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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 4-16, in the reply filed on 01/30/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
2. Claims 1-3 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/30/2026.
Status of Application
3. This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/042322, which was filed on 11/17/2021.
Claims 1-16 were originally presented in this application for examination.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending in this application.
Specification
4. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file.
Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any.
The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any, should be updated in a timely manner.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 3, “for” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Second Paragraph)
6. 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.
Claims 9-15 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 claims 9 & 12, the phrase “a poorly water-soluble salt” is unclear and does not particularly point out what kind of metal salt is intended to cover as being a part of the claimed method. The term “poorly” is also not commonly used for specifying the type of a compound. Suitable “poorly water-soluble salts” in the instant specification, [0058]-[0062] have been noted, however they are not pointed out in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Second Pagraph)
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 requires “a precipitant”, which is one precipitant. However, claim 6 broadens the scope by allowing two precipitants and thus does not further limit claim 4.
.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
8. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4-5, 9-10, 12, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (US 2013/0108530 A1), hereinafter “Chang et al.”
Chang et al. discloses a process for producing a ceria-zirconia-alumina composite oxide, comprising:
(a) combining cerium (IV) compound and a zirconium (IV) compound with a slurry of aluminum oxide at a temperature to produce a reaction slurry;
(b) contacting the reaction slurry with a precipitating agent to precipitate insoluble cerium and zirconium compounds onto the aluminum oxide to form cerium-zirconium-aluminum oxide particles; and
(c) calcining the cerium-zirconium-aluminum oxide particles to produce a ceria-zirconia-alumina composite oxide (p. 4, claim 1).
The aluminum oxide preferably has an average particle size greater than 0.05 um (0.05 um = 50 nm) (p. 2, [0013]).
The aluminum oxide is a rare-earth or alkaline-earth-stabilized aluminum oxide (p. 4, claims 6 & 8).
Specifically, Example 1 at p. 3, [0031] of the reference teaches catalyst 1B prepared from colloidal boehmite containing 4% La2O3 (3.23 kg, d50 = 70 nm), which is slurried in 70 kg distilled water; 5.30 kg of cerium (IV) nitrate solution, 3.86 kg of zirconium (IV) oxynitrate solution, and 4.5 kg ammonium hydroxide solution to obtain a reaction mixture. After that, the reaction mixture is heated, filtered, washed, then dried and calcined to produce Ce-Zr-Al composite oxides, same procedure as in catalyst 1A [p. 3, [0029].
Regarding claims 4, 10, & 16, the reference appears to teach the same method step (a), (b), and (c) as recited in the instant claim. The colloidal boehmite of the reference has a d50 of 70 nm (p. 3, [0031]), which falls within claimed range of from 1 nm to 220 nm.
The instant claim 4 further defines that “the median diameter D50 is measured by a Dynamic light scattering method”. Even though the reference does not indicate the method used for which the colloidal boehmite particles were measured, it is assumed that the same method had been used to determine the D50 particle size for the colloidal boehmite particles disclosed in view of the same D50 particle size disclosed and claimed.
Regarding claims 5, 9, & 12, the reference teaches to use the same cerium, zirconium, and rare-earth water-soluble salts as used in the claimed method, thus meets the claim limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 11, 14, & 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As concerned with claim 11, The prior art references disclose the claimed method of producing a complex oxide comprising step (a), (b), and (c) as recited in claim 4, however they do not teach the claim limitation on “wherein in step (b), the precipitant is added to the raw material solution such that a molar quantity of a hydroxide ion in the raw material solution is from 2.0 times to 10 times a molar quantity of an oxygen element that is required to allow each of a cerium element, zirconium element, and a rare-earth metal other than a cerium element in the raw material solution to become oxide.
As concerned with claim 14, the prior art references disclose the claimed method of producing a complex oxide comprising step (a), (b), and (c) as recited in claim 4, however they do not teach the claim limitation on “wherein in step (b), the precipitant is added to the raw material solution such that a molar quantity of a sulfate ion in the raw material solution is from 0.10 times to 10 times a molar quantity of a zirconium element in the raw material solution.
As concerned with claim 15, The prior art references disclose the claimed method of producing a complex oxide comprising step (a), (b), and (c) as recited in claim 4, however they do not teach the claim limitation on “wherein in step (b), the reagent is added to the raw material solution such that a molar quantity of a hydroxide ion in the raw material solution is from 2.0 times to 10 times a molar quantity of an oxygen element that is required to allow each of a cerium element, zirconium element, and a rare-earth metal other than a cerium element in the raw material solution to become oxide.
There is no motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references together to arrive to the claimed invention.
Citations
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for related art. See PTO-892 Form prepared.
Conclusion
9. Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1-3 are withdrawn. Claims 4-16 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov.
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, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/CNN/
February 20, 2026