Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/307,141

THREE-WAY CATALYST HAVING LOW NH3 FORMATION AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 26, 2023
Examiner
QUIST, NICOLE LEE
Art Unit
1738
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
sinocat environmental technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
93%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 93% — above average
93%
Career Allow Rate
28 granted / 30 resolved
+28.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
71
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
44.3%
+4.3% vs TC avg
§102
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
§112
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 30 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/26/2023 has been considered by the examiner. Election/Restrictions Claim 9 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/17/2025. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 10/17/2025 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Chinzei et al (US 20200353411 A1, cited on IDS 05/26/2023). 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”). 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”). Regarding claim 4, Chinzei discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and 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 discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and 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 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 discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and 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 discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and 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”). 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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinzei et al (US 20200353411 A1, cited on IDS 05/26/2023). Regarding claims 2-3, Chinzei discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and further discloses in Example 1, the material 3 was introduced into distilled water while stirred such that an amount of Rh became 0.45 g per liter of the volume of the substrate (0.45 g/L) ([0093]). 0.45 g/L is equivalent to 12.7 g/ft3 which is within the claimed range of 1-100 g/ft3 (claim 2) and 5-40 g/ft3 (claim 3). While Chinzei discloses 0.45 g/L of Rh, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute Ru for Rh since Chinzei discloses specific examples of the noble metal include platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), rhodium (Rh)… and ruthenium (Ru) ([0042]). This disclosure suggests substituting Ru for Rh will result in a predictable outcome. 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 /MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 26, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 03, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582147
FULLY CALORIC, SLOWLY DIGESTIBLE CARBOHYDRATE COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583747
METHOD FOR PRODUCING PHOSPHORIC ACID AND CALCIUM SULPHATE QUALITY SUITABLE FOR A CLINKER PROCESS FOR THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL UTILIZATION OF CALCIUM SULPHATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582967
Multi-cationic aluminate spinels
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12551871
METAL-FOAM BODY AND METHOD FOR THE PRODUCTION THEREOF AND THE USE THEREOF AS A CATALYST
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12534376
Method for producing and purifying sodium bromide using the coke from pyrolysis residues of waste circuit boards as reducing agent
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
93%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+9.5%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 30 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month