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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6 are pending in the application. Claim 7 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 5, filed 12/02/2025, with respect to the rejection of amended claim 1 under U.S.C 102 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Shirakawa et al (US 20160214088 A1).
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machida et al (WO 2017033994 A1, machine translation used for citations) in view of Shirakawa et al (US 20160214088 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Machida discloses the catalytic converter of the present invention is a processed product of the above-mentioned metal foil catalyst (Pg. 23 last par.). Such a catalytic converter can sufficiently purify exhaust gases from gasoline-powered vehicles (Pg. 23 last par.-Pg. 24 top par. meeting limitation “An exhaust purification device which is provided in an exhaust passage of an internal combustion engine, and purifies exhaust gas of the internal combustion engine”). Such catalytic converters include, for example, metal honeycomb catalysts (Pg. 23 last par. meeting limitation “a metal support having a flow path in which the exhaust gas flows”). In particular, catalytic converters, which are processed metal foil catalysts in which a rhodium-containing catalytic layer is provided on a metal foil made of heat-resistant stainless steel, are particularly suitable for use in gasoline powered vehicles (Pg. 24 top par. Meeting limitation “and a catalyst layer formed on a surface of the metal support, wherein the catalyst layer includes a noble metal”).
Machida does not disclose “a metal having a different crystal structure than the noble metal, and has a content of the metal having a different crystal structure than the noble metal of at least 5% by mass and no more than 55% by mass”
Shirakawa discloses an exhaust gas purification catalyst which has fine composite metal particles containing a platinum-group metal and tungsten (abstract meeting limitation “a metal having a different crystal structure than the noble metal”). According to the method of the present invention, the powdered support supports the fine composite metal particles ([0058]). Table 1 discloses Example 1 contents are 91.3 at% Pd and 8.7 at% W. Example 2 contents are 80.5 at% Pd and 19.5 at% W (Pg. 7).
Example 1
91.3 at% Pd
MW Pd = 106.42
Mass of Pd 91.3 x 106.42 = 9716.15 g
8.7 at% W
MW W = 183.84
Mass of W
8.7 x 183.84 = 1599.41 g
Total mass
11315.6 g
W mass %
14.1
Example 2
80.5 at% Pd
80.5 x 106.42 = 8566.81 g
19.5 at% W
19.5 x 183.84 = 3584.88 g
12151.7 g
29.5
Therefore, Shirakawa discloses a content of tungsten, i.e. the metal having a different crystal structure than the noble metal, of 14.1 mass% and 29.5 mass%, both of which are within the claimed range of at least 5% by mass and no more than 55% by mass.
Regarding the limitation “a metal having a different crystal structure than the noble metal,” the instant specification discloses Pt, Pd and Rh have a face-centered cubic lattice structure (Pg. 6 par. 5), while W has a body-centered cubic lattice structure (Pg. 7 par. 1). Therefore, Shirakawa’s disclosure of Pd and W fine metal particles is a disclosure of a metal having a different crystal structure than the noble metal.
Shirakawa further discloses the tungsten content of a plurality of the fine composite metal particles in the exhaust gas purification catalyst of the present invention is essentially uniform throughout the entirety, such that particle growth of a plurality of fine particles is homogeneously inhibited even under the high temperature mentioned above, thereby making it possible to minimize the use of precious metals such as platinum ([0043]). Consequently, while in the prior art excesses of fine particles of platinum or the like have been used as catalysts in anticipation of the lowered catalytic activity that occurs with particle growth of the fine metal particles, the exhaust gas purification catalyst of the present invention has reduced usage of expensive rare metals, and it is thus possible to obtain a low-cost, high-performance, environmentally friendly exhaust gas purification catalyst ([0044]).
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 catalyst layer to include a metal having a different crystal structure than the noble metal, and has a content of the metal having a different crystal structure than the noble metal of at least 5% by mass and no more than 55% by mass in the product of Machida in order to inhibit particle growth and obtain a low-cost, high-performance, environmentally friendly exhaust gas purification catalyst as taught by Shirakawa.
Regarding claim 2, Machida in view of Shirakawa discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Shirakawa discloses an exhaust gas purification catalyst which has fine composite metal particles containing a platinum-group metal and tungsten (abstract). The instant specification discloses W (melting point 3407 °C), on Pg. 6.
Regarding claim 3, Machida in view of Shirakawa discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Machida discloses in particular, catalytic converters, which are processed metal foil catalysts in which a rhodium-containing catalytic layer is provided on a metal foil made of heat-resistant stainless steel, are particularly suitable for use in gasoline powered vehicles (Pg. 24 top par.). Shirakawa discloses an exhaust gas purification catalyst which has fine composite metal particles containing a platinum-group metal and tungsten (abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Machida in view of Shirakawa discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Machida further discloses the metal foil catalyst of the present invention also preferably includes an intermediate layer disposed between the metal foil and the catalyst layer and adjacent to both of them, wherein the catalyst layer is a layer containing rhodium and the intermediate layer is a layer containing zirconium (Pg. 5 par. 3 meeting limitation “further comprising an intermediate layer between the metal support and the catalyst layer, wherein the intermediate layer contains zirconium”).
Regarding claim 5, “formed by vacuum depositing the noble metal and the metal having a different crystal structure than the noble metal” is a product-by-process limitation. 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 product implied by the process steps of “formed by vacuum depositing the noble metal and the metal having a different crystal structure than the noble metal” will be considered when assessing patentability of Claim 5. 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).
Machida in view of Shirakawa discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Machida further discloses an arc evaporation source having a Rh cathode target was placed in a vacuum chamber, and Rh was evaporated onto one side of a heat resistant SUS foil by arc discharge to form a catalyst layer, thereby obtaining metal foil catalysts (Rh/heat-resistant SUS foil catalyst) with different numbers of plasma irradiation shots.
Shirakawa discloses according to the method of the present invention, the fine composite metal particles are dropped into the ionic liquid by sputtering ([0099]). An ionic liquid has advantageous properties such as… it can exist stably as a liquid without vaporizing even under sputtering conditions, such as the vacuum or reduced pressure conditions, of the method of the present invention ([0100]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machida et al (WO 2017033994 A1, machine translation used for citations) in view of Shirakawa et al (US 20160214088 A1) and in further view of Toshiki et al (WO 2022059772 A1, citations from English equivalent US 20230338929 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Machida in view of Shirakawa discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose “further comprising an energizing part which energizes the metal support, wherein the metal support can be heated by way of energizing”.
Toshiki discloses an electrically heated exhaust gas purification catalyst including: a substrate; at least one pair of electrodes provided on the substrate; an undercoat layer provided on the substrate, the undercoat layer containing an aluminum element as a main component; and a catalyst layer provided on the undercoat layer, the catalyst layer containing a noble metal element, wherein the undercoat layer contains a Group 2 element ([0009]). As depicted in FIG. 1, a power supply E is electrically connected to the pair of electrodes 20a and 20b via electrode terminals T, cable C, and the like ([0023]). When the power supply E applies voltage across the pair of electrodes 20a and 20b, electric current is caused to flow through the substrate 10, thus causing the substrate 10 to generate heat by virtue of Joule heat ([0023]). Accordingly, the exhaust gas purification catalyst 1 makes it possible that the temperature of the catalyst layer 40 provided on the substrate 10 is raised before and/or immediately after the start-up of the internal-combustion engine, whereby the exhaust gas purification performance can be sufficiently exerted immediately after the start-up of the internal-combustion engine ([0023]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further comprise an energizing part which energizes the metal support, wherein the metal support can be heated by way of energizing in the product of Machida in view of Shirakawa in order for the catalyst performance to be sufficiently exerted immediately after the start-up of the internal combustion engine as taught by Toshiki.
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