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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/12/26 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-20, filed 3/12/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under Final have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the reference below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 16, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiegetsu (JP 2009/007942), EPO Version for text and JP version for figures and in view of Sung (CN 109641196) and further in view of Wang (CA 3021153).
As to Claims 1 and 19, Shiegetsu describes a CO oxidation catalyst at 31 and a three-way catalyst at 32 (para. 62, 63 and Fig. 2). The CO oxidation catalyst is between the engine and the TWC. The CO oxidation catalyst can comprise a Pd metal on a support (para. 51). The three-way catalyst can be considered a three-way conversion segment that contains a three way catalyst. The CO oxidation catalyst can be considered an oxidation segment containing a high temperature tolerant oxidation catalyst.
The oxidation catalyst of Shiegetsu includes a platinum metal supported on an oxygen release material (para. 30).
The reference does not teach that this oxygen release material includes a pore volume of the first alumina-based material of 0.8 to 1.2 cc/g.
As to the alumina in the oxidation catalyst, Sung describes a palladium-based oxidation catalyst (title). The catalyst includes a platinum metal (page 3, para. 3, with the option of including other metals in the catalyst) on an oxygen storage component combined with a refractory metal oxide component (page 3, para. 4). In one embodiment, Sung teaches Pd impregnated into an alumina (see embodiment 1) where the alumina pore volume is from 0.8-0.9 cc/g (see embodiment 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an alumina with a pore volume of 0.8-0.9 cc/g, as taught by Sung for use with the oxidation catalyst of Shiegetsu because use of this Pd support is known to lead to predictable and expected results when used in an oxidation catalyst.
Shiegetsu teaches that in addition to the oxidation catalyst, there is a three-way catalyst (see above). The reference does not describe the composition of the three-way catalyst.
Wang describes a three-way catalyst (abstract) made up of a platinum group metal supported on a porous refractory oxide support (abstract). The refractory support can include alumina and can be stabilized and/or modified by another metal oxide, such as Ce (page 2, lines 30-35), which can be added to the support in an amount of 5-75wt% (page 9, lines 32-33). As to the pore volume, Wang teaches that the pore volume is from 0.5 to 3 ml/g (page 11, lines 20-22).
It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second alumina support for the Pt component of the three way catalyst that has a pore volume of 0.5 to 3 ml/g, as taught by Wang for use with the Pt component of the three way catalyst of Shiegetsu, Sung and Wang because adding a support with these features is known to be effective for use for a three way catalyst.
As to Claim 4, Sung teaches in one embodiment that there is just Pd and alumina (see embodiment 1). Therefore, the amount of rare earth can be zero.
As to Claim 7, Sung teaches that the oxidation catalyst is coated on a substrate (see page 16, third to last paragraph “method for coating substrate”). The catalyst that is coated onto the substrate may have the composition shown in embodiment 1. The composition of embodiment can be considered a first active layer.
As to Claim 9, Shiegetsu teaches use of a CO oxidation catalyst that has a metal, such as Pd on a support (para. 51). In some examples, the support can be a rare earth oxide (para. 62), which is a ceramic.
As to Claim 11, Shiegetsu teaches Pd on an alumina support on the three-way catalyst (para. 45). Alumina is a ceramic.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiegestu, Sung and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kang (KR 2008/0010018).
Sung teaches that the alumina carrier has a BET surface area of 60-350 ,2/g (page 11, para. 3) but does not teach the other features.
Kang describes a catalyst for purifying waste gases from a vehicle (title) that employs a Pd supported on a gamma-alumina carrier (abstract). The gamma-alumina carrier is aged for 4 hours at a temperature of 1015 degrees C to produce an alumina carrier with a specific surface area of not less than 120 m2/g (abstract). In the background, Kang explains that alumina, which is used as a carrier for oxidation catalysts, has a problem in that the specific surface area is not sufficiently large so that the efficiency of absorbing precious metals is not good, and the thermal stability is poor (see Background, para. 2). As a solution to this, Kang explains using an alumina carrier that has a higher specific surface area (“tech-solution”, para. 2, 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an alumina carrier with a high specific surface area after aging at 1015 degrees C for 4 hours of not less than 120 m2/g, as taught by Kang for use with the oxidation catalyst of Shiegetsu, Sung and Wang because use of an alumina carrier in an oxidation catalyst with these features have improved thermal stability and has a higher precious metal absorbing efficiency.
As to the method steps, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same device used the same way would be able to perform the same method steps.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiegestu, Sung, Wang and Kang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hoke (BR Pl1015175).
The references do not describe use of gamma alumina.
Hoke describes an oxidation catalyst for treating exhaust gas (title). The catalyst is effective in oxidizing CO (page 3, last full para). This can be considered a CO oxidation catalyst since it oxidizing CO. Hoke explains that Pt is the catalytic element that oxidizes CO in a DOC, but that use of Pt can sometimes have some limitations (page 3, last full para). As a result, Hoke explains that Pd may be more desirable for use because of its lower cost (page 4, first para). As a result, their oxidation catalyst can comprise Pd (or a mixture with Pt) (page 7, last full para) on a refractory metal oxide support (page 7, last full para). Useable refractory metal oxide supports can include gamma alumina with a BET surface area of 60 m2/g to 200 m2/g (page 8, para. 4).
Since a specific surface area of not less than 120 m2/g is preferred, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ gamma alumina with a surface area of 60-200 m2/g, as taught by Hoke for use with Shiegestu, Sung, Wang and Kang because this surface area is known to be effective for use in an oxidation catalyst for reducing pollutants in an exhaust gas stream.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiegestu, Sung, Wang and Kang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sung (WO 2014/026203), Sung II.
The references do not describe the amount of Pd used.
Sung II describes an oxidation catalyst used in reducing pollutants, such as CO (abstract) by oxidation (para. 6). Their catalyst uses a top washcoat and a bottom washcoat (para. 6). The bottom washcoat can include a Pt and Pd element and the top washcoat can include just Pt (para. 6). The oxidation catalyst can be supported with a refractory metal oxide compound (para. 8). As to the amount of Pd used, Sung teaches that the bottom washcoat can include 1% Pd (para. 57) or 0.9% (para. 62) and the top washcoat can include no Pd (para. 59, 64). This lowers the potential for sintering/aggregation of the metals during use (para. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Pd in an amount of 1 or 0.9% with an amount of Pt, as taught by Sung II for use with the product of Shiegestu, Sung, Wang and Kang because these amounts are effective for use in an oxidation catalyst for the reduction of pollutants.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiegestu, Sung, Wang and Kang as applied to claim 2 above, and in view of Sung II (WO 2014/026203) and further in view of Brand (US Pat.: 4744967).
The references do not teach the features of Claim 6.
Sung II teaches use of two oxidation catalyst segments (a bottom washcoat and a top washcoat) (para. 6). This can be considered “at least two oxidation segments”. In one embodiment, the top washcoat can be placed on a carrier over the bottom washcoat (para. 60). Similarly, the bottom washcoat can also be placed on a refractory carrier (para. 58). This structure is superior because use of a single layer may produce sintering of the catalytic components and aggregation of the catalyst, which then reduces catalytic performance (para. 4).
Sung II does not describe the distance between the two segments.
Brand describes a system used treating pollutants in an exhaust gas (abstract and col. 1, lines 5-10). The catalyst can include an oxidation catalyst (col. 7, line 63).
The carrier used for the oxidation catalyst has the dimensions of 150mm x 150 mm x 150mm (col. 7, lines 64-66). Further, Brand explains that the distance between identical catalysts was fixed at 160mm and when using two different catalysts, the distance is 200mm (col. 8, lines 1-2). Therefore, since the two oxidation catalysts are different and they are on refractory carriers known to be about 150mm3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that use of these known carriers on each oxidation catalysts would produce a distance of at least 150mm to 200mm.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a carrier for use with the oxidation catalyst that has the dimensions 150mm x 150 mm x 150 mm, as taught by Brand for use with the oxidation catalyst of Shiegestu, Sung, Wang and Kang using two layers, as taught by Sung II, which would produce a distance of 150mm between the catalysts because Sung II explains that use of layers reduces aggregation and sintering the catalyst particles.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiegestu, Sung, Wang and Kang as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sakane (JP H09108567).
The reference describes use of a binder (see Sung, page 16, second to last para that describes use of alumina binders), but does not describe use of a aluminum gel and/or a silica gel.
Sakane discusses the prior art and explains that oxidation catalysts are known to be combined with inorganic binders, such as silica gels, which can be used to shape the catalyst into a variety of shapes of coatings (para. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include silica gel, as taught by Sakane for use with the oxidation catalyst of Shiegestu, Sung, Wang and Kang because silica gel is a known and effective binder for use in shaping oxidation catalysts to the desired shape and dimensions.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiegetsu, Sung, Wang, Kang and Brand as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Chiffey (WO 2020/260669).
The references describe use of Pd supported on alumina (see above), but they do not describe a ratio of Pd to the substrate is a range of 3-50g:1 ft3.
Chiffey describes an oxidation catalyst (title) for use in treating exhaust gases (abstract). The catalyst includes a platinum group metal loaded on a substrate in an amount of 5-60 g/ft3 (col. 32, lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the platinum group metal of over Shiegetsu, Sung, Wang, Kang and Brand in an amount of 5-60 g per 1 ft3, as taught by Chiffey because this amount is known to be effective for use in an oxidation catalyst.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiegetsu, Sung and Wang as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Hara (CN 111565837).
Shiegetsu teaches use of binders, such as zirconium (para. 63), but not of the ones listed in Claim 12.
Hara describes an exhaust gas purification means (title). The means includes a three way catalyst (page 3, section 1). The catalyst can include a platinum group metal supported on a base (see step 6 on page 4). In addition, Hara explains that additives can be used, which can include binders, such as alumina and silica gels or zirconia gels (page 12, para. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an alumina or silica gel in place of the zirconia gel of Shiegetsu, Sung and Wang as taught by Hara because Hara explains that use of an alumina or silica gel is a known alternative to zirconia gel.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiegetsu, Sung and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Makino (EP 3673997).
Shiegetsu describes the composition above for use as a three-way catalyst, but the reference does not describe all the features of Claim 13.
Makino describes the prior art that uses a Pd layer on a support for use in reducing HC, CO and NOx gases (para. 6, 3) and explains that mere disposing the catalyst layers on the support may result in reduction in efficiency and/or an increase in pressure drop (para. 6). As an improvement to this, Makino teaches using a catalyst that has a first catalyst layer comprising Rh with a second catalyst layer containing Pd, which also enhances purification performance (para. 12). In their catalyst composition, Makino describes a first catalyst layer that can comprise Rh (para. 36). The first catalyst layer is supported on an inorganic material, such as ceria-zirconia (para. 37). The Rh-containing composition may be placed inside the pores of the partition wall (para. 57). The partition wall can be considered the porous matrix material. The Ce-Zr can be considered an oxygen storage material. The first catalyst slurry is then coated with the second catalyst slurry (para. 56). The second catalyst slurry contains Pd (para. 47) and can include other metals, such as Pt (para. 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a layered catalyst with a Rh in one layer and Pd in another layer, where the Rh is supported on a ceria-zirconia support and placed inside the pores of the partition wall, and where the Pd includes Pt component, as taught by Makino for use with the three way catalyst of Shiegetsu, Sung and Wang because this structure is known to be effective for use as a three way catalyst.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiegetsu, Sung, Wang and Makino as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Onuki (WO 2019/163435).
The references do not teach that the three-way catalyst includes an alumina with the features of Claim 14.
Onuki describes a three-way catalyst (title) that includes palladium and a base material (Claim 1). Onuki explains that the three-way catalyst includes an alumina having a specific surface area of 50-300 m2/g (Claim 1). In addition, Onuki teaches that the catalyst can include Ce-Zr (Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to support the Pd catalyst on an alumina support that has a specific surface area of 50-300 m2/g, as taught by Onuki for use with the three way catalyst of Shiegetsu, Sung, Wang and Makino because these characteristics are effective for use in a three way catalyst for treating exhaust gases.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiegetsu, Sung, Wang, Makino and Onuki as applied to claim 14 above, and in view of Wang (CA 3021153).
The references teach inclusion of a Pd component and a Pt component. Onuki teaches supporting the Pd component with an alumina support, but the references do not teach inclusion of second support for the Pt component with the characteristics of Claim 14.
Wang describes a three-way catalyst (abstract) made up of a platinum group metal supported on a porous refractory oxide support (abstract). The refractory support can include alumina and can be stabilized and/or modified by another metal oxide, such as Ce (page 2, lines 30-35), which can be added to the support in an amount of 5-75wt% (page 9, lines 32-33). As to the pore volume, Wang teaches that the pore volume is from 0.5 to 3 ml/g (page 11, lines 20-22).
It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second alumina support for the Pt component of the three way catalyst that has a pore volume of 0.5 to 3 ml/g, as taught by Wang for use with the Pt component of the three way catalyst of Shiegetsu, Sung, Wang, Makino and Onuki because adding a support with these features is known to be effective for use for a three-way catalyst.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiegetsu, Sung, Wang and Makino as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Liu (WO 2020/121245).
Shiegetsu does not describe that their three-way catalyst contains a second substrate with a second active layer, where the ratio of noble metal to substrate is from (3-50): 1 ft3.
Liu describes a three-way catalyst (abstract and title) that is made up of a platinum group metal (para. 6) on a support and an oxygen storage component (para. 8). As to the loading amount, Liu teaches that the amount of Pd in the first and second layer and Rh in the third layer amount to 5-200 g/ft3, plus 0-80 g/ft3, plus 0.2 to 30 g/ft3 (para. 8). This totals 5.01 to 280.04 g/ft3 (para. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second substrate to support the other platinum group metals, so that the ratio of metal to substrate amounts to 5-280 g/ft3, as taught by Liu for use with Shiegetsu, Sung, Wang and Makino because loading the other platinum metals in this amount is known to be effective in three way catalysts.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiegetsu, Sung, Wang and Makino as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of He (CN 111939905).
Shiegetsu does not teach that their three way catalyst has the features of Claim 18.
He describes a catalyst for treating exhaust gas (title). He explains that when the catalyst is a three way catalyst, the amount of palladium to rhodium added to the catalyst is from 4-6:1 (see page 3, lines 11-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add rhodium in a ratio to palladium in a range of 4-6:1, as taught by He for use with the three way catalyst of Shiegetsu, Sung, Wang and Makino because this range is effective for use in three way catalysts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 May 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights