DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9 were subjected to restriction requirement mailed on 03/26/2026.
Applicants filed a response, and elected Group II, claims 5-9, and withdrew claims 1-4, with traverse on 03/26/2026.
Claims 1-9 are pending, and claims 5-9 are withdrawn after consideration.
Claims 5-9 are rejected.
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 of Group II, claims 5-9, in the reply filed on 05/22/2026 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)).
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/22/2026.
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.
Claims 5-9 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.
Claim 5, line 5, recites a phrase “spinel-type”. The addition of the word “type” extends the scope of the claims so as to render them indefinite since it is unclear what “type” is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to the otherwise definite expression renders the definite expression indefinite by extending its scope. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955).
Applicants is advised to amend the phrase to “spinel”.
Regarding dependent claims 6-9, these claims does not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 5 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 9, line 3, recites a phrase “amount”. However, it is unclear if the phrase refers to amount based on mass, amount based on molar, molar based on volume, etc. The examiner interprets that the phrase refers to amount based on mass. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., WO 2019/043557A1 (Liu) in view of Tasuku, WO 2021261363 A1 (Tasuku) (provided in IDS received on 10/29/2024).
Regarding claims 5-6, Liu teaches three-way conversion (TWC) catalytic articles effective to abate hydrocarbons (HCs), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from an engine exhaust gas containing phosphorous impurities (reading upon an exhaust gas purification catalyst); the disclosed catalytic article has a layered catalytic material, wherein the first layer (reading upon a second catalyst layer) of the catalytic material is disposed directly on the substrate and a second layer (reading upon a first catalyst layer) is disposed on top of the first layer; the second layer includes phosphorus resistant materials that prevent catalytic poisoning of the catalytic article by the phosphorous impurities; in particular, the second layer includes a phosphorus trap material having an alkaline earth metal component and a rhodium component impregnated on a phosphorus-resistant support material (Liu, Abstract).
Liu further teaches wherein the second layer comprises: a phosphorus trap material comprising an alkaline earth metal component and a metal oxide, wherein the alkaline earth metal component is in the form of a composite with the metal oxide (Liu, page 4, bottom paragraph); the alkaline earth metal component is barium oxide, magnesium oxide or combinations of; and the metal oxide is alumina (Liu, page 5, 2nd paragraph).
Liu further teaches the first layer comprises a platinum group metal, such as palladium (Liu, page 5, 2nd paragraph from bottom).
Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the complex oxide has a spinel crystal structure, and wherein a molar ratio of a Mg content to an Al content in the complex oxide is 0.010 or more and 0.25 or less.
With respect to the difference, Tasuku teaches an exhaust gas purification catalyst (Tasuku, Abstract). Tasuku specifically teaches a phosphorus collection layer containing a composite oxide having a cubic spinel structure and containing Al, an alkali earth metal Ma that includes Mg and may also include e.g., Ba (Tasuku, Abstract); the molar ratio of Ma (i.e., Mg and Ba) element to Al element is 0.02 to 0.60 (Tasuku, page 4, 1st paragraph); the alkaline earth metal, i.e., Ba is preferably 10 atm% or less with respect to the total amount of the Mg contained in the composite oxide and other alkaline earth metal elements other than Mg (Tasuku, page 4, 2nd paragraph).
As Tasuku expressly teaches, the molar ratio of Ma (i.e., Mg and Ba) to Al of 0.02 to 0.60, a cubic spinel structure is likely to be formed (Tasuku, page 4, 1st paragraph); if the composite does not have a spinel structure, the adsorption ability of the phosphorus compound may be inferior (Tasuku, page 3, bottom paragraph).
Tasuku is analogous art as Tasuku is drawn to an exhaust gas purification catalyst.
In light of the motivation of forming a spinel structure as the composite in the phosphorus trapping layer, as taught by Tasuku, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to form a spinel structure for the composite in Liu, i.e., Ma (Mg & Ba) to Al element ratio of 0.02 to 0.60, wherein Ba is 10 at.% or less of Mg and Ba combined, which corresponds to Mg to Al molar ratio of 0.018 to 0.54 or less, in order to achieve improved adsorption ability of the phosphorous compound, and thereby arrive at a range which overlaps the range of the presently claimed.
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 7, as applied to claim 5, Liu in view of Tasuku teaches Ma (Mg & Ba) to Al element ratio of 0.02 to 0.60, wherein Ba is 10 at.% or less of Mg and Ba combined, which corresponds to Ba to Al molar ratio of 0.002 to 0.06 or less, as set forth above, which overlaps the range of the presently claimed.
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 8, as applied to claim 5, Liu in view of Tasuku teaches Ba is preferably 10 atm% or less with respect to the total amount of the Mg contained in the composite oxide and other alkaline earth metal elements other than Mg (Tasuku, page 4, 2nd paragraph), which overlaps the range of the presently claimed.
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 9, as applied to claim 5, Liu in view of Tasuku further teaches in some embodiments, the phosphorus-resistant support material is a zirconia-based support material (reading upon inorganic oxide) the second layer (reading upon the first layer) contains the rhodium component in an amount from about 0.05 to about 5 wt.% based on the total weight of the second layer (Liu, page 5, 2nd paragraph); the second layer contains alkaline earth metal component in an amount of about 1 to about 20 wt.% based on the total weight of the second layer.
Given that Liu in view of Tasuku further teaches Ba is 10 at.% or less of Mg and Ba combined (Tasuku, page 4, 2nd paragraph), therefore the balance (i.e., the phosphorus resistant materials) would have a mass more than an amount of the composite.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights