recites the broad recitation "the palladium and platinum components in the layered catalytic article may be in the range of about 2 : 3 to about 1: 200", and the claim also recites "about 1 : 3 to about 1:10" 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 6 recites the broad recitation "the rhodium component in the layered catalytic article is in the range of about 10 : 1 : 0.2 to about 2 : 1 : 1 " , and the claim also recites “about 5 : 1 : 0.5 to about 2 : 1 : 1, calculated as respective elements” 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 7 recites the broad recitation "front zone of the top layer at a Pd/Rh weight ratio in the range of about 50 : 1 to about 1: 1", and the claim also recites " about 4: 1 to about 2 : 1" 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 8 recites the broad recitation "rear zone of the top layer at a Pt/Rh weight ratio in the range of about 10 : 1 to about 1 : 5", and the claim also recites "or about 1.5: 1 to about 1 : 1.5" 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 15 recites the broad recitation " bottom layer comprises about 50% to about 95%", and the claim also recites "about 70% to about 95% " 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 "top layer comprises about 50% to about 90%", and the claim also recites "about 60% to about 80%" 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 17 recites the broad recitation “about 30% to about 70%”, and the claim also recites "or about 40% to about 60%" 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 § 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) 1,2,4,9,10, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong (CN 101700497 A), and further in view of Hilgendroff (CN 103097021 A).
Regarding claims 1,2,9, and 10, Kong discloses a catalyst with two active layers, layer A (bottom layer) is comprised of platinum and palladium while layer B (top layer) is comprised of platinum, palladium, and rhodium (Kong[0016]). Within these layers the Pd/Pt ratio is 2-2.33 (Kong[0016]). However, Kong does not explicitly disclose the presence of a substrate nor do they mention the use of a support for the active layers.
In Hilgendroff, the prior art uses substrates in the formation of a three-way catalyst. One example of a substrate is in the form of a ceramic honeycomb structure (Hilgendroff [0017]). Furthermore, the prior art mentions the use of a support layer made up of alumina (a refractory metal oxide) between the active layers of the catalyst acting as a support (Hilgendroff [0179]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a ceramic honeycomb structure as a substrate and alumina as a support in Hilgendroff, to Kong to yield a predictable result (a three-way catalyst).
Regarding claim 4, Kong discloses the weight ratio of the palladium to platinum which is 2-2.33 (Kong[0016]). Therefore, this disclosure meets the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the weight ratio of the palladium and platinum components to be between 2-4.
Regarding claim 19, Kong does not disclose the properties of a substrate used to manufacture the catalyst. However, Hilgendroff discloses the use of a substrate that is a flow through single material (Hilgendroff[018]). With both references focusing on the synthesis of a three-way catalyst, one of ordinary skill in the art can apply the teachings of Hilgendroff to Kong, as a replacement for the metal honeycomb support.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3,5-8, and 11-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In the prior art Kong discloses a catalyst with two active layers, layer A (bottom layer) is comprised of platinum and palladium while layer B (top layer) is comprised of platinum, palladium, and rhodium (Kong[0016]). Within these layers the Pd/Pt ratio is 2-2.33 (Kong[0016]). Furthermore, Hilgendroff discloses the use of a substrate in the form of a ceramic honeycomb structure (Hilgendroff [0017]) with a support layer made up of alumina (a refractory metal oxide) between the active layers of the catalyst (Hilgendroff [0179]).
However, regarding claims 3,5-8, and 11-18, the prior references do not describe the application of the front and rear zones of the layers being a portion of the substrate’s length nor do they mention the change in composition between the front and rear of the top and bottom layer. In Kong, while they disclose the weight ratio between palladium and platinum they do not disclose the weight ratio of rhodium content in relation to other components in the catalyst. Furthermore, while Kong and Hilgendroff mentions the use of a substrates and active layers comprising of platinum group metals they do not disclose the use of an oxygen storage components as required in claim 11. It is for these reasons that the claims are considered nonobvious and novel.
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
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights