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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-8, 10-20 are pending in the application. Claims 2-3, 9 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 recites the Pd and Rh are present in a ratio of 9:1. The specification discloses a three-way catalyst containing Pt, Pd and Rh ([0067]) where the ratio of Pt, Pd and Rh is 3:6:1 ([0067]). However, there is no embodiment in the specification which discloses a three-way catalyst containing Pt, Pd and Rh where the Pd and Rh ratio is 9:1 as required by claim 18.
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, 4-8, 10, 15-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinzei et al (US 20200353411 A1, cited on IDS 05/26/2023) in view of Schmitz et al (WO 2019149930 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chinzei discloses an exhaust gas purification catalyst comprising a catalyst coating layer on a substrate (abstract, meeting limitation "a three-way catalyst, comprising a carrier and a coating material" since Chinzei discloses an exhaust gas purification catalyst for decomposition of such harmful gases is also referred to as a three - way catalyst ([0003])). The catalyst coating layer contains a noble metal serving as a main catalyst, a composite oxide containing cerium oxide and zirconium oxide, a composite oxide containing aluminum oxide, and the like ([0039] meeting limitation "the coating material comprising a precious metal active component and a catalytic material"). The catalyst coating… is formed on a surface of the substrate, and may be configured from one layer or two or more layers ([0038]). Each catalyst coating layer… may have a different composition depending on each part of the substrate ([0038] meeting limitation "the precious metal active component includes a first precious metal active component and a second precious metal active component"). Specific examples of the noble metal include platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), rhodium (Rh) and ruthenium (Ru) ([0042] meeting limitation "the first precious metal active component comprises Ru; and the second precious metal active component comprises Pd and Rh, and optionally, Pt").
Chinzei does not disclose Ru in an amount of 5 ~ 40 g/ft3.
Schmitz discloses a four-way conversion catalyst for the treatment of an exhaust gas stream of a gasoline engine, the catalyst comprising a porous wall flow filter substrate… wherein the pores of the porous internal walls comprise a three-way conversion catalytic in-wall coating which comprises an oxygen storage compound and a platinum group metal supported on a refractory metal oxide (abstract). Preferably, the three-way conversion catalytic in-wall coating comprises a refractory metal oxide support (Pg. 10 lines 16-17). Preferably, the refractory metal oxide support comprised in the in-wall coating comprises a platinum group metal supported thereon (Pg. 10 lines 42-43). Preferably, said platinum group metal is one or more of one or more of ruthenium (Pg. 10 line 43 – Pg. 11 line 1). Preferably, the in-wall coating comprises the platinum group metal supported on the refractory metal oxide support at a loading in the range of … from 4 to 150 g/ft3 (Pg. 11 lines 4-6).
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). In the instant case, the claimed range (5 ~ 40 g/ft3) lies inside the range disclosed by Schmitz (4 to 150 g/ft3). Therefore, the range in Schmitz renders obvious the claimed range.
Schmitz further discloses a catalyst exhibiting an improved particle filtration efficiency (Pg. 1 lines 27-28).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the catalyst of Chinzei to comprise Ru in an amount of 5 ~ 40 g/ft3 as taught by Schmitz in order to improve particle filtration efficiency.
Regarding claim 4, Chinzei in view of Schmitz discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Chinzei further discloses the noble metal raw material for preparation of the noble metal particles is not particularly limited, and examples thereof include a solution obtained by dissolving a salt... of a noble metal ([0072] meeting limitation "wherein the Ru in the first precious metal active component contains metallic ruthenium").
Regarding claim 5, Chinzei in view of Schmitz discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Chinzei further discloses the composite oxide containing the cerium oxide and the zirconium oxide is a material excellent in oxygen storage capacity ([0041] meeting limitation "wherein the catalytic material comprises an oxygen storage material"). The catalyst coating layer contains … a composite oxide containing aluminum oxide ([0039] meeting limitation "an alumina material").
Regarding claim 6, Chinzei in view of Schmitz discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including the composite oxide containing the cerium oxide and the zirconium oxide is a material excellent in oxygen storage capacity ([0041] meeting limitation "wherein the oxygen storage material comprises CeO₂-ZrO₂").
Regarding claim 7, Chinzei in view of Schmitz discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Chinzei further discloses the composite oxide containing the aluminum oxide plays a role as contributing to improvement in exhaust gas purification performance and heat resistance ([0040]). Specific examples of a substrate contained in the composite oxide other than the aluminum oxide includes lanthanum oxide (La₂O₃), cerium oxide (CeO₂) ([0040] meeting limitation "wherein the alumina material comprises pure alumina or a modified alumina containing La and/or Ce").
Regarding claim 8, Chinzei in view of Schmitz discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Chinzei further discloses the material of such a substrate is also not particularly limited, and a substrate made of ceramics. or a substrate made of a metal may be adopted ([0036] meeting limitation "wherein the carrier comprises a ceramic carrier or a metal carrier").
Regarding claim 10, Chinzei in view of Schmitz discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Chinzei further discloses Exhaust gas discharged from an internal combustion engine of an automotive or the like includes harmful gases such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and unburned hydrocarbon (HC) ([0003]). An exhaust gas purification catalyst for decomposition of such harmful gases is also referred to as a “three-way catalyst” ([0003]).
Regarding claim 15, Chinzei in view of Schmitz discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including the catalyst coating… is formed on a surface of the substrate, and may be configured from one layer or two or more layers ([0038]). Each catalyst coating layer… may have a different composition depending on each part of the substrate ([0038]). The catalyst coating layer contains a noble metal serving as a main catalyst ([0039]). Specific examples of the noble metal include platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), rhodium (Rh) and ruthenium (Ru) ([0042]).
Regarding claim 16, Chinzei in view of Schmitz discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Schmitz discloses preferably, said platinum group metal is one or more of one or more of ruthenium (Pg. 10 line 43 – Pg. 11 line 1). Preferably, the in-wall coating comprises the platinum group metal supported on the refractory metal oxide support at a loading in the range of … from 4 to 150 g/ft3 (Pg. 11 lines 4-6).
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). In the instant case, the claimed range (20 ~ 40 g/ft3) lies inside the range disclosed by Schmitz (4 to 150 g/ft3). Therefore, the range in Schmitz renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 19 and 20, Chinzei in view of Schmitz discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Chinzei further discloses the material of such as substrate is also not particularly limited, and a substrate made of ceramics such as cordierite… may be adopted ([0036]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinzei et al (US 20200353411 A1, cited on IDS 05/26/2023) in view of Schmitz et al (WO 2019149930 A1), and in further view of Bartley et al. (US 20170107880 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Chinzei in view of Schmitz discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose wherein the three-way catalyst forms less than 10 ppm of ammonia from the vehicle exhaust gas.
Bartley discloses ruthenium based catalysts in selective catalytic reduction systems for NOx reduction to nitrogen, where carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2) are available as the reductants ([0012]). The ruthenium based catalyst may therefore now be advantageously employed in any combustion process where CO and H2 are available, and preferably, in various configurations of an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system associated with internal combustion engines utilizing a hydrocarbon fuel ([0012]). The ruthenium based catalyst herein is preferably a ruthenium supported catalyst, which is reference to the feature that the ruthenium is supported by an otherwise inert and solid catalyst carrier ([0014]). FIG. 3 identifies the conversion efficiency versus temperature for the ruthenium based catalyst herein as applied to the same inlet gas profile identified above in FIG. 2 ([0041]). The actual output production of NH3 after treatment with the ruthenium based catalyst was indicated to be at or below 5.0 ppm, more specifically, at or below 2.5 ppm, and even more specifically, at or below 1.0 ppm ([0041]). Below 5.0 ppm is within the claimed range of less than 10 ppm.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the three-way catalyst of Chinzei in view of Schmitz to form less than 10 ppm of ammonia from the vehicle exhaust gas as taught by Bartley in order to reduce ammonia pollution.
Claims 12-14, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinzei et al (US 20200353411 A1, cited on IDS 05/26/2023) in view of Schmitz et al (WO 2019149930 A1), and in further view of Chen et al (US 20080038172 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Chinzei in view of Schmitz discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose wherein the second precious metal active component consists essentially of Pd and Rh.
Chen discloses poisoning-resistant catalysts used for automobile exhaust gas treatment systems (abstract). The single washcoat layer was formed by applying aqueous media of ˜42% solid content to a substrate surface ([0074]). The aqueous media contained 8.21 g of palladium and 0.92 g of rhodium impregnated separately as nitrate solution by a Planetary mixer into 210 g γ-alumina, 341.1 g ceria/zirconia composites with 30% ceria, 24.1 g nickel oxide and 15.7 g zirconia binder ([0074]). Therefore, combining observations from Examples 7 and 8, it would be advantageous to design a poison-trapping layer that is sufficiently long (in axial length from the inlet) and deep (in radial washcoat thickness) to keep poisons from damaging catalytic layers, while not creating an excessive diffusional barrier to retard mass transfer and consequently warm-up activity ([0076]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the catalyst of Chinzei in view of Schmitz wherein the second precious metal active component consists essentially of Pd and Rh as taught by Chen in order to act as a poison-trapping layer and to keep poisons from damaging catalytic layers while not creating an excessive diffusional barrier to retard mass transfer and consequently warm-up activity.
Regarding claim 13, Chinzei in view of Schmitz and Chen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Chen further discloses the precious metal containing layers will generally contain a precious metal loading of from about 2 to about 500 g/ft3 ([0048]).
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). In the instant case, the claimed range (35 g/ft3 ) lies inside the range taught by Chen (2 to about 500 g/ft3). Therefore, the range in Chen renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Chinzei in view of Schmitz and Chen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Chen discloses the aqueous media contained 8.21 g of palladium and 0.92 g of rhodium ([0074]). 8.21/0.92= 8.9239 which meets the claimed ratio of 9:1.
Regarding claim 17, Chinzei in view of Schmitz discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose wherein the Pd and Rh are present in a total content of 35 g/ft3.
Chen discloses the catalytic member 2 comprises, a substrate 4, typically a honeycomb monolith substrate, which is coated with a first or bottom washcoat layer 6, containing one or more precious metal catalysts, and a second or middle washcoat layer 8 also containing one or more precious metal (PM) catalysts ([0039]). The precious metal and OSC-containing layers will generally contain a precious metal loading of from about 2 to 500 g/ft3 ([0040]). As used herein, the term "platinum group metals' means platinum, rhodium, palladium, ruthenium, iridium, and osmium ([0048]).
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). In the instant case, the claimed range (35 g/ft3) lies inside the range taught by Chen (2 to about 500 g/ft3). Therefore, the range in Chen renders obvious the claimed range.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinzei et al (US 20200353411 A1, cited on IDS 05/26/2023) in view of Schmitz et al (WO 2019149930 A1), and in further view of Zheng et al (WO 2020263810 A1).
Chinzei in view of Schmitz discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose wherein the Pd and Rh are present in a ratio of 9:1.
Zheng discloses a layered catalytic article comprising: a) a first layer comprising platinum… b) a second layer comprising a second platinum group metal component… wherein the second platinum group is selected from platinum, palladium, rhodium and a combination; and c) a substrate (Pg. 2 lines 13-23). Table 2 illustrates the Pt/Pd/Rh wt. ratio for examples 3-8 (Pg. 21). Examples 4-8 have Pd/Rh ratio of 38:4 which is equal to 9.5:1.
The claim requires the Pd/Rh ratio of 9:1, while Zheng discloses 9.5:1. It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed 9:1 and that taught by Zheng are so close to each other that the fact pattern in the instant case is similar to that in In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) wherein, despite a “slight” difference in the ranges taught by the prior art and the claims of the application, the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above, and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the ratio disclosed by Zheng and the ratio claimed, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the Pd to Rh ratio disclosed in Zheng is so close to that claimed that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have expected the Pd to Rh ratio of both Zheng and the instant claim to have the same properties, and thereby would have arrived at the claimed invention, absent showings to the contrary or evidence of criticality associated with the Pd to Rh ratio.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE L QUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/N.L.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights