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 .
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 2, 15, and 17-19 is 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.
In claim 2, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation “upstream from the second zone” is required by the claim.
Each of claims 15, and 17-19, recite multiple ranges of the same property under the alternative “or”. The multiple ranges render the claims indefinite as to which range should be applied. For the purpose of examination, the broadest range will be applied.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-10, 17, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karpov US 20190240643.
Regarding claim 1, Karpov teaches a zoned catalytic article (Abstract). The article may have a first and a second zone (Fig. 5). The catalyst for the two separate zones may include a platinum group metal, such as platinum (Paragraph [0054]), in a first zone and palladium with rhodium (Paragraph [0072]) in a second zone. The catalysts in both zones are supported on supports such as refractory metal oxide supports (Paragraphs [0051] and [0054]). Both zones may be layers over a common substrate (Fig. 5, Item 22).
Regarding claim 2, the first and second zone may each be upstream or downstream (Paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 3, the second zone may include palladium and rhodium without additional platinum groups metals (Paragraphs [0051] and [0072]).
Regarding claim 5, Karpov teaches that the catalyst article may have two zones and two different layers (Fig. 7). Layer 44 of Fig. 7 of Karpov may be understood as the bottom layer for both a first zone (Item 46) and a second zone (Item 48). Each of the layers may form a first, second, and third catalyst composition (Paragraph [0073]), wherein each composition is selected from two types of catalyst compositions, a Pd-Rh composition (Paragraph [0075]) and a platinum group metal (PGM) (Paragraph [0090]) containing composition, which may include amounts of platinum, rhodium, and/or palladium (Paragraph [0054]). Thus, both the top and bottom layers of the second zone must contain at least one of rhodium, platinum, or palladium.
Regarding claims 8-10, each of the platinum group metals in all the layers are supported on supports of a refractory metal oxide, such as baria doped alumina or ceria zirconia, which is an oxygen storage material (Paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 17, the zone having Pd-Rh may have a palladium loading of 46 g/ft^3 and rhodium loading of 4 g/ft^3 (Paragraph [0114]).
Regarding claim 20, the substrate may be a wall-flow substrate (Paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 21, the catalyst may be used downstream of a gasoline engine (Paragraph [0014]).
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) 6-7, 12-13, 15, 18-19, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karpov US 20190240643.
Regarding claim 6, Karpov teaches that the catalyst article may have two zones and two different layers (Fig. 7). Layer 44 of Fig. 7 of Karpov may be understood as the bottom layer for both a first zone (Item 46) and a second zone (Item 48). Each of the layers may form a first, second, and third catalyst composition (Paragraph [0073]), wherein each composition is selected from two types of catalyst compositions, a Pd-Rh composition (Paragraph [0075]) and a platinum group metal (PGM) (Paragraph [0090]) containing composition, which may include amounts of platinum, rhodium, and/or palladium (Paragraph [0054]).
Karpov does not expressly state the catalytic arrangement of claim 6.
However, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to select at least an arrangement where the catalyst composition of at least one of Fig. 7 Item 48 is the Pd-Rh composition (Paragraph [0075]) and Fig. 7 Item 44 is a platinum group metal (PGM) (Paragraph [0090]) containing composition, which would meet the features of claim 6. The rationale for doing so would have been a combination of a few known catalytic composition alternatives disclosed in Karpov that would have provided predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 7, Karpov teaches that the catalyst article may have two zones and two different layers (Fig. 7). Layer 44 of Fig. 7 of Karpov may be understood as the bottom layer for both a first zone (Item 46) and a second zone (Item 48). Each of the layers may form a first, second, and third catalyst composition (Paragraph [0073]), wherein each composition is selected from two types of catalyst compositions, a Pd-Rh composition (Paragraph [0075]) and a platinum group metal (PGM) (Paragraph [0090]) containing composition, which may include amounts of platinum, rhodium, and/or palladium (Paragraph [0054]).
Karpov does not expressly state the catalytic arrangement of claim 7.
However, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to select at least an arrangement where the catalyst composition of Fig. 7 Item 48 and 44, wherein both layers are a platinum group metal (PGM) (Paragraph [0090]) containing composition. The PGM composition may include combinations of platinum, palladium and rhodium (Paragraph [0054]), which would meet the features of claim 7. The rationale for doing so would have been a combination of a few known catalytic composition alternatives disclosed in Karpov that would have provided predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 12, Karpov teaches that the catalyst article may have two zones and two different layers (Fig. 7). Layer 44 of Fig. 7 of Karpov may be understood as the bottom layer for both a first zone (Item 46) and a second zone (Item 48). Each of the layers may form a first, second, and third catalyst composition (Paragraph [0073]), wherein each composition is selected from two types of catalyst compositions, a Pd-Rh composition (Paragraph [0075]) and a platinum group metal (PGM) (Paragraph [0090]) containing composition, which may include amounts of platinum, rhodium, and/or palladium (Paragraph [0054]).
Karpov does not expressly state the catalytic arrangement of claim 12.
However, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to select at least an arrangement where the catalyst composition of each of Fig. 7 Item 46, 48 and 44 is a platinum group metal (PGM) (Paragraph [0090]) containing composition. The PGM composition may include combinations of platinum, palladium and rhodium (Paragraph [0054]), which would meet the features of claim 12. The rationale for doing so would have been a combination of a few known catalytic composition alternatives disclosed in Karpov that would have provided predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 13, Karpov teaches that catalyst article may have two zones and two different layers (Fig. 7). Layer 44 in Fig. 7 of Karpov may be understood as the bottom layer of both a first zone (Item 46) and a second zone (Item 48), on a substrate (Item 42). Each of the layers may form a first, second, and third catalyst composition (Paragraph [0073]), which are each is selected from two types of catalyst compositions, a Pd-Rh composition (Paragraph [0075]) and a platinum group metal (PGM) (Paragraph [0090]) containing composition. Karpov also teaches a variety of support materials such as refractory metal oxides (Paragraph [0055]) and oxygen storage materials (Paragraph [0059]).
Karpov does not expressly state the catalytic arrangement of claim 13.
However, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to select at least an arrangement where the catalyst composition of Fig. 7 could include a platinum group metal (PGM) (Paragraph [0090]) containing composition supported on a refractory metal oxide and an oxygen storage component as Item 46, Pd-Rh composition (Paragraph [0075]) supported on a refractory metal oxide and an oxygen storage component as Item 48 and a platinum group metal (PGM) (Paragraph [0090]) containing composition supported on a refractory metal oxide and an oxygen storage component as Item 44 which would meet the features of claim 13. The rationale for doing so would have been a combination of a few known catalytic composition alternatives disclosed in Karpov that would have provided predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 15, Karpov does not expressly state the platinum loading. However, paragraph [0119] describes the formation of a platinum group metal (PGM) (Paragraph [0090]) containing composition, wherein a palladium loading is 39.2 g/ft^3 (Paragraph [0019]). Karpov teaches that platinum is a suitable alternative to palladium in this layer (Paragraph [0054]). Thus, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that use of platinum the formation of this layer would have similar loading to achieve similar results. Thus, a loading amount of 39.2 g/ft^3 for platinum was obvious at the time of invention.
Regarding claim 18, the amount of rhodium in the second zone may be 0.1 wt% to about 2 wt% (Paragraph [0051]), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “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 19, the amount of rhodium and/or palladium in the second zone may be 0.1 wt% to about 2 wt% (Paragraph [0051]) and the amount of platinum in the first zone may be 0.1 to 20% (Paragraph [0054]), the combination of these two ranges, when combined form a ratio range of Pt loading in the first zone to PGM loading in the second zone that overlap the range of ratios recited in claim 19. In the case where the claimed ranges “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 22-23, the catalyst may be used downstream of a gasoline engine (Paragraph [0014]).
Karpov does not expressly state that that the gasoline engine is a motorcycle engine. However, it is well known that motorcycle engines may be gasoline engines thus the use of the catalyst in a motorcycle would be obvious having predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach or suggest the features of claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A FIORITO whose telephone number is (571)272-9921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/JAMES A FIORITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731