DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 are pending
Claims 1-4 and 9-12 are withdrawn
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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 5-8 in the reply filed on March 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 1-4 and 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 2, 2026.
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.
4. Claims 5-8 are 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.
5. Claim 5 recites the term, "the noble metal is dispersed" which lacks antecedent basis. In light of claim 5, lines 3-4, the examiner interprets this phrase as “a noble metal of the noble metal single-atomic three-way catalyst is dispersed”. Clarification is required.
6. Regarding dependent claims 6-8, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 5 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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).
9. 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.
10. 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)
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 a high-temperature stable valence oxide as a carrier (i.e., 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).
11. 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 an 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).
12. Regarding claim 8, Yang 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
13. 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).
14. Regarding claim 7, Yang further 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.
Conclusion
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 - 5.
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
Prosecution Insights