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 .
This application is in response an Election/Restriction filed on 06/22/2026.
Claims 35-60 are pending. Applicant has elected with traverse Group I, claims 35-45 with traverse and claims 46-60 are withdrawn as non-elected group II-VIII claims. Claims 35-45 are under examination.
Election/Restrictions
4. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 35-45 in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that unity of invention exists because there is a technical relationship among the claimed inventions, and each requires catalyst composition of Group I invention. However, examiner has stated in the restriction filed on 04/24/2026 that Group I-VIII lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups requires the shared technical feature which is the catalyst composition of Group I, claim 35, which did not make contribution over prior art taught by Li (US PGPUB No.: 20180195425) which clearly discloses catalyst composition comprising platinum group metal (PGM) component supported on a ceria containing support (i.e., complex metal oxide) that has single phase, cubic fluorite crystal structure (reads on claims 35 and 38) wherein the ceria comprising at least about 50 wt.% to at least about 99 wt.% (reads on claims 35 and 37) and zirconia in amount of 5-95 wt.% (paragraphs 0011, 0081-0083, 0119, see claim 7, reads on claims 35 and 37, reads on complex metal oxide comprising step (i) and step (ii)) and further ceria containing support may be a mixed metal oxide composite where mixed metal oxides comprises, lanthana, yttria, praeseodymia, neodymian, samaria, gadolinia or other rare earth metal oxides (paragraphs 0081-0083, 0088 0113, 0118, 0119, reads on claims 35 and 37) and therefore this is not found persuasive as applicant argues. Therefore, the examiner’s position remains that Group I-VIII would have a separate status in the art for the reasons set forth on pages #2-5 of the Office Action mailed on 04/24/2026. In addition Li discloses catalyst composition as disclosed above which is substantially identical to presently claimed invention therefore applicant argument is not persuasive.
Further, while applicant states the USPTO has historically examined applications containing multiple sets of claims, it is not required that examiners examine multiple sets of claims when a restriction between claim sets in proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
5. Claims 46-60 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II-VIII, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/22/2026.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 35, 37-39, 41-42 objected to because of the following informalities:
It is suggested to amend “the complex metal oxide” to “the at least one complex metal oxide” to ensure proper antecedent basis and to provide clarity in the Claim 35-lines 4, 5, claim 37-lines 1,3, 4, Clam 38-line 1, Claim 39- lines 2-3, Claim 41-line 1, Claim 42-lines 1, 4, 5.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claim 42 is 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.
Claim 42, recites “the complex metal oxide is at least about 0.1 wt.% which is broader and depends on claim 35 where claim 35 recites the complex oxide comprises ceria in amount of about 50-99 wt.% and zirconia in amount of 1-50 wt. which is narrower.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 42 recites the broad recitation of the complex metal oxide is at least about 0.1 wt.% and the claim 35 recites the complex oxide comprises ceria in amount of about 50-99 wt.% and zirconia in amount of 1-50 wt.% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 35-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Li et al (US PGPUB NO.: 20180195425 A1-IDS cited reference by applicant).
Regarding claim 35, 37-38, Li discloses catalytic material comprising platinum group metal (PGM) component supported on a ceria containing support (i.e., complex metal oxide) that has single phase, cubic fluorite crystal structure (reads on claims 35 and 38) wherein the ceria comprising at least about 50 wt.% to at least about 99 wt.% (reads on claims 35 and 37) and zirconia in amount of 5-95 wt.% (paragraphs 0011, 0081-0083, 0119, see claim 7, reads on claims 35 and 37, reads on complex metal oxide comprising step (i) and step (ii)) and further ceria containing support may be a mixed metal oxide composite where mixed metal oxides comprises, lanthana, yttria, praeseodymia, neodymian, samaria, gadolinia or other rare earth metal oxides (paragraphs 0081-0083, 0088 0113, 0118, 0119, reads on claims 35 and 37). 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).
Regarding Claims 36 and 39-40, Li discloses the platinum group metal is selected from platinum, palladium, rhodium or combination thereof and preset in an amount of 0.1-5 wt.% (paragraphs 0013, 0048, 0121, see claim 9). 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).
Regarding Claim 41, Li discloses the ceria-containing support comprises mixed metal oxide of ceria and zirconia and further may contain one or more of praseodymia, lanthana, neodymian, yttria (see paragraph 0011).
Regarding Claim 42, Li discloses catalyst composition as disclosed above in claim 35 and further discloses aging at 950°C for 20 hours (paragraphs 0115, 0040) and further discloses substantially identical catalyst composition as presently claimed as disclosed above in claim 35 therefore complex metal oxide having an oxygen storage capacity of at least 150 µmole at about 350° C and at least 300 µmole at about 450°C, after lean and rich aging at a temperature above at least 900°C would be expected. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 43, Li discloses composition further comprises addition platinum group metal and at least one refractory metal oxide selected from silica, magnesia, neodymian, zirconia, or any combination thereof ( paragraphs 0014, 0055, 0084, 0090, 0124).
Regarding Claim 44, the claims further limit refractory metal oxide optionally comprises a dopant selected from lanthana, titania, silica, hafnia, magnesia, calcia, stronita, baria, yttrium, hafnium, praseodymium, neodymium or any combinations thereof which is an optional embodiment and therefore not required. As such, claim 44 is rejected based on similar reasons as claim 35 and 43.
Regarding claim 45, Li discloses platinum group metal is thermally fixed to complex metal oxide (see paragraphs 0044, 0087-088, example 1, table 1).
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SMITA S PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5837. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM EST M-W.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached on 5712705713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SMITA S PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 07/22/2026
Prosecution Insights