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 § 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 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al. (JP6617181B1).
Regarding claim 1, Mochizuki et al. discloses an exhaust gas purification catalyst comprising a wall-flow substrate in which an inlet-side cell having an open end and an outlet-side cell adjacent to
the inlet-side cell are defined by a porous partition wall (paragraph 0004). A catalyst layer is formed in the pore of the partition wall (paragraph 0009).
Mochizuki et al. does not disclose that the catalyst layer formed in the pore is a single layer. The
coating method of the catalytic slurry onto the substrate is identical to that disclosed in the specification
of the application. The end portion of the substrate is immersed into the catalytic slurry and gas is
introduced into the same end side of the substrate so that the slurry is pulled up (paragraph 0041). Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that the catalyst layer formed in the pore is also single layer in Mochizuki et al.
Mochizuki et al. does not require barium in the catalyst layer. The publication discloses a list of compositions of the catalyst layer that are free of barium (paragraph 0048) (paragraph 0049).
Mochizuki et al. discloses a range of catalyst layer formed in the pore of a partition wall excluding the weight of catalytic metals of 20-110 g/L; entirely encompassing the claimed range
(paragraph 0035). The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the
applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known
range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a
whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to
have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping
ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
Mochizuki et al. does not disclose an absolute value of a maldistribution degree of the catalyst
layer formed in the pore of the partition wall. The method of forming the catalyst slurry and catalyst
layer is identical to that disclosed in the specification of the application. The catalyst slurry contains a
solvent and a catalyst powder consisting of a plurality of catalyst particles including catalyst metal
particles and carrier particles acting as support (paragraph 0046). In addition, the slurry consists of
ammonium carbonate (paragraph 0056).
With regard to coating, the end portion of the substrate is immersed into the catalytic slurry and
gas is introduced into the same end side of the substrate so that the slurry is pulled up (paragraph
0041). The catalyst slurry is then dried under a temperature of 100-225 °C from 0.5-2 hours (paragraph
0043). The catalyst slurry is fired under a temperature of 400-650 °C from 0.5-2 hours (paragraph 0044).
As seen above, the concentration or the coating amount encompasses the range of the present
application, so it would have been obvious to use the claimed range (paragraph 0035). Because both the
method of forming the catalyst slurry and catalyst layer is the same as the present application, it is the
position of the examiner that the absolute value of maldistribution degree in the catalyst layer formed in
the pore of the partition wall would necessarily be 0.10 to 1.00
Regarding claim 2, Mochizuki et al. discloses the catalyst layer containing a catalyst metal and a
carrier component (paragraph 0030). The catalyst metal can be palladium or rhodium (paragraph 0031).
The catalyst carrier can be ceria or a composite consisting of zirconia and/or alumina (paragraph 0034).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the wash coat amount of 20 to 110 g/L disclosed in Mochizuki et al. excludes all catalyst metal mass, whereas the claimed wash coat amount range of 40 to 50 g/L excludes only the platinum group metal mass, so Mochizuki et al. does not correspond to the claimed range. Applicant argues since these wash coat amounts are different the maldistribution would also be greater than 4.50 per the examples in the disclosure and the advantageous effect of high soot collection efficiency and are lost.
Applicant’s reply fails to address how a wash coat amount that excludes all catalyst metal mass is different than a wash coat amount that excludes only the platinum group metal mass. The specification of the present application discloses the catalyst layer is a single layer composed of a catalyst metal and a carrier component, and the catalyst metal is Pd and/or Rh (specification, paragraph 0030). These are the same catalytic metals that Mochizuki et al. discloses in the catalyst layer (paragraph 0031). Therefore, a mass of a platinum group and a mass of catalyst metal can be used interchangeably for the wash coat amounts in the catalyst layer. Since the mass of a platinum group is the same as the mass of a catalyst metal, the wash coat amount of 20 to 110 g/L excluding catalyst metal mass does correspond to the claimed range and a prima facie case of obviousness does exist due to overlapping ranges.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claims 1 and 2 as obvious over Mochizuki et al. is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chinzei et al. (US20190126248) discloses an exhaust gas purifying catalyst having a substrate with two or more catalyst coating layers on the substrate (paragraph 0012). The uppermost catalyst coating layer has a content of OSC material having a pyrochlore-type structure of 30 g/L to 50 g/L based on the volume of the substrate (paragraph 0016).
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 DAVID A CALDERON whose telephone number is (571)272-9866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5712721176. 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.
/DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights