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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 2/05/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that unity of invention does exist between groups I and II because there is a technical relationship that involves the same technical feature and that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because the lack of unity is made a posteriori, so the shared technical feature applicant argues is acknowledged but it does not make a contribution over the prior art. Furthermore, group I can be classified as B01D 2255/9155, and group II can be classified as B01J 37/0242 validating there is a search burden for the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 3 does not have a key, so it is not clear which example corresponds to the points on the graph. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because see bolded text below. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 1-2 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "wall flow type" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "wall flow type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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. (JP6617181).
Regarding claim 1, Mochizuki et al. discloses an exhaust gas purification catalyst comprising a wall-flow type 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 4.50 or less.
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).
Conclusion
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