DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are pending
Claims 1-6 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 .
Specification
2. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words. 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).
3. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
6. Claims 1- 6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO 2016094399 A1) (Li) further in view of So, H.-S., et. al., Improvement of three-way catalytic performance by optimizing ceria and promoters in Pd-only catalyst prepared by sol-gel method. Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis. (2000) (So).
7. Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a nitrous oxide (N2O) removal catalyst composite (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition) is provided (Li, Abstract), wherein N2O is an exhaust gas.
Li further teaches the N2O removal catalyst composite (p. 50, Fig. 10A) (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition) includes (Li, p. 19, lines 30-35);
PNG
media_image1.png
289
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 10A
Rh/CeO2 (i.e. Ce-based oxide particle) (Li, p. 4, line 32) that comprise about 90 to about 100 weight % CeO2, which encompasses the claimed range (Li, p. 4, line 31)
Li further teaches a ceria-zirconia oxygen storage component (OSC) (i.e. a Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle) (Li, p. 19, lines 33-34) which is a refractory metal oxide support (Li, p. 8, lines 17-19) comprising at least 55 wt. % ceria (Li, p. 10, line 37), which overlaps with the claimed range.
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).
Li further teaches the N2O removal catalyst composite (p. 50, Fig. 10A) (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition) includes palladium (i.e. noble metal element) on alumina (i.e. Al-based oxide particle) (Li, p. 19, line 33).
Li further teaches the rhodium reagent (i.e. noble metal element) is impregnated onto a ceria-based support (i.e. Ce-based oxide particle) by wetness techniques (Li, p. 12, lines 23-24) that involves the formation of a slurry with the impregnated powder (Li, p. 12, line 34)
wherein the solids of the slurry (i.e. Ce-based oxide particle) have an average diameter (i.e average particle size) of about 0.1 – 15 microns, which encompasses the claimed range (Li, p. 13, lines 12-14).
However, while Li does teach the composition of the Ce-based oxide particle, Li does not teach the amount of the Ce-based oxide particle in the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition is 2.0% by mass or more and 30% by mass or less based on a mass of the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition.
With respect to the difference, So teaches three-ways catalysts (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition) comprising a mixture of bulk ceria (i.e. Ce-based oxide particles), stabilized ceria (i.e. Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle) (So, Abstract), and Pd-V-Zr-A12O3 (PVZA) (i.e. an Al-based oxide particle) in the treatment of automotive exhaust gas (So, p. 2, paragraph 2)
wherein Pd is a noble metal element
wherein the amount of the bulk ceria (i.e. Ce-based oxide particles) in the three-way catalyst (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition) is 10% or 30% by mass (So, p. 3, Table 2), which falls within the recited range.
So expressly teaches physical mixing of bulk and stabilized ceria improves the three-way catalytic performance and the thermal stability (So, page 5, Conclusion); ceria is one of the major components in three-way catalysts to promote the water-gas-shift reaction and enhance the OSC (So, p. 1, paragraph 1);
wherein as the concentration of the bulk ceria (i.e. Ce-based oxide particles) increased, the oxygen storage capacity (So, p. 3, paragraph 1) of the three-way catalyst (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition) increased (So, p. 3, Table 2),
wherein by controlling the amount of bulk ceria (i.e. Ce-based oxide particles) in the three-way catalyst (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition) high activity at low temperatures is because of enough OSC (So, p. 5, paragraph 1) necessary for the degradation of most pollutants of the automotive emission occurring during a cold-start (So, p. 5, paragraph 1).
Li and So are analogous art as they are all drawn to exhaust gas purifying catalyst compositions.
In light of the motivation for having the bulk ceria and OSC as a physically mixed catalyst, and for control of the OSC via the amount of bulk ceria (i.e. Ce-based oxide particles) added as disclosed by So, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the Pd/Al2O3, OSC and Rh/CeO2 as a physically mixed catalyst, and include the amount of ceria, such as 10% or 30% by mass in the N2O removal catalyst composition of Li, in order to sufficiently promote the water-gas-shift reaction and enhance the OSC which leads to high-activity at low temperatures, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
8. Regarding claim 2, Li further teaches a ceria-zirconia OSC (i.e. a Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle) (Li, p. 17, lines 33-34) which is a refractory metal oxide support (Li, p. 8, lines 17-19) comprising at least 55 wt. % ceria (Li, p. 10, line 37)
wherein ceria-zirconia OSC (i.e. a Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle) (Li, p. 17, lines 33-34) is a refractory metal oxide support (Li, p. 8, lines 17-19) made up of ceria (i.e. CeO2) and zirconia (ZrO2-)
wherein the amount of ZrO2 in a ceria-zirconia OSC is in the range of about 45% to about 0% (Li, p. 19, lines 33-34).
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).
9. Regarding claim 4, Li further teaches N2O removal catalyst composite with Rh/CeO2 (i.e. Ce-based oxide particle) (Li, p. 19, line 33);
wherein the rhodium component is present on the CeO2 support (i.e. Ce-based oxide particle) (Li, p. 5, lines 6-7).
Li further teaches the N2O removal catalyst composite (Li, p. 50, Fig. 10A) (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition) comprising palladium on alumina (i.e. noble metal element supported on the Al-based oxide particle)
wherein N2O removal catalyst composite (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition) is used in conjunction with another precious metal, such as Pt on a high surface area refractory metal oxide support, such as alumina (γ-Α12O3) (i.e. Al-based oxide particle) (Li, p. 17, lines 21-22).
9. Regarding claim 5, Li further teaches the N2O removal catalyst composite wherein the ceria (CeO2) in the Rh/CeO2 (i.e. Ce-based oxide particle) has an average crystallite size in the range of about 3 to about 20 nm measured by x-ray diffraction (Li, p. 20, lines 36-37), which overlaps with the claimed range.
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).
10. Regarding claim 6, Li further teaches a washcoat as the N2O removal catalyst composite (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition) is applied to a substrate such as, a honeycomb flow-through monolith substrate or a filter substrate (Li, p. 9, lines 17-18);
wherein the substrate provides wall surfaces for the N2O removal catalyst composite (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition) washcoat (Li, p. 11, lines 32-33)
wherein the catalyst composition (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition) is applied as a single layer or in multiple layers to the substrate (Li, p. 15, line 19).
11. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and So as applied to claims 1-2, and 4-6 above, and further in view of Kamiuchi, N., et. al., Enhancement of OSC property of Zr rich ceria–zirconia by loading a small amount of platinum. Catalysis Today. (2014) (Kamiuchi).
12. Regarding claim 3, Li further teaches the N2O removal catalyst composite (p. 50, Fig. 10A) (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition);
wherein the N2O removal catalyst composite includes Rh/CeO2 (i.e. Ce-based oxide particle) (Li, p. 19, line 33) with rhodium component present on the CeO2 support (i.e. Ce-based oxide particle) (Li, p. 5, lines 6-7)
wherein the composite includes palladium on alumina (i.e. noble metal element supported on the Al-based oxide particle) (Li, p. 50, Fig. 10A)
wherein the composite is used in conjunction with another precious metal, such as Pt on a high surface area refractory metal oxide support, such as alumina (γ-Α12O3) (i.e. Al-based oxide particle) (Li, p. 17, lines 21-22).
Li further teaches ceria-zirconia OSC (i.e. a Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle) (Li, p. 19, lines 33-34) is a refractory metal oxide support (Li, p. 8, lines 17-19). However, Li does not teach a noble metal element supported on the Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle.
With respect to the difference, Kamiuchi teaches the OSC properties and catalytic activities of Pt/ceria–zirconia catalysts (i.e. a noble metal element supported on the Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle) (Kamiuchi, Abstract)
wherein ceria-zirconia materials have been widely used as an OSC material for three-way catalysis (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst compositions) because ceria–zirconia has the high thermal stability (Kamiuchi, p. 1, left column, paragraph 1)
wherein the Pt/ceria–zirconia catalysts included a Ce/Zr ration of 1/3 (CZ(1/3)), Ce0.25Zr0.75Ox (Kamiuchi, p. 1, right column, paragraph 2) with various Pt loadings (Kamiuchi, p. 2. right column, Table 1).
Kamiuchi expressly teaches that ceria-zirconia OSC materials (i.e. a Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle) achieve a high dispersion of precious metal such as platinum by maintaining a strong Pt-O-Ce interaction (Kamiuchi, p. 1, left column, paragraph 1)
wherein the ceria-zirconia supported platinum catalysts (i.e. a noble metal element supported on the Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle) exhibited higher catalytic activities for CO oxidation (i.e. exhaust gas) in comparison with just the ceria-zirconia support with no platinum (Kamiuchi, p. 5, right column, paragraph 2).
Li, So, and Kamiuchi are analogous art as they are all drawn to exhaust gas purifying catalyst compositions.
In light of the motivation for ceria-zirconia OSC materials to achieve a high dispersion of precious metal such as platinum as disclosed by Kamiuchi, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to support noble metal elements such as platinum on the ceria-zirconia OSC of Li, in order to achieve a higher catalytic activity for CO oxidation, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 5.
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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732