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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/16/2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaaki (JP-2006205050-A).
Regarding claim 1
Takaaki discloses a catalyst for cleaning exhaust gas comprising a lower catalyst layer containing ceria oxide of 90 % or more and having Pt or Pd disposed thereon, and a second upper catalyst layer (abstract).
Takaaki discloses that the lower catalyst may be 90 wt % ceria and the balance may be alumina (Advantageous Effects).
Takaaki discloses that the ceria-based oxide composite may be a ceria-zirconia composite having an atomic ratio of Ce:Zr of 2:1 (claims). Further, Takaaki discloses that the upper catalyst layer may be the ceria-based oxide (Best Mode), making it obvious to use a ceria-zirconia composite oxide with a 2:1 Ce to Zr ratio as the upper layer with Ce-Al and Pd/Pt as the lower layer (i.e., a mixture of ce-based oxide particles with Ce-Zr-based oxided particles and a noble metal element).
Regarding claims 3-4
Takaaki discloses that use of Pt on the lower layer and Rh on the upper layer (Tech Problem).
Regarding claim 6
Takaaki discloses 200 parts by weight of the lower catalyst layer with 50 parts by weight of the upper catalyst layer (Example 1), which is above 1 mass %.
Regarding claim 7
Takaaki discloses disposing the catalyst on a cordierite A honeycomb (Example 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaaki (JP-2006205050-A), as applied to claims 1, 3-4 and 6-7 above, in view of Patcas et al. (WO-2015169825-A1).
Regarding claim 2
Although, Takaaki does not disclose the crystallite size, Takaaki does disclose or make obvious the other limitations of the claim. However, Patcas teaches similar ceria based catalyst and discloses that the crystallite size of the ceria is in the range of 10 to 30 nm (claim 1). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to add to the teachings of Takaaki by using ceria with a crystallite size in the range of 120 to 30 nm, with a reasonable expectation of success in forming a useful catalyst, as suggested by Patcas.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaaki (JP-2006205050-A), as applied to claims 1, 3-4 and 6-7 above, in view of Hara et al. (US 20200353447-A1).
Regarding claim 5
Although, Takaaki does not disclose the particle size, Takaaki does disclose or make obvious the other limitations of the claim. However, Hara teaches similar ceria based catalyst and discloses that the particle size of the ceria is 10 microns (para 0096). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to add to the teachings of Takaaki by using ceria with a particle size of 10 microns, with a reasonable expectation of success in forming a useful catalyst, as suggested by Hara.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue against the prior art rejections.
Applicants ague that Takaaki does not teach or suggest the combined use of the Ce-based oxide particle and the Ce-Zr based composite oxide. This is not persuasive as the lower catalyst layer corresponds to the Ce-composite oxide particle, and the upper layer corresponds to the Ce-Zr composite oxide.
Applicants argue that Takaaki merely discloses as the first oxide carrier a physical mixture of a ceria-based oxide powder and another oxide powder. This is not persuasive as Takaaki discloses making the lower catalyst that aluminum sol/nitrate and ceria sol/nitrate is used to make the composite oxide and makes its Ce content less than 90 wt % (last paragraph Best Mode), in such a synthesis method the composite oxide would be a composite oxide of ceria and alumina, not simply a mixture of ceria powder and alumina powder.
Applicants argue that Takaaki does not disclose a mixture of Ce-based oxide particles and Ce-Zr-based oxide particles in a single layer or catalyst. This is not persuasive as a single layer is not claimed, but the layers of Takaaki are a single catalyst, and broadly read on a mixture.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the same reasons given above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
JAMES E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights