DETAILED ACTION
Claims 5-8 were rejected in Office action mailed 4/30/2025
Applicant filed a response and amended claim 5 on 3/2/2026
Claims 1-12 are pending, of claims 1-4 and 9-12 are withdrawn from consideration
Claims 5-8 are rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claims 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
3. In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “a support” to “the oxide support” in Claim 5 - line 14.
In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “support” to “oxide support” in Claim 5 - line 17 and line 18 and Claim 7 - line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
5. Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 110038549 A) (Yang).
6. The Examiner has provided a machine translation of CN 110038549 A. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
7. Regarding claim 5, Yang teaches a noble metal monatomic catalyst preparation method (Yang, Title) used to catalyze the methane oxidation reaction applied in automobile exhaust gas treatment (i.e. a noble metal single-atomic three-way catalyst) (Yang, p. 7, lines 33-34);
wherein ammonia water (i.e. a nitrogen containing compound) is injected into a reaction solution with dissolved noble metal salts (i.e. treat a noble metal single atomic catalyst precursor) (Yang, Abstract) to obtain a reflux sample (Yang, p. 3, line 2) followed by a dried intermediate product (Yang, p. 3, line 4) that is a carrier intermediate-supported monoatomic noble metal (i.e. noble metal single-atomic catalyst precursor treated with nitrogen containing compound) (Yang, p. 6, line 35);
wherein the carrier (Yang, Abstract; p. 4, lines 38-40) is a high-temperature stable valence oxide (i.e. oxide support) (Yang, p. 7, line 16);
wherein the dried intermediate product is ground and calcined to obtain the oxide-supported noble metal monoatomic catalyst (i.e. noble metal single-atomic three-way catalyst) (Yang, p. 3, lines 6-7).
Yang further teaches the noble metal monoatomic catalyst is atomically disperse (i.e. dispersed in the state of single atomic sites on a support) (Yang, p. 16, line 11)
wherein the noble metals are a combination of one or more of palladium, platinum, gold single metal, and palladium-gold bimetal (Yang, p. 4, line 15-16).
Yang further teaches, the noble metals are supported on the high-temperature stable valence oxide as the carrier (i.e., oxide support) (Yang, Abstract; p. 4, lines 38-40), wherein an example of the high-temperature stable valence oxide is a combination of CeOx and ZrOx (i.e., a ceria-zirconia mixed oxide) (Yang, p. 4, lines 11-12).
Given Yang discloses the noble metal monatomic catalyst preparation method that overlaps the presently claimed method for preparing a noble metal single-atomic three-way catalyst, including a ceria-zirconia mixed oxide support, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the ceria-zirconia high temperature stable valence oxide, which is both disclosed by Yang and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Yang further teaches the ammonia water (i.e. NH3, a nitrogen containing compound) is injected into a reaction solution with dissolved noble metal salts (Yang, Abstract) and then washed with ethanol for one to three times (i.e. alcoholic solution of the nitrogen containing compound) (Yang, p. 3, lines 46-47).
However, Yang does not teach the noble metal single-atomic catalyst precursor is being prepared through the following step: loading a noble metal precursor in a designed load amount on an oxide support and the noble metal precursor is a soluble noble metal inorganic salt, or a noble metal organic salt, or a noble metal complex; alternatively, the noble metal precursor is nitrate, chloride, sulfate, acetate, acetylacetonate or chlorine complex; and soluble means soluble in water or alcohol, wherein the alcohol is methanol or ethanol, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a method of preparing a noble metal single atomic-three way catalyst and not a method of preparing a noble metal single-atomic catalyst precursor. Thus, “[E]ven 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”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
8. Regarding claim 6, Yang further teaches injection of ammonia water with a syringe (i.e. using the nitrogen compound to soak or wash the noble metal single atomic precursor) the mixture is stirred at reflux for 6 hours (Yang, p. 8, line 13)
wherein after the end of the reflux centrifuge separation of the precipitate and solution occurs (i.e. solid-liquid separation) (Yang, p. 8, lines 14-15) to obtain the intermediate product (i.e. noble metal single-atomic catalyst precursor treated with nitrogen containing compound) (Yang, p. 3, line 4)
wherein the intermediate product is dried (Yang, p. 3, line 4) before the dried intermediate product is ground and calcined to obtain the oxide-supported noble metal monoatomic catalyst (Yang, p. 3, lines 6-7)
wherein calcination temperature is calcination temperature is between 350 and 850 °C (Yang p. 7, line 4), which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
9. Regarding claim 8, Yang further teaches the ammonia water (i.e. nitrogen containing compound is an aqueous ammonia) used for injection (Yang, p. 17, line 8) has a concentration of 5 M (Yang, p. 13, line 30)
wherein 5 M ammonia is 8.5 wt.% (see math below), which falls within the claimed range.
5 M ammonia water = (5 mol NH3 / 1 L H2O ) * ( 17 g NH3 / 1 mol NH3 ) * ( 1 L H2O / 1000 mL H2O ) * ( 1 mL H2O / 1 g H2O ) * 100 % = 8.5 wt. % NH3
10. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Aoki et al. (US 20140228209 A1) (Aoki).
11. Regarding claim 7, Yang further teaches the mass of the noble metal is between 0.5% and 10% by mass of the catalyst (Yang, p. 7, line 23), which overlaps with the claimed ranges.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
However, Yang does not teach the support is a mixed oxide of Al2O3 and Zr-Ce-M-Ox oxide.
With respect to the difference, Aoki teaches a method for favorably manufacturing the exhaust gas purification catalyst (i.e. three-way catalyst) (Aoki, [0001]) with a single layer structure (Aoki, [0032]) in a microparticulate form of the noble metal on the porous carrier (i.e. support) (Aoki, [0033])
wherein the carrier (i.e. support) is both alumina (i.e. Al2O3) and a ceria-zirconia (CZ) complex oxide (Aoki, [0008]).
Aoki expressly teaches that carriers (i.e. supports) utilizing the combination of alumina (i.e. Al2O3) and ceria-zirconia complex oxides are useful because they can combine the large specific surface area and high durability possessed by alumina to achieve superior heat resistance with the oxygen storage/release function possessed by the ceria-zirconia complex oxide (Aoki, [0004]).
Yang and Aoki are analogous art as they are all drawn to a method of manufacturing an exhaust gas purification catalyst (i.e. three-way catalyst).
In light of the motivation for having a carrier (i.e. support) with high durability possessed by the incorporation of alumina as disclosed by Aoki, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include alumina in the carrier (i.e. support) of Yang, in order to achieve superior heat resistance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Yang further does not teach Zr-Ce-M-Ox oxide, wherein M is one or more selected from the group consisting of Ba, Sr, La, Y, Pr, Nd, in the mixed oxide.
With respect to the difference, Aoki teaches wherein the CZ carrier (i.e. support) incorporates another compound as a secondary component (i.e. Zr-Ce-M-Ox) (Aoki, [0050]), such as a rare-earth element including lanthanum (i.e. M = La) or yttrium (i.e. M = Y) as a stabilizer (Aoki, [0050]).
Aoki expressly teaches that implementation of a rare-earth element such as lanthanum and yttrium in a CZ carrier (i.e. Zr-Ce-La-Ox and Zr-Ce-Y-Ox) improve the specific surface area at high temperatures without poisoning the catalytic function (Aoki, [0050]).
Yang and Aoki are analogous art as they are all drawn to a method of manufacturing an exhaust gas purification catalyst (i.e. three-way catalyst).
In light of the motivation for having a stabilizer as a secondary component in the CZ mixed oxide disclosed by Aoki, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include lanthanum or yttrium in the high-temperature stable ceria-zirconia oxide of Yang, in order to achieve a desired specific surface area at high temperatures without poisoning the catalytic function, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Yang further does not teach in the mixed oxide, the content of Al2O3 is 15-80 wt.%, and the content of Zr-Ce-M-Ox is 20-85 wt.%.
With respect to the difference, Aoki teaches the alumina and CZ carrier mixture (i.e. mixed oxide of Al2O3 and Zr-Ce-M-Ox oxide) including a stabilizer (Aoki, [0050]) is preferably mixed a mass mixing ratio of alumina carrier : CZ carrier in the range from in the range from 80:20 to 20:80 (i.e. content of Al2O3 is 20-80 wt.% and the content of Zr-Ce-M-Ox is 20-80 wt.%), which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Aoki expressly teaches when the mixing ratio for the CZ carrier is too low, the oxygen storage/release performance for the carrier as a whole may exhibit a declining trend; on the other hand, it is undesirable for the mixing ratio for the alumina carrier 42 to be too low since this results in a decline in the thermal stability of the carrier (Aoki, [0061]).
Yang and Aoki are analogous art as they are all drawn to a method of manufacturing an exhaust gas purification catalyst (i.e. three-way catalyst).
In light of the motivation for control of the mixing ratio of alumina and CZ carrier mixture (i.e. mixed oxide of Al2O3 and Zr-Ce-M-Ox oxide) as disclosed by Aoki, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an alumina and CZ carrier mixture at a mass mixing ratio of alumina carrier : CZ carrier in the range from in the range from 80:20 to 20:80 in the carrier (i.e. support) of Yang and Aoki, in order to achieve a carrier with sufficient oxygen storage/release performance and thermal stability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
12. In response to amended claim 5, the previous claim rejections of claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C.112(b) are withdrawn. However, the amendment in claim 5 necessitate a new set of claim objections as set forth above.
13. Applicants primarily argue:
“However, Yang prepares the catalyst by a coprecipitation method, in which ammonia
water must be used during the process of loading the noble metal precursor onto the oxide support. Specifically, ammonia water is added to the complexation reaction product (a solution phase) of noble metal salts and non noble metal salts to adjust the pH to alkaline, and the loading of the noble metal precursor onto the oxide support is ultimately achieved by coprecipitation under this alkaline condition.”
“Therefore, the timing of addition and the function of the nitrogen containing compound in the present application are completely different from those in Yang. And, the nitrogen-containing compound of the present application is added to the catalyst precursor in a solid phase, while the nitrogen-containing compound of Yang is added to the complexation reaction product in a solution phase, meaning they are different in material state.”
The Examiner respectively traverses as follows:
Firstly, while it is agreed that Yang prepares the catalyst by a coprecipitation method, in which ammonia water must be used during the process of loading the noble metal precursor onto the oxide support, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a method of preparing a noble metal single atomic-three way catalyst and not a method of preparing a noble metal single-atomic catalyst precursor. Thus, “[E]ven 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”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Further, while it is agreed that Yang does not teach “the nitrogen-containing compound of the present application is added to the catalyst precursor in a solid phase”, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the nitrogen-containing compound of the present application is added to the catalyst precursor in a solid phase) are not recited in the rejected claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that Yang meets the claimed method for preparing a noble metal single-atomic three-way catalyst, as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. See item #8 of Office action set forth above.
14. Applicants further argue:
“Yang does not provide any teaching or suggestion regarding the timing of addition and
the function of the nitrogen containing compound in the present application. Yang neither
teaches nor suggests adding the nitrogen-containing compound to the catalyst precursor in a solid phase. Therefore, Yang neither discloses nor teaches the above distinguishing features.”
The Examiner respectively traverses as follows:
Firstly, while it is agreed that Yang does not teach “adding the nitrogen-containing compound to the catalyst precursor in a solid phase”, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., adding the nitrogen-containing compound to the catalyst precursor in a solid phase) are not recited in the rejected claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a method of preparing a noble metal single atomic-three way catalyst and not a method of preparing a noble metal single-atomic catalyst precursor. Thus, “[E]ven 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”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that Yang meets the claimed method for preparing a noble metal single-atomic three-way catalyst, as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. See item #8 of Office action set forth above.
15. Applicants further argue:
“Aoki does not remedy the deficiencies of Yang. Aoki discloses an exhaust gas purifying catalyst for purifying exhaust gas discharged from an internal combustion engine. Aoki does not relate to treatment with a nitrogen-containing compound, much less treatment with a nitrogen- containing compound after loading the noble metal precursor onto the oxide support. Therefore, Aoki neither discloses nor teaches the above distinguishing features.”
The Examiner respectively traverses as follows:
Firstly, it is noted that while Aoki does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Aoki is used as teaching reference, namely the carrier (i.e. support) is both alumina (i.e. Al2O3) and a ceria-zirconia (CZ) complex oxide and CZ carrier in the range from in the range from 80:20 to 20:80 (i.e. content of Al2O3 is 20-80 wt.% and the content of Zr-Ce-M-Ox is 20-80 wt.%), in order to achieve a carrier with superior heat resistance and achieve a carrier with sufficient oxygen storage/release performance and thermal stability, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that Yang in view of Aoki meets the claimed method for preparing a noble metal single-atomic three-way catalyst, as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. See item #11 of Office action set forth above.
16. Applicants further argue:
“It can be seen from the table that: compared with Comparative Example 1, the T50 initial ignition temperature of the catalyst in Example 1 decreases significantly; and compared with Comparative Example 2, the T50 initial ignition temperature of the catalyst in Examples 11-12 decreases significantly; Thus, after being soaked/washed with aqueous ammonia or ethylenediamine, the obtained catalysts show better test activity.”
“Tables 1-3 of the present application show that, after being soaked/washed with a nitrogen-containing compound, the obtained catalysts exhibit excellent test activity and lower initial ignition temperatures (T50) after 10 hours aging test, as compared with commercially available products loaded with the same amount of noble metal.”
The Examiner respectively traverses as follows:
While applicant points to Examples 11-12 and Tables 1-3 to support the position. The data is unpersuasive as set forth below.
Firstly, the data is not commensurate in the scope of the claims. Specifically, a method for preparing a noble metal single-atomic three-way catalyst comprising a specific amount (2 wt%) and type of nitrogen-containing compound (i.e. ammonia or ethylenediamine) to treat a specific noble metal single-atomic catalyst precursor (i.e. Pd on Al2O3, Pd on Support A, Pd on Support C, Ag on Support C, Rh on Support B, Pd and Rh on Support C, Pd and Ag on Support C, and Pt and Pd on Support A) calcining a specific noble metal single-atomic catalyst precursor (i.e. Pd on Al2O3, Pd on Support A, Pd on Support C, Ag on Support C, Rh on Support B, Pd and Rh on Support C, Pd and Ag on Support C, and Pt and Pd on Support A) treated with a specific nitrogen-containing compound (i.e. ammonia or ethylenediamine); wherein, the noble metal single-atomic catalyst precursor is being prepared through the following step: loading a specific a noble metal precursor (i.e. palladium nitrate, silver nitrate, rhodium nitrate, and chloroplatinic acid) with specific load amounts (i.e. 0.074 wt% to 1.32 wt%) on specific oxide supports (i.e. alumina, Support A, Support B, or Support C) to obtain a specific noble metal single-atomic three-way catalyst with a specific noble metal (i.e. Pd and/or Rh) dispersed in the state of single-atomic sites on specific oxide supports (i.e. alumina, Support A, Support B, or Support C) while the claims broadly recite a method for preparing a noble metal single-atomic three-way catalyst comprising any amounts and many types of nitrogen-containing compound (i.e. NH3, dimethylformamide, urea, C1-20 alkane amine, C2-20 alkene amine, C1-20 alkane diamine, C1-20 alkane triamine C6-20 aromatic amine, C1-6 alkane amine, C1-6 alkane diamine, ethylenediamine, triethylamine, or n-butylamine) to treat any amounts and many types of noble metal single-atomic catalyst precursor (i.e. noble metals is selected from the group consisting of platinum, palladium, rhodium, ruthenium, iridium, osmium, gold, silver, and the noble metal is a single one thereof or a combination of two thereof, or a combination of more on alumina, silica-alumina, ceria-zirconia mixed oxide, or molecular sieve or a mixture of any two or more thereof, and optionally doped with BaO, La2O3, Y2O; or the support is a mixed oxide of A12O3 and Zr-Ce-M-Ox oxide, wherein M is one or more selected from the group consisting of Ba, Sr, La, Y, Pr, Nd, and in the mixed oxide, the content of A12O3 is 15-80 wt%, and the content of Zr-Ce-M-Ox is 20-85 wt% oxide supports) calcining many types of noble metal single-atomic catalyst precursor; wherein, the noble metal single-atomic catalyst precursor is being prepared through the following step: loading any amounts and many types of noble metal precursor (i.e. a soluble noble metal inorganic salt, or a noble metal organic salt, or a noble metal complex) in with any load amount on many types of oxide support (i.e. alumina, silica-alumina, ceria-zirconia mixed oxide, or molecular sieve or a mixture of any two or more thereof, and optionally doped with BaO, La2O3, Y2O; or the support is a mixed oxide of A12O3 and Zr-Ce-M-Ox oxide, wherein M is one or more selected from the group consisting of Ba, Sr, La, Y, Pr, Nd, and in the mixed oxide, the content of A12O3 is 15-80 wt%, and the content of Zr-Ce-M-Ox is 20-85 wt% oxide supports) to obtain a noble metal single-atomic three-way catalyst with many types of noble metals (i.e. platinum, palladium, rhodium, ruthenium, iridium, osmium, gold, silver, and the noble metal is a single one thereof, or a combination of two thereof, or a combination of more thereof) dispersed in the state of single-atomic sites on many types of oxide supports (i.e. alumina, silica-alumina, ceria-zirconia mixed oxide, or molecular sieve or a mixture of any two or more thereof, and optionally doped with BaO, La2O3, Y2O; or the support is a mixed oxide of A12O3 and Zr-Ce-M-Ox oxide, wherein M is one or more selected from the group consisting of Ba, Sr, La, Y, Pr, Nd, and in the mixed oxide, the content of A12O3 is 15-80 wt%, and the content of Zr-Ce-M-Ox is 20-85 wt% oxide supports).
Additionally, the data does not show using the upper and lower ends of the claimed ranges of (1) the content of A12O3 (i.e. 15-80 wt%) and (2) the content of Zr-Ce-M-Ox is (i.e. 20-85 wt%) in the mixed oxide support, the data does not show using the upper end of the weight ratio of the second inorganic oxide to the second OSC material. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(d), whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support”. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occurred over the entire claimed range, In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Applicants have not provided data to show that the unexpected results do in fact occur over the entire claimed range of the content of A12O3 is 15-80 wt% and the content of Zr-Ce-M-Ox is 20-85 wt%.
Conclusion
17. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Ching-Yiu Fung 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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
