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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/26/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the International Search Authority using the same criteria as 37 C.F.R. § 1.475 and conducting a search on the corresponding set of claims being fully aware of CN 106268858 A, found unity of invention to be present in corresponding International Application No. PCT/JP2022/018308. This is not found persuasive because the issue is not whether the International Search Authority found unity. The issue is whether the pending application makes a contribution over the prior art. Applicant has not stated what contribution the pending application has made over CN106268858. Furthermore, Inoue et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,018,706) teaches the claimed invention and thus the Office maintains the pending application does not make a contribution over the prior art and thus lacks unity.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 2, 4-6 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 2 recites “wherein the ruthenium is supported on the activated alumina molded body in an eggshell shape having a shell portion with a thickness of 0.2 to 0.4 mm, the zirconia is supported in a support amount of 50% or more and less than 100% in a center portion using the average amount of zirconia supported in the entire activated alumina molded body as a reference, and the amount of zirconia supported is higher than 100% in the shell portion where the ruthenium is supported.” The claim recites ruthenium supported on active body and then states an eggshell shape. It is not clear what an eggshell shape is. The claim then states the zirconia is supported in a center portion but does not state the center portion of what. And the claim states the zirconia is higher than 100% when the previous limitation states “the zirconia is supported in a support amount of 50% or more and less than 100%”. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the content of cerium oxide" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5 and 6 recites “a degree of phase transformation to alpha-type”. The claim is indefinite because it is not clear what is undergoing phase transformation to alpha-type.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,018,706).
Regarding claims 1-6, Inoue et al. teaches catalysts for purifying exhaust and waste (column 1). Inoue et al. teaches a support substrate composed of the titanium phosphate and aluminum oxide is prepared by impregnating a molded or pelletized activated alumina carrier with the titanium compound and phosphorus compound which meets the limitation of an activated alumina molded body (column 5, lines 10-35). Inoue et al. teaches oxides of heavy metals used as the catalytic substance in the catalyst of this invention are the oxides of nickel, copper, chromium, iron, cobalt, manganese, bismuth, vanadium, tungsten, molybdenum, tin, zinc, zirconium wherein heavy metal oxide is supported in an amount of 2 to 300 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the support substrate which meets the limitation wherein the amount of zirconia supported is 3 to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the activated alumina molded body (column 5, lines 30-50). Inoue et al. teaches a catalyst comprising a support substrate composed of titanium phosphate and alumina oxide and supported thereon, 0.01 to 1.0 part by weight, preferably 0.03 to 0.8 part by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the support substrate, of platinum, palladium, rhodium, iridium, osmium or ruthenium which meets the limitation the amount of ruthenium supported is 0.1 to 5 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the activated alumina molded body (column 6, lines 40-55). Inoue et al. teaches the support substrate used in this invention is a granular extrudate having a particle diameter of 2 to 10 mm which meets the limitation the carbon dioxide methanation catalyst molded body is a molded body having a particle diameter of 2 to 20 mm (column 5, lines 25-35). It is clear that the catalyst taught by Inoue et al. would necessarily reduce carbon dioxide to form methane because the catalyst is the same or substantially the same as the claimed catalyst (paragraph 36). Furthermore, the catalyst taught by Inoue et al. would possess the claimed characteristics because the catalyst is the same or substantially the same as the claimed catalyst. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUINEVER S GREGORIO whose telephone number is (571)270-5827. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 11 am - 9 pm.
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, Coris 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.
/GUINEVER S GREGORIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 06/13/2026
Prosecution Insights