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. Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment, filed on September 28, 2023, has been made of record and entered. In this amendment, claims 3-5, 7, and 8 have been amended to eliminate multiple claim dependency. No claims have been canceled or added; claims 1-8 are presently pending in this application. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Applicants’ Priority Document was filed on September 28, 2023. Claim Interpretation In claim 1 , the last two paragraphs therein will be interpreted as follows: In the first layer, the total of a content of Zr and Ce, both in terms of oxide, is 70% by mass or more, and a content of Al in terms of oxide is 15% by mass or less, based on a mass of the first layer; and In the second layer, content of Al in terms of oxide is 75% by mass or more, and total content of Zr and Ce, both in terms of oxide, is 15% by mass or less, based on a mass of the second layer. Claim 8 will be interpreted as follows: The mass ratio of (palladium element plus platinum element) to rhodium element in the first layer is 1 or more and less than 10; and a. The mass ratio of (palladium element plus platinum element) to rhodium element in the second layer is 1 or more and less than 10 . Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it 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). 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 5 and 6 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 is indefinite for lacking antecedent basis for “composite oxide in the first layer”. Claim 1 , from which claim 5 depends, recites “a first layer comprising…a complex oxide”. Claim 6 is rejected because it depends from claim 5 and does not cure the aforementioned deficiency. 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. 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. 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. Claims 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa (JP 2006-205050) in view of Yasuda et al. (JP 2020-032306). Regarding claim 1 , Kanazawa teach an exhaust gas purification catalyst comprising a carrier substrate, a lower layer (“first layer”) comprising a first support comprising ceria-based oxide carrier and at least one of Pt and Pd supported thereon, and an upper layer (“second layer”) formed on the first/lower layer and comprising second oxide support and a catalyst metal (e.g., Pt, Pd, Rh, Ir, or a base metal) supported thereon. The first support may also comprise other oxides (e.g., alumina), wherein said first support contains the ceria-based oxide in amounts of 90% by weight or more, and less than 10% by weight of other oxides. Examples of the ceria-based oxide carrier include CeO 2 /ZrO 2 composite oxide, and CeO 2 /ZrO 2 /Al 2 O 3 composite oxide. In the upper layer, the second oxide support is not limited, and can be alumina, zirconia, titania, or the aforementioned ceria-based oxides. See paragraphs [0014] and [0018]-[0024] of Kanazawa. Regarding claim 2 , it is considered that because Kanazawa does not disclose the presence of barium in the lower layer, the claim limitation “substantially free of barium element…” recited in claim 2 is considered read upon by this reference. Kanazawa does not explicitly teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding the second layer containing “a content of aluminum element in terms of oxide, and a total of a content of zirconium element in terms of oxide and a content of cerium element in terms of oxide are 75% by mass or more and 15% by mass or less, respectively, based on a mass of the second layer,” as recited in claim 1 . Although Kanazawa does not disclose the contents of alumina, zirconia, titania, or the aforementioned ceria-based oxides present in the second layer, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to determine through routine experimentation the optimal amounts of these support materials, such as that recited in Applicants’ claim 1 , to obtain a catalyst layer exhibiting optimal thermal stability and durability. See paragraphs [0014] and [0018]-[0024] of Kanazawa. Regarding claim 3 , Kanazawa teaches that the amount of Pt and Pd in the lower layer respectively ranges from 0.1 to 10 g/liter of catalyst and 0.1 to 20 g/liter of catalyst, and that the amount of catalyst metal in the upper layer, when said catalyst metal is Rh, ranges from 0.05 to 10 g/liter of catalyst. See paragraphs [0022] and [0025] of Kanazawa. From these teachings, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to select from the amounts of (a) Pt group element, i.e., Rh, in the upper layer, e.g., 10 g/liter of catalyst and (b) Pt and/or Pd in the lower layer, e.g., 0.1 g Pt/liter of catalyst and 0.1 g Pd/liter of catalyst, to obtain a total content of second Pt group element in second layer being higher than content of first Pt group element in first layer, thus reading upon claim 3 . Regarding claims 4 and 7 , Kanazawa teaches that the exhaust gas catalyst consists of a honeycomb substrate, a lower catalyst layer formed on the substrate, and an upper catalyst layer formed on the surface of the lower catalyst layer. See paragraph [0029] and the Figure of Kanazawa. Kanazawa also does not teach or suggest the presence of rhodium in the lower layer, as recited in Applicants’ claim 1 (“wherein the first platinum group element and the second platinum group element each contain rhodium element,…”). Regarding claim 1 , Yasuda et al. teach an exhaust gas purifying catalyst comprising a substrate, an OSC (oxygen storage and release) layer provided on the substrate, a first catalyst layer provided on the OSC layer and containing Rh, and a second catalyst layer provided on the first catalyst layer, wherein the second catalyst layer comprises an upstream catalyst layer provided on the first catalyst layer on the upstream side of the gas flow path and containing Pd; and a second catalyst layer provided on the first catalyst layer on the downstream side of the gas flow path in parallel with the upstream catalyst layer and containing Rh. See paragraph [0013] of Yasuda et al. Figure 1 of Yasuda et al. depicts an embodiment of the aforementioned catalyst for purifying exhaust gas, wherein element 21 is the OSC layer, element 31 is the first catalyst layer containing Rh, element 41a is the upstream catalyst layer provided on the first catalyst layer, and element 1b is the second catalyst layer provided on the first catalyst layer on the downstream side of the gas flow path in parallel with the upstream catalyst layer, which also contains Rh. See also paragraph [0020] of Yasuda et al. Examples of the aforementioned OSC layer (element 21), containing an oxygen and storage release material, include ceria-based (composite) oxides and include zirconia-based (composite) oxides, e.g., cerium (IV) oxide (ceria), cerium-zirconium composite oxides, cerium-rare earth element complex oxides, etc. See paragraphs [0025]-[0027] of Yasuda et al.; note that cerium-zirconium composite oxides are also disclosed in paragraph [0020] of Kanazawa as an exemplary ceria-based oxide. Yasuda et al. further teach the feasibility in the aforementioned OSC layer containing platinum group elements such as Pd, Rh, and Pt. See paragraph [0036] of Yasuda et al. Motivated by the common teachings of Kanazawa and Yasuda et al. regarding exhaust gas purification catalysts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the exhaust gas purifying catalyst of Kanazawa by incorporating therein rhodium in the lower layer, as suggested by Yasuda et al. as it has been held that combining two or more materials disclosed by the prior art for the same purpose to form a third material that is to be used for the same purpose has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Kerkhoven , 205 U.S.P.Q. 1069. See also MPEP 2144.06(I). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Neither Kanazawa nor Yasuda et al. teach or suggest the limitations of these claims. Regarding claim 5 , while Kanazawa teaches that the lower layer may contain a composite oxide, said lower layer is not shown to contain first and second complex oxides; see paragraphs [0020] and [0021] of Kanazawa. Regarding claims 6 and 8 , the lower layer disclosed in Kanazawa does not contain rhodium; therefore, the claim limitations “first platinum group element contains rhodium element and palladium element” in claim 6 and “total amount of palladium element and platinum element to an amount of rhodium element” in claim 8 cannot be met. See paragraphs [0014] and [0020] of Kanazawa. Yasuda et al. do not cure these deficiencies of Kanazawa. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Uenishi et al. (JP 2001-079404) teach an exhaust gas catalyst comprising a carrier and a coating having a two-layered structure formed thereon, wherein the first layer in the two-layered structure is directly formed on the carrier and comprises Pd and alumina, and the second layer comprises at least one of Pt and Rh and a Zr-Ce composite represented by Zr 1-(x+y) Ce x M y O 2-z , where 0.5 ≤ 1-(x+y) ≤ 0.9, 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.3, and 0.3 ≤ y ≤0.3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1369 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /Patricia L. Hailey/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 April 1, 2026