DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-22 are pending
Claims 1-22 are subject to election of species requirement
Claims 10 and 12-14 are withdrawn
Claims 1-9, 11, and 15-22 are rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claim 19 is 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.
4. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 19 recites the broad recitation “the platinum group metal comprises one or more of platinum, palladium and rhodium”, and the claim also recites “preferably wherein the platinum group metal comprises platinum” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
6. Claims 1-9, 11, 15-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kozlov et. al (US 20070244002 A1) (Kozlov) in view of Wang, Q., et. al., The effect of rare earth modification on ceria–zirconia solid solution and its application in Pd-only three-way catalyst (Wang).
7. Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kozlov teaches a catalyst comprising a solid solution material (Kozlov, Abstract),
wherein the solid solution material, a noble metal, and porous support deposited on a substrate (Kozlov, claim 17),
wherein the noble metal includes examples such as platinum, palladium, iridium, osmium, rhodium, ruthenium (i.e. a platinum group metal) (Kozlov, [0049])
wherein the solid solution material used as oxygen storage materials (OS/OISC material) in TWC (i.e., three-way-conversion; three way catalysis) catalysts would be supported on a substrate (Kozlov, [0049]).
Kozlov further teaches the solid solution material (i.e. mixed oxide support material) comprises: cerium (i.e. Ce), zirconium (Zr), a rare earth metal stabilizer (i.e. M), and tin (Sn), in addition to the oxygen (i.e. a formula CewZrxSnyMzOa) (Kozlov, [0018]).
Kozlov further teaches the solid solution material (i.e. mixed oxide support material) comprises less than or equal to about 50 mol % cerium (i.e. w ≤ 0.50) (Kozlov, [0020]), which overlaps with the claimed range.
Kozlov further teaches the solid solution material (i.e. mixed oxide support material) comprises about 5 to about 40 mol % of cerium (i.e. 0.05 ≤ w ≤ 0.40) (Kozlov, [0020]), which falls within the claimed range.
Kozlov further teaches the solid solution material comprises less than or equal to about 95 mol % zirconium (i.e. x ≤ 0.95)) (Kozlov, [0020]) or about 30 to about 95 mol % (i.e. 0.30 ≤ x ≤ 0.95) (Kozlov, Abstract), which overlap with the claimed range.
Kozlov further teaches the solid solution material comprises about 50 to about 85 mol % (i.e. 0.50 ≤ x ≤ 0.85) (Kozlov, [0020]), which falls within the claimed range.
Kozlov further teaches Sn is present in the solid solution material in an amount of about 0.01 to about 25 mol % (i.e. 0.0001 ≤ y ≤ 0.25) (Kozlov, [0020]), which overlaps with the claimed range.
Kozlov further teaches Sn is present in the solid solution material Sn is present in an amount of about 1 to about 5 mol % (i.e. 0.01 ≤ y ≤ 0.05) (Kozlov, [0020]), which falls within the claimed range.
Kozlov further teaches the stabilizer (i.e. M) in the solid solution material is present in an amount of less than or equal to about 20 mol % (i.e. z ≤ 0.20) (Kozlov, [0020]), which overlaps with the claimed range.
Kozlov further teaches the stabilizer (i.e. M) in the solid solution material is present in an amount of about 5 to about 15 mol % (i.e. 0.05 ≤ z ≤ 0.15) (Kozlov, [0020]), which falls within the claimed range.
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).
Kozlov further teaches the solid solution material is based upon 100 mol % (i.e. w + x + y + z = 1.00) (Kozlov, Abstract).
Kozlov further teaches the solid solution material comprise CeO2—ZrO2 solid solutions in which Sn is incorporated into the cubic fluorite structure (i.e. a = 2.0) with a rare earth metal stabilizer (i.e. M) (Kozlov, [0018]), which falls within the claimed range.
Kozlov further teaches the stabilizer comprises a metal such as yttrium, lanthanum, praseodymium, neodymium, scandium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, ytterbium as well as combinations comprising at least one of the foregoing metals (Kozlov, [0021]).
Given that Kozlov discloses the solid solution material that overlaps the presently claimed solid solution mixed oxide, including a stabilizer metal, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the solid solution material with the stabilizer metal, which is both disclosed by Kozlov and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
However, Kozlov does not directly teach the noble metal (i.e. platinum group metal) supported on the solid solution material (i.e. the mixed oxide support material).
With respect to the difference, Wang teaches the influence of rare earth elements (La, Nd, Pr, Sm and Y) addition to a ceria-zirconia solid solution Ce0.2Zr0.8O2 as a dynamic oxygen storage material (Wang, Abstract).
Wang further teaches that oxygen storage materials are one of the key components in three-way catalysts to store oxygen under oxygen excess conditions and release oxygen under oxygen deficient conditions (Wang, p. 1, left column, paragraph 2)
wherein Pd (i.e. platinum group metal) is supported on the ceria-zirconia mixed oxide (Wang, Abstract) in three way catalysts (Wang, Title).
Wang expressly teaches that cerium oxide containing oxygen storage materials (Wang, p. 52, left column, paragraph 2) as supports (Wang, p. 54, left column, paragraph 2) to promote noble metal dispersion and increase the thermal stability of TWC (Wang, p. 52, left column, paragraph 2). Therefore, accelerating the water gas-shift and steam-reforming reactions to favor catalytic activity at the interface of the metal – support (Wang, p. 52, left column, paragraph 2).
Kozlov and Wang are analogous art as they are all drawn to solid solution oxygen storage materials in TWC.
In light of the motivation to promote noble metal dispersion and increase the thermal stability of TWC as disclosed by Wang, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Pd (i.e. platinum group metal) supported on the mixed oxide support metal to the catalyst comprising the solid solution material of Kozlov, in order to provide desirable activity in TWC, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
13. Regarding claim 3, given Kozlov does not disclose adding other components in the solid solution material, besides cerium (i.e. Ce), zirconium (Zr), a rare earth metal stabilizer (i.e. M), and tin (Sn), in addition to the oxygen in a cubic fluorite phase structure (Kozlov, [0018]) in the ratios, as set forth above, it is clear that the solid solution material would not include other phases (i.e. phase impurities) as the phase purity of 100%, which would fall within the recited range.
14. Regarding claim 4, Kozlov further teaches the stabilizer (i.e. M) in the solid solution material is present in an amount up to about 20 mol % (i.e. z ≤ 0.2) and Sn is present in an amount of about 0.01 to about 25 mol % (i.e. 0.0001 ≤ y ≤ 0.25) (Kozlov, [0020])
wherein the amount of stabilizer (i.e. M) and Sn is present in the amount of about 0.01 to about 45 mol% (i.e. 0.0001 ≤ y + z ≤ 0.45), which overlaps with the claimed range.
15. Regarding claim 5, Kozlov further teaches Sn is present in the solid solution material in an amount of about 0.01 to about 25 mol % (i.e. 0.0001 ≤ y ≤ 0.25) (Kozlov, [0020]), which overlaps with the claimed range.
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).
16. Regarding claim 6, Kozlov further teaches the solid solution material (i.e. mixed oxide support material) comprises about 0.5 mol % to about 50 mol % cerium (i.e. 0.005 ≤ w ≤ 0.50) and about 30 to about 95 mol % of zirconium (i.e. 0.305 ≤ x ≤ 1.00) (Kozlov, Abstract)
wherein the amount of cerium and zirconium is present in the amount of about 30.5 to about 100 mol% (i.e. 0.305 ≤ w + x ≤ 1.00), which overlaps with the claimed range.
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).
17. Regarding claim 7, Kozlov further teaches the solid solution material (i.e. mixed oxide support material) comprises about 0.5 to about 50 mol % cerium (i.e. 0.005 ≤ w ≤ 0.50) and about 0.01 to about 25 mol % of Sn (i.e. 0.0001 ≤ y ≤ 0.25) (Kozlov, Abstract)
wherein the amount of cerium and Sn is present in the amount of about 0.51 to about 75 mol% (i.e. 0.0051 ≤ w + y ≤ 0.75), which overlaps with the claimed range.
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).
18. Regarding claim 8, Kozlov further teaches Sn is present in the solid solution material in an amount of about 0.01 to about 25 mol % (i.e. 0.0001 ≤ y ≤ 0.25) (Kozlov, Abstract), which overlaps with the claimed range.
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).
19. Regarding claim 9, Kozlov further teaches the solid solution material (i.e. mixed oxide support material) comprises about 0.5 to about 50 mol % cerium (i.e. 0.005 ≤ w ≤ 0.50) (Kozlov, Abstract), which overlaps with the claimed range.
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).
20. Regarding claim 11, Kozlov further teaches the solid solution material (i.e. mixed oxide support material) comprises less than or equal to about 50 mol % cerium (i.e. w ≤ 0.50) and less than or equal to about 95 mol % zirconium (i.e. x ≤ 0.95) (Kozlov, [0020]), which overlap with the claimed ranges.
Kozlov further teaches Sn is present in the solid solution material in an amount of about 0.01 to about 25 mol % (i.e. 0.0001 ≤ y ≤ 0.25) and the stabilizer (i.e. M) in the solid solution material is present in an amount of less than or equal to about 20 mol % (i.e. z ≤ 0.20) (Kozlov, [0020])
wherein the amount of stabilizer (i.e. M) and Sn is present in the amount of about 0.01 to about 45 mol% (i.e. 0.0001 ≤ y + z ≤ 0.45), which overlaps with the claimed range.
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).
21. Regarding claims 16-18, Kozlov further teaches the stabilizer (i.e. M) comprises a metal such as yttrium, lanthanum, praseodymium, neodymium, scandium, samarium, europium, or gadolinium (Kozlov, [0021]).
Given that Kozlov discloses the solid solution material that overlaps the presently claimed solid solution mixed oxide, including a stabilizer metal, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the solid solution material with the stabilizer metal, which is both disclosed by Kozlov and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
22. Regarding claim 19-21, Kozlov further teaches a catalyst comprising the solid solution material (i.e. mixed oxide support material) as an oxygen storage material would be supported on a substrate as part of the three-way-conversion catalyst with noble metals, such as platinum, palladium, and rhodium (Kozlov, [0049])
Wang further teaches Pd (i.e. platinum group metal) is supported on the ceria-zirconia mixed oxide (Wang, Abstract) in a TWC (Wang, Title).
23. Regarding claim 22, Kozlov further teaches the solid solution material (i.e. mixed oxide support material) comprises: cerium (i.e. Ce), zirconium (Zr), a rare earth metal stabilizer (i.e. M), and tin (Sn), in addition to the oxygen (i.e. a formula CewZrxSnyMzOa) (Kozlov, [0018]).
Kozlov further teaches the solid solution material (i.e. mixed oxide support material) comprises less than or equal to about 50 mol % cerium (i.e. w ≤ 0.50) (Kozlov, [0020]), which overlaps with the claimed range.
Kozlov further teaches the solid solution material (i.e. mixed oxide support material) comprises about 5 to about 40 mol % of cerium (i.e. 0.05 ≤ w ≤ 0.40) (Kozlov, [0020]), which falls within the claimed range.
Kozlov further teaches the solid solution material comprises less than or equal to about 95 mol % zirconium (i.e. x ≤ 0.95)) (Kozlov, [0020]) with examples such as about 30 to about 95 mol % (i.e. 0.30 ≤ x ≤ 0.95) (Kozlov, Abstract), which overlap with the claimed range.
Kozlov further teaches the solid solution material comprises about 50 to about 85 mol % (i.e. 0.50 ≤ x ≤ 0.85) (Kozlov, [0020]), which falls within the claimed range.
Kozlov further teaches Sn is present in the solid solution material in an amount of about 0.01 to about 25 mol % (i.e. 0.0001 ≤ y ≤ 0.25) (Kozlov, [0020]), which overlaps with the claimed range.
Kozlov further teaches Sn is present in the solid solution material Sn is present in an amount of about 1 to about 5 mol % (i.e. 0.01 ≤ y ≤ 0.05) (Kozlov, [0020]), which falls within the claimed range.
Kozlov further teaches the stabilizer (i.e. M) in the solid solution material is present in an amount of less than or equal to about 20 mol % (i.e. z ≤ 0.20) (Kozlov, [0020]), which overlaps with the claimed range.
Kozlov further teaches the stabilizer (i.e. M) in the solid solution material is present in an amount of about 5 to about 15 mol % (i.e. 0.05 ≤ z ≤ 0.15) (Kozlov, [0020]), which falls within the claimed range.
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).
Kozlov further teaches the solid solution material is based upon 100 mol % (i.e. w + x + y + z = 1.00) (Kozlov, Abstract).
Kozlov further teaches the solid solution material comprise CeO2—ZrO2 solid solutions in which Sn is incorporated into the cubic fluorite structure (i.e. a = 2.0) with a rare earth metal stabilizer (i.e. M) (Kozlov, [0018]), which falls within the claimed range.
Kozlov further teaches the stabilizer comprises a metal such as yttrium, lanthanum, praseodymium, neodymium, scandium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, ytterbium as well as combinations comprising at least one of the foregoing metals (Kozlov, [0021]).
Given that Kozlov discloses the solid solution material that overlaps the presently claimed solid solution mixed oxide, including a stabilizer metal, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the solid solution material with the stabilizer metal, which is both disclosed by Kozlov and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
24. Claim 15 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kozlov in view of Yang as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Min, P. et al., Enhanced oxygen storage capacity of CeO2 with doping-induced unstable crystal structure (Min).
25. Regarding claim 15, Kozlov in view of Yang further teaches the catalyst composition of claim 11 wherein the solid solution material comprises cerium (i.e. Ce), zirconium (Zr), a rare earth metal stabilizer (i.e. M), and tin (Sn), in addition to the oxygen in a cubic fluorite phase structure (Kozlov, [0018]). However, Kozlov in view of Yang do not teach the mean cationic radius of Ce, Zr, Sn and M in the solid solution mixed oxide is from 90 to 106 pm.
With respect to the difference, Min teaches the effects of dopants on the OSC (oxygen storage capacity) of CeO2 (Min, Abstract) in a cubic fluorite structure with small Hf4+ or Sn4+ cations partially substituting the cerium ions to form a solid solution (Min, p. 437, left column, paragraph 2)
wherein ceria has been extensively used three-way catalysts (TWCs) for controlling emissions of automobile exhaust gases (Min, p. 435, left column, paragraph 1)
Min further teaches the cation to anion radius ratio is 0.703 for CeO2 with a Ce4+ ionic radius of r = 0.097 nm (i.e. 97 pm)
wherein oxygen vacancies and the oxygen storage capacity of ceria can be tuned by partial substitution of smaller cations into Ce4+sites (Min, p. 435, right column, last paragraph).
Min further teaches the smaller incorporated cations produce a lower cation to anion radius ratio in the crystal (i.e. lower mean cationic radius) (Min, p. 436, left column, first paragraph).
Min expressly teaches the doped CeO2 samples achieve high OSC by manipulation of the crystal structural parameter of rcation (i.e. mean cationic radius) in CeO2 (Min, p. 436, left column, first paragraph). Therefore, OSC performance is enhanced by the introduction of cations smaller than Ce4+ into CeO2 to coordinate and optimize structural stability and catalytic performance (Min, p. 436, left column, first paragraph).
Kozlov, Yang, and Min are analogous art as they are all drawn to solid solution oxygen storage materials in TWC.
In light of the motivation for manipulation of the crystal structural parameter of rcation (i.e. mean cationic radius) in CeO2 via doping as disclosed by Min, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crystal structural parameter of rcation (i.e. mean cationic radius) in CeO2 of the solid solution material of Kozlov and Yang, in order to achieve a desired oxygen storage capacity and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Although there are no disclosures of the mean cationic radius of Ce, Zr, Sn and M in the solid solution mixed oxide is from 90 to 106 pm as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of Ce, Zr, Sn, and stabilizer (i.e. M) in Kozlov, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to provide high OSC by manipulation of the crystal structural parameter of rcation (i.e. mean cationic radius) in CeO2 (Min, p. 442, left column, Conclusion).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 5.
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, Ching-Yiu 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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights