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 .
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.
Status of Application
Claims 14-30 are pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's request for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d). Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 14-18 and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2005052779 to Okada et al. (hereinafter, “Okada at __”; cited and provided by Applicants with pagination to the document provided by Applicants).
Regarding claims 14, 16 and 18, Okada discloses particles (for exhaust gas purification is intended use of the particles and is thusly not given patentable weight, see MPEP 2111.01 II, Okada at “Abstract”, though Okada at [0024] does disclose usage of the material in combustion reactions which are exhaust gas) comprising:
Inorganic oxide particles (gamma alumina) and an inorganic covering layer covering the inorganic oxide particles (“Example 5”, ceria).
The claim further requires that the pore volume from 0.1-20 microns of the obtained particle be lower than that of the alumina by itself and that the thermal conductivity is increased in the obtained particle versus the alumina by itself. The Instant Specification at “Tables 1-4” and “Examples 1-8” sets forth that spray drying cerium nitrate on alumina results in a material presenting such, Okada discloses spray drying cerium nitrate on alumina and then firing it (Okada at “Example 1” which “Example 5” incorporates). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it inherent that given the same process and materials that the same property of decreased pore volume and increased thermal conductivity would be present, absent evidence to the contrary though the Office cannot test for this. See MPEP 2112 V, "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433-34 (CCPA 1977))".
As to claim 15, given the same concept as discussed above an increase in thermal conductivity of at least 1.1 is expected.
Regarding claim 17, the FE-EPMA measurement is not performed in Okada, however Okada discloses Ce loading at 20% yields a correlation factor of 0.86, while the only Examples in the Instant Specification cover up to 20%, Tables 1 and 4 at least show that the correlation is tied to the usage of spray drying and firing and not dry blending particles and as such one of ordinary skill in the art would find the correlation of at least 0.70 to be inherently present in the particle of Okada.
Concerning claim 20, the crystallite size is 14.5 nm (Okada at “Example 5”).
Claims 21-24 are the same as claims 16-20 and are rejected for the same reasons but are just dependent upon claim 15 instead of claim 14.
As to claim 25, the bulk density is 0.599 g/cc (“Example 5”).
With respect to claim 26, as the entire coating layer is ceria this limitation is considered to be met and the core is alumina (“Example 5”).
Claims 14-18, 21-23, 26, 27, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Steam reforming of ethanol over Rh/CeO2/Al2O3 catalysts in a microchannel reactor” to Peela et al. (hereinafter, “Peela at __”).
Regarding claims 14, 16 and 18, Peela discloses particles for an exhaust gas catalyst (comprising an inorganic oxide core of gamma alumina which is coated with cerium (Peela “Table 1”).
The claim further requires that the pore volume from 0.1-20 microns be lower in the particle than the alumina by itself and that the thermal conductivity of the particle be higher than the alumina by itself. Peela sets forth that the surface area of the coated particle goes down (Peela at 173 down to 152 with 20% Ce loading) which thusly meets the pore volume of 0.1-20 microns being lower in the final particle. Given similar loading of cerium (10% in both Peela and “Example 1”) and firing a the solution coated material like in “Example 1” of the Instant Specification, the same properties of the product would be inherently expected by one of ordinary skill in the art, absent evidence to the contrary though the Office cannot test for this, see MPEP 2112 V.
As to claim 15, the same holds true for increasing the thermal conductivity at least 1.1x.
Regarding claim 17, the FE-EPMA measurement is not performed in Peela but again given the same generic method of making similar properties like the coefficient correlation would be expected like in “Tables 1-4” of the Instant Specification.
Claims 21-23 are the same as claims 16-18 and are rejected for the same reasons but are just dependent upon claim 15 instead of claim 14.
As to claim 26, Peela discloses that the core is alumina and the coating layer is ceria (“Table 1”).
As to claim 27, Peela discloses an exhaust gas purifying catalyst (Peela at “Abstract”, methane catalyst) comprising the exhaust gas particles of claim 14 coated with rhodium (“Table 1”).
As to claims 29 and 30, Peela discloses an exhaust gas purification catalyst (Peela at “Abstract”, methane catalyst) comprising the particles for an exhaust gas purification catalyst according to claim 14 and 27, having a rhodium catalyst deposited thereon wherein the entire catalyst is washcoated onto a substrate (Peela at “Abstract”).
Claims 14-18, 21-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Promotion of Pt/γ -Al2O3 by Ce for preferential oxidation of CO in H2” to Son et al. (hereinafter, “Son at __”).
Regarding claims 14, 16 and 18, Son discloses particles (Son at “Abstract”, “for an exhaust purification catalyst” is considered intended use and thusly not given patentable weight) comprising an inorganic oxide core of gamma alumina which is coated with cerium via incipient wetness followed by calcination at 500 C (Son at 152 L col).
The claim further requires that the pore volume from 0.1-20 microns be lower in the particle than the alumina by itself and that the thermal conductivity of the particle be higher than the alumina by itself. Given usage of ceria coated on gamma alumina which is then dried, “Examples 1-8” of the Instant Specification set forth that the obtained particle made via solution and firing results in the properties desired in the claim versus dry blending and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the particles to inherently be the same, absent evidence to the contrary, though the Office cannot test for this.
As to claim 15, the same holds true for increasing the thermal conductivity at least 1.1x.
Regarding claim 17, the FE-EPMA measurement is not performed in Son discloses Ce loading at 5%, while the only Examples in the Instant Specification cover up to 20%, Tables 1 and 4 at least show that the correlation is tied to the usage of spray drying and firing and not dry blending particles and as such one of ordinary skill in the art would find the correlation of at least 0.70 to be inherently present in the particle of Son.
Claims 21-23 are the same as claims 16-18 but instead dependent upon claim 15.
As to claim 26, the core is alumina and ceria makes up half of the outer layer (153 R col).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 14-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub No. 20190160427 to Deeba et al. (hereinafter, “Deeba at __”). Claim 26 is evidenced by “High Performance Spherical Catalysts Carriers” (which need not be prior art as it is an evidentiary reference, see MPEP 2124).
Regarding claims 14, 16, 18 and 19, Deeba discloses a particle for an exhaust gas purification catalyst (Deeba at “Abstract”) comprising:
An inorganic oxide particle core comprising alumina (specifically gamma alumina, Deeba at [0058]-[0059] which is obtained from BASF, Id.);
An inorganic covering layer covering the inorganic oxide particle (ceria or praseodymia-ceria, [0058]; As these are selected from a finite group of options this has been held to be prima facie obvious to select either from the group of limited alternatives, see KSR v Teleflex 550 US 398 (2007)).
The claim further requires that the cumulative pore volume for the pore sizes of 0.1-20 microns for the particle is lower than that of the uncovered core particle and that the thermal conductivity of the particle is higher than the uncovered particle, neither of which is explicitly stated by Deeba. Deeba discloses that spray drying and firing is performed to form the various particles (Deeba at [0063]) and that the Instant Specification sets forth that spray drying and firing (vis a vis calcining) presents that the spray drying and firing aspect results in a higher thermal conductivity and a lower 0.1-20 micron pore volume (see Instant Specification at “Tables 1-4”) when the alumina is spray coated and fired with the ceria. The ceria according to Deeba at [0063] agglomerates from the firing step, this would thusly present that the pores of the alumina would become clogged and thusly lower the pore volume of the final particle in the 0.1-20 micron range which is also supported by Applicant’s own comparison between the comparative and inventive examples, the same holds true for the thermal conductivity. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find these two properties to have been inherent given the same alumina core with ceria shell absent evidence to the contrary though the Office cannot test for this. See MPEP 2112 V. It is also noted that Deeba discloses an average pore size of 3 nm (Deeba at [0064]) after the cover is added.
Turning to claim 15, the same increase in thermal conductivity of at least 1.1x would be expected.
Concerning claim 17, the FE-EPMA measurement is not performed in Deeba, but again given usage of alumina loaded with 5-10% ceria (Deeba at [0016]) which is equivalent to Instant “Example 2” which shows that the correlation coefficient is 0.96.
With respect to claim 20, the crystallite size is 5 nm to 100 nm (Deeba at [0064]) which overlaps that range instantly claimed such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 21-24 are the same as claims 16-20 and are rejected for the same reasons but are just dependent upon claim 15 instead of claim 14.
As to claim 25, BASF alumina catalysts are larger than 0.59 g/cc and accordingly given the same process the final bulk density of the particle would be expected to also be the same.
Concerning claim 26, ceria can be 100% of the covering layer (Deeba at [0019]) and the core comprises alumina (Id.).
Turning to claim 27, Deeba discoses an exhaust gas purification catalyst (Deeba at “Abstract”) comprising:
The particles for an exhaust gas purification catalyst according to claim 14 (Deeba at [0019]) and a precious metal catalyst supported on the particles for an exhaust gas purification catalyst (Deeba at [0024]).
With respect to claim 28, Deeba discloses a TWC (Deeba at [0022]) comprising the particels for an exhaust gas purification catalyst according to claim 14 (id.), supporting particles composed of inorganic oxide particles that are different from particles for an exhaust gas purification catalyst (OSC particles); and PGMs supported on the OSC (Id.).
As to claims 29 and 30, a washcoat of the catalyst material of claim 14 and 27 respectively, can be applied to a carrier (Deeba at “Abstract”).
Conclusion
Claims 14-30 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 PM.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights