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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 5-7 and 9-11 are currently under examination. Claims 1-4 and 8 are withdrawn from consideration. No claims are newly amended, added and cancelled.
Previous Grounds of Rejection
Regarding claims 5-7 and 9-11, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 2014/;0072493 A1), and in view of Liu et al. (CN 103055930 B) stands.
Previous Grounds of Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 5-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 2014/;0072493 A1), and in view of Liu et al. (CN 103055930 B, Machine-generated (PE2E) English translation is attached).
Regarding claim 5, Kato et al. teach a catalyst for exhaust gas purification comprising precious metals and oxide mixture of ZrO2 (5% mass of zirconia)([0200]), 94% mass of alumina as the instant claim ([0067] and [02000]) supported on a three-dimension structure of a refractory inorganic oxide supported on the catalyst (three-dimensional structure) such as zeolite (ZSM-5) ([0089]-[0090]) or three-dimensional structure honeycomb carrier ([0127]-[0131] and [0148]).
Although Kato et al do not specifically a content 3-14% mass of phosphorus oxide as per applicant claim 5, Liu et al. teach a catalyst composite comprising Al2O3 and about 1-5 mass% of phosphorus oxide which is encompassed by the instant claimed ranges of 3-14% mass in terms of PO4 (Table 1 and claims 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine phosphorus oxide taught by Liu et al. in the composite taught by Kato et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 5, motivated by the fact that it has a higher degree of dispersion at the same time adjusting the acidity of the catalyst, thereby improving the activity, selectivity and prolongs the service life of the catalyst ([0019]).
Since both of Kato et al. and Liu et al. teach alumina supported precious metals, one would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, the combined references of Kato et al and Liu et al teach precious metals of Pt, Pd, and a mass ratio of the Pt to Pd is preferably 1:1 (Kato et al., [0085]).
Regarding claim 7, the metal oxide have diameter <10 nm which is encompassed by the instant claimed rages determined by X-ray diffractometry ([0054]).
Although the combined references of Liu et al. and Kato et al. do not specifically disclose using a CuKα as per applicant claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to choose a ray for XRD measurement including CuKα ray as the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, the catalyst composite taught by Kato et al. comprises 5% mass of zirconia and more ([0200]), 94% mass of alumina, % zirconia (Kato et al. ([0200]), and about 1-5 mass% of phosphorus oxide (Liu et al. Table 1). As such, the combined references of Kato et al. and Liu et al. teach the instant claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 10, since the combined reference of Liu et al. and Kato et al. teach all of the claimed reagents and composition, the physical properties of the resulting composition (i.e., an amount of desorbed NH3 in an ammonia TPD measurement is 43-150 µmol/g of Al-P composite oxide, etc.) would necessarily follow as set forth in MPEP 2112.01(II).[1]
Regarding claim 11, the specific surface area taught by the combined references of Kato et al. and Liu et al. is 80-380 m2/g which overlaps the instant claimed ranges.
The references differ from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges (170-300 m2/g). However, the reference discloses "overlapping" ranges or “close” range, and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
With regards to the previous Grounds of Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/01/2026 with respect to claims 5-7 and 9-11 have been considered but are not persuasive. The examiner would like to take this opportunity to address the Applicant's arguments.
Applicant argued Liu is non-analogous art to the presently claimed invention, and Liu thus unsuitable for use in assessing patentability of the instant claimed invention on the grounds of obviousness (Remarks, pages 4-6).
The Office respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Liu is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, as discussion above, Liu et al. teach a catalyst composite comprising Al2O3 and about 1-5 mass% of phosphorus oxide which is encompassed by the instant claimed ranges of 3-14% mass in terms of PO4 (Table 1 and claims 1-12). It has been held that a prior art reference of Liu is in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned in Al2O3 supported catalyst , in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention.
Kato et al. teach a catalyst for exhaust gas purification comprising precious metals and oxide mixture of ZrO2 (5% mass of zirconia)([0200]), 94% mass of alumina as the instant claim ([0067] and [02000]) supported on a three-dimension structure of a refractory inorganic oxide supported on the catalyst (three-dimensional structure) such as zeolite (ZSM-5) ([0089]-[0090]) or three-dimensional structure honeycomb carrier ([0127]-[0131] and [0148]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine phosphorus oxide taught by Liu et al. in the composite taught by Kato et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 5, motivated by the fact that it has a higher degree of dispersion at the same time adjusting the acidity of the catalyst, thereby improving the activity, selectivity and prolongs the service life of the catalyst ([0019]).
Since both of Kato et al. and Liu et al. teach alumina supported precious metals, one would have a reasonable expectation of success.
As such, the rejection of claim 5 as set forth in the office action mailed 02/03/2026, is proper and stands.
The rejection for the remaining claims were either directly or indirectly dependent thereon stands.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YUN QIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm.
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 A 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.
YUN . QIAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1738
/YUN QIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
[1][1] “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Prosecution Insights