DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 were rejected in the Office Action mailed 3/19/2026.
Applicants filed a response, and amended claim 1 on 7/17/2026
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 .
Examiner’s Note
2. It is noted that there were inadvertent typographic errors made in the previous Office Action mailed 3/19/2026 where page references were made to the page numbers in the pdf’s and not the journal page numbers (for So et al. and Kamiuchi et al.) or patent page numbers (Li et. al). In order to be consistent with common practice for citations. Corrected page number references are provided as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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) 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) and Abbasi et al., Synthesis and physicochemical characterizations of nanostructured Pt/Al2O3–CeO2 catalysts for total oxidation of VOCs (Abbasi).
6. Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a nitrous oxide (N2O) removal catalyst composite (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition) is provided (Li, Abstract), wherein automotive exhaust is one source of N2O emissions as a by-product of fuel consumption (i.e. an exhaust gas) (Li, p. 1, paragraph 2).
Li further teaches the N2O removal catalyst composite (Li, Drawings p. 8, Fig. 10A) (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition) includes (Li, p. 17, 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. 2, line 32) that comprise about 90 to about 100 weight % CeO2, which encompasses the claimed range (Li, p. 2, line 31).
Li further teaches a ceria-zirconia oxygen storage component (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. 6, lines 17-19) comprising at least 55 wt. % ceria (Li, p. 8, 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 (Li, Drawings p. 8, 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. 17, 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. 10, lines 23-24) that involves the formation of a slurry with the impregnated powder (Li, p. 10, 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 falls within the claimed range (Li, p. 11, lines 12-14).
However, Li does not teach (a) an 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, (b) a mass ratio of an amount of the Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle to the amount of the Ce-based oxide particle in the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition is 1.0 or more and 25 or less, and (c) a mass ratio of an amount of the Al-based oxide particle to the amount of the Ce-based oxide particle in the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition is 0.1 or more and 5 or less.
With respect to difference (a), So teaches three-way 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. 1380, 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. 1381, 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, p. 1383, 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. 1379, paragraph 1);
wherein as the concentration of the bulk ceria (i.e. Ce-based oxide particles) increased, the oxygen storage capacity (So, p. 1381, paragraph 1) of the three-way catalyst (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition) increased (So, p. 1381, 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. 1383, paragraph 1) necessary for the degradation of most pollutants of the automotive emission occurring during a cold-start (So, p. 1383, 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 bulk ceria (i.e. Ce-based oxide particles), 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.
With respect to difference (b), So further teaches the amount of stabilized ceria (i.e. Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle) (So, Abstract) in the three-way catalyst (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition) is 27% (i.e. (30 % /100) * (90%)) = 27 %) or 21 % by mass (i.e. (30 % /100) * (70%)) (So, p. 1381, Table 2);
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. 1381, Table 2);
wherein the mass ratio of stabilized ceria (i.e. Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle) (So, Abstract) to the bulk ceria (i.e. Ce-based oxide particles) is 2.7 (i.e. 27% stabilized ceria / 10% bulk ceria) (So, p. 1381, Table 2), which falls within the claimed range.
So expressly teaches stabilized ceria (i.e. Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle) improving the three-way catalytic performance and the thermal stability (So, p. 1383, Conclusion);
wherein as the concentration of stabilized ceria (i.e. Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle) increased, the oxygen storage capacity (So, p. 1381, paragraph 1) of the three-way catalyst (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition) increased (So, p. 1381, Table 2)
wherein stabilized ceria (i.e. Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle) is essential for the enhancing the amount of surface oxygen which may be more easily used as an oxygen atom than the bulk oxygen strongly bounded in bulk ceria (i.e. Ce-based oxide particles) (So, p. 1382, first paragraph).
In light of the motivation for stabilized ceria (i.e. Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle) improving the three-way catalytic performance and the thermal stability as disclosed by So, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the mass ratio of stabilized ceria (i.e. Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle) (So, Abstract) to the bulk ceria (i.e. Ce-based oxide particles) of 2.7 (i.e. 27% stabilized ceria / 10% bulk ceria) in the N2O removal catalyst composition of Li, in order to achieve enhancement of the amount of surface oxygen more easily as opposed to oxygen atoms strongly bound in bulk ceria (i.e. Ce-based oxide particles) and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to difference (c), Abbasi teaches Pt/Al2O3–CeO2 with ceria particles (i.e. Ce-based oxide particle) with a loading of loading of 10, 20 and 30% as cerium oxide (i.e. an amount of Ce in terms of CeO2 in the Ce-based oxide particle is 100% by mass based on a mass of the Ce-based particle) formed on an alumina (Abbasi, Abstract) support as γ-alumina (i.e. an Al-based particle) (Abbasi, p. 1446, right column, 2.1. Materials) for catalytic oxidation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, toluene, and xylene (Abbasi, Abstract)
wherein the amount of γ-alumina (i.e. an Al-based particle) is 69% (Pt(1%)/Al2O3 – CeO2 (30%)) (Abbasi, p. 1449, right column, Fig. 6)
wherein a mass ratio of an amount of the γ-alumina (i.e. an Al-based particle) to the ceria particles (i.e. Ce-based oxide particle) is 2.3 (i.e. 69% Al2O3/30% CeO2), which falls within the claimed range.
Abbasi expressly teaches better dispersion of ceria and platinum particles over alumina carrier in Pt(1%)/Al2O3–CeO2(30%) compared Pt on cerium oxide in Pt(1%)/CeO2 (Abbasi, p. 1451, left column, paragraph 2)
wherein several factors that influence catalyst activity (Abbasi, p. 1445, left column, last paragraph) such as dispersion of active compound (Pt) and its promoters (i.e. CeO2) (Abbasi, p. 1445, right column, first paragraph).
Li, So, and Abbasi are analogous art as they are all drawn to catalyst compositions to treat hazardous gas.
In light of the motivation for better dispersion of ceria and platinum particles over alumina carrier in Pt(1%)/Al2O3–CeO2(30%) as disclosed by Abbasi, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a mass ratio of an amount of the γ-alumina (i.e. an Al-based particle) to the ceria particles (i.e. Ce-based oxide particle) is 2.3 (i.e. 69% Al2O3/30% CeO2) in the N2O removal catalyst composition of Li, in order to achieve a desired catalytic activity, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
7. 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. 6, 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. 15, lines 33-34) is a refractory metal oxide support (Li, p. 6, 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).
8. Regarding claim 4, Li further teaches N2O removal catalyst composite with Rh/CeO2 (i.e. Ce-based oxide particle) (Li, p. 17, line 33);
wherein the rhodium component is present on the CeO2 support (i.e. Ce-based oxide particle) (Li, p. 3, lines 6-7);
Li further teaches the N2O removal catalyst composite (Li, Drawings p. 8, 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. 15, 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. 18, 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. 7, 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. 9, 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. 13, line 19).
11. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, So, and Abassi 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 (Li, Drawings p. 8, 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. 17, line 33) with rhodium component present on the CeO2 support (i.e. Ce-based oxide particle) (Li, p. 3, lines 6-7);
wherein the composite includes palladium on alumina (i.e. noble metal element supported on the Al-based oxide particle) (Li, Drawings p. 8, 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. 15, lines 21-22).
Li further teaches 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. 6, 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. 179, 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. 183, right column, paragraph 2).
Li, So, Abbasi, and Kamiuchi are analogous art as they are all drawn to catalyst compositions to treat hazardous gas.
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.
Response to Arguments
13. In response to the amended specification, the previous objection to the specification is withdrawn.
14. In response to the amendments in claim 1, regarding “wherein a mass ratio of an amount of the Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle to the amount of the Ce-based oxide particle in the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition is 1.0 or more and 25 or less, and wherein a mass ratio of an amount of the Al-based oxide particle to the amount of the Ce-based oxide particle in the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition is 0.1 or more and 5 or less.”, it is agreed that Li in view of So would not meet the present claims. Hence, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejections over Li in view of So is withdrawn from the rejection of record. However, the amendments necessitate new sets of rejections as set forth above.
15. Applicants primarily argue:
“Therefore, the TWC catalyst and the N2O catalyst are structurally separate and distinct from each other. Such combinations could only be arrived at with the impermissible hindsight.”
Remarks, p. 7
“Li fails to disclose or suggest an exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition comprising a Ce-based oxide particle, a Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle, an Al- based oxide particle, and a noble metal element, let alone an exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition having all the claimed limitations.”
Remarks, p. 9
The examiner respectively traverses as follows:
Firstly, while it is agreed that the TWC catalyst and the N2O catalyst are structurally separate from each other, the nitrous oxide (N2O) removal catalyst composite (i.e. exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition) includes a TWC catalyst and a N2O catalyst 113 (Annotated Fig. 10A).
Additionally, Li teaches that automotive exhaust is one source of N2O emissions as a by-product of fuel consumption (i.e. an exhaust gas) (Li, p. 1, paragraph 2).
Further, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that Li in view of So and Abbasi meets the claimed exhaust gas purifying catalyst, as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. See item #6 of Office action set forth above.
16. Applicants further argue:
“Therefore, So discloses an exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition satisfying the limitation "wherein an 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," but does not disclose or suggest an exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition satisfying both the limitations "wherein a mass ratio of an amount of the Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle to the amount of the Ce-based oxide particle in the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition is 1.0 or more and 25 or less" and "wherein a mass ratio of an amount of the Al-based oxide particle to the amount of the Ce-based oxide particle in the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition is 0.1 or more and 5 or less.”
Remarks, p. 7
“Even considering Li alone or in combination with So, a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to arrive at an exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition having all the claimed limitations.”
Remarks p. 11
The examiner respectively traverses as follows:
Firstly, it is noted that while So does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, So is used as teaching reference, namely to include the amount of bulk ceria (i.e. Ce-based oxide particles), such as 10% or 30% by mass, and to include the mass ratio of stabilized ceria (i.e. Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle) (So, Abstract) to the bulk ceria (i.e. Ce-based oxide particles) of 2.7 (i.e. 27% stabilized ceria / 10% bulk ceria) and in order to sufficiently promote the water-gas-shift reaction and enhance the OSC which leads to high-activity at low temperatures and to achieve enhancement of the amount of surface oxygen more easily as opposed to oxygen atoms strongly bound in bulk ceria (i.e. Ce-based oxide particles), and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Additionally, “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Therefore, the Examiner’s position remains, it would be obvious to one of ordinary in the art to achieve a successful modification, absent evidence to the contrary.
Further, Li and So are related as they are drawn to exhaust gas purifying catalyst compositions. So provides proper motivation, namely, to sufficiently promote the water-gas-shift reaction and enhance the OSC which leads to high-activity at low temperatures and to achieve enhancement of the amount of surface oxygen more easily as opposed to oxygen atoms strongly bound in bulk ceria (i.e. Ce-based oxide particles). Therefore, it is the examiner's position that Li and So are properly combined.
Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that Li in view of So and Abbasi meets the claimed exhaust gas purifying catalyst, as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. See item #6 of Office action set forth above.
17. Applicants further argue:
In addition, the present invention achieves a high-level balance of both heat resistance after exposure to a high-temperature environment and purification performance after exposure to a high-temperature environment.
Remarks, p. 11
“As shown in the above table, Examples 1 to 3, which satisfy all the claimed
limitations, achieve a high-level balance of both heat resistance after exposure to a high-
temperature environment (SSA ≥ 46 m²/g) and purification performance after exposure to
a high-temperature environment (T50 ≤ 231°C), whereas Examples 4 and 5 (which fall outside the currently claimed scope) and Comparative Examples 1 to 3 and 5, which do not satisfy all the claimed limitations, fail to achieve such a high-level balance of both properties.
Remarks p. 11-12
The examiner respectively traverses as follows:
Firstly, the data is not commensurate in the scope of the claims. Specifically, while applicant points to Examples 1-3 and 4-5 the data only shows using an exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition comprising a specific Ce- based oxide particle (i.e. CeO2), a specific Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle (i.e. a Ce-Zr-Nd oxide), a specific Al-based oxide particle (i.e. a Al2O3 with La2O3 oxide), and specific noble metal elements (i.e. Rh and Pt), a specific amount of Ce in terms of CeO2 in the Ce-based oxide particle Ce-based oxide particle (i.e. 100%), a specific amount of Ce in terms of CeO2 in the Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle (i.e. 20% by mass), a specific average particle size of the Ce-based oxide particle (i.e. 5.0, 5.2, and 10.8 pm), specific amounts of the Ce-based oxide particle in the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition based on a mass of the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition (i.e. 30.0%, 20.0%, 10.0%, 5.0% and 3.0% by mass), specific mass ratios of an amount of the Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle to the amount of the Ce-based oxide particle in the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition (i.e. 1.2, 2.0, 4.5, 9.5, 16.2) and specific mass ratios of an amount of the Al-based oxide particle to the amount of the Ce-based oxide particle in the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition (i.e. 1.1, 1.9, 4.4), while the claims broadly recite any type of Ce- based oxide particle, any type of Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle, any type of Al-based oxide particle (i.e. a Al2O3 with La2O3 oxide), and any amount and type of noble metal element, an amount of Ce in terms of CeO2 in the Ce-based oxide particle is 90% by mass or more based on a mass of the Ce-based oxide particle, an amount of Ce in terms of CeO2 in the Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle is 5% by mass or more and 90% by mass or less based on a mass of the Ce-Zr- based composite oxide particle, the Ce-based oxide particle has an average particle size of 0.10 pm or more and 15 pm or less, specific amounts of the Ce-based oxide particle in the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition based on a mass of the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition (i.e. 30.0%, 20.0%, 10.0%, 5.0% and 3.0% by mass), a mass ratio of an amount of the Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle to the amount of the Ce-based oxide particle in the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition is 1.0 or more and 25 or less and a mass ratio of an amount of the Al-based oxide particle to the amount of the Ce-based oxide particle in the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition is 0.1 or more and 5 or less.
Additionally, the data does not show using (1) the lower ends of the claimed ranges of the amount of Ce in terms of CeO2 in the Ce-based oxide particle is 90% by mass or more based on a mass of the Ce-based oxide particle, (2) the upper and lower ends of the claimed Ce-based oxide particle average particle size of 0.10 pm or more and 15 pm or less, (3) the upper end of a mass ratio of an amount of the Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle to the amount of the Ce-based oxide particle in the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition is 1.0 or more and 25 or less (4) the lower end of a mass ratio of an amount of the Al-based oxide particle to the amount of the Ce-based oxide particle in the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition is 0.1 or more and 5 or less. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(d), whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support”. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occurred over the entire claimed range, In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Applicants have not provided data to show that the unexpected results do in fact occur over the entire claimed range of the amount of Ce in terms of CeO2 in the Ce-based oxide particle is 90% by mass or more based on a mass of the Ce-based oxide particle, the Ce-based oxide particle average particle size of 0.10 pm or more and 15 pm or less, the mass ratio of an amount of the Ce-Zr-based composite oxide particle to the amount of the Ce-based oxide particle in the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition is 1.0 or more and 25 or less, and the mass ratio of an amount of the Al-based oxide particle to the amount of the Ce-based oxide particle in the exhaust gas purifying catalyst composition is 0.1 or more and 5 or less.
Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that Li in view of So and Abbasi meets the claimed exhaust gas purifying catalyst, as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. See item #6 of Office action set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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
Prosecution Insights