DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending Claims 8 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration Claims 1- 7 and 9 -19 are rejected Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1.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. Election/Restrictions 2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on February 26, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground s that “ the catalyst article is used in a method of treating an exhaust gas (as in claim 20), or is used in a different method, any such difference does not actually present a burden to search given the common feature between the respective groups. For example, patentability of the method of claim 20 can readily be established by verifying patentability of the catalyst article of claim 1, so the search can be efficiently conducted without imposing an undue burden by doing so in a way that confirms the patentability of claim 1 . ” This is not found persuasive because search ing the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification , e.g. Group I, B01J35/19 and Group II, F01N3/101 . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 3. Claims 8 and 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 February 26, 2026. Double Patenting 4 . The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . 6 . Claims 1- 3 , 8- 10 , 12 -13 , and 15-1 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1 -3, 7-8 , 12 , 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. US 11642655 B2 (‘US 655 ) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : 7 . The present claims require a catalyst article for treating exhaust gas comprising: a substrate comprising an inlet end, an outlet end with an axial length L; a first catalytic region beginning at the inlet end and extending for less than the axial length L, wherein the first catalytic region comprises a first platinum group metal (PGM) component, a first inorganic oxide, and an optional first oxygen storage capacity (OSC) material; a second catalytic region beginning at the outlet end and extending for less than the axial length L, wherein the second catalytic region comprises a second PGM component, an optional second inorganic oxide, and a second OSC material; and a third catalytic region; wherein the weight ratio of the first inorganic oxide to the optional first OSC material is greater than 1:1 ( Claim 1 ) 8 . The claims of ‘US 655 require a catalyst article for treating exhaust gas comprising: a substrate comprising an inlet end, an outlet end with an axial length L; a first catalytic region beginning at the inlet end and extending for less than the axial length L, wherein the first catalytic region comprises a first palladium component and a first oxygen storage capacity (OSC) material comprising ceria; a second catalytic region beginning at the outlet end and extending for less than the axial length L, wherein the second catalytic region comprises a second palladium component and a second OSC material comprising ceria; a third catalytic region beginning at the outlet end and extending for less than the axial length L, wherein the third catalytic region comprises a third rhodium component and a third OSC material comprising ceria; wherein at least a portion of the first catalytic region is not covered by the second catalytic region and/or the third catalytic region; and wherein (a) the ceria amount in the first catalytic region is less than 50% of the total ceria amount in the first, second, and third catalytic regions; or (b) the ceria loading in the first catalytic region is less than 50% of the sum of the ceria loading in the first, second, and third catalytic regions ( Claim 1 ), which reads on the limitations of the present claim 1 -3, 8-10, 12-13, 15 . 9 . The claims of ‘US 655 further require t he catalyst article of claim 1, wherein the first catalytic region extends for 1 to 50 percent of the axial length L ( Claim 2 ), which overlaps on the limitations of the present claim 2 . 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). 1 0 . The claims of ‘US 655 further require t he catalyst article of claim 1, wherein the second catalytic region extends for 50 to 90 percent of the axial length L ( Claim 3 ), which overlaps on the limitations of the present claim 3 . 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). 1 1 . The claims of ‘US 655 further require t he catalyst article of claim 1, wherein the third catalytic region extends for 50 to 95 percent of the axial length L ( Claim 7 ), which reads on the limitations of the present claim 8 . 1 2 . The claims of ‘US 655 further require t he catalyst article of claim 1, wherein the first catalytic region further comprises a first rhodium component ( Claim 8 ), which reads on the limitations of the present claim 9. 1 3 . The claims of ‘US 655 further require t he catalyst article of claim 1, wherein the first OSC material is selected from the group consisting of cerium oxide, a ceria-zirconia mixed oxide, and an alumina-ceria-zirconia mixed oxide ( Claim 12 ), which reads on the limitations of the present claim 10 . 1 4 . The claims of ‘US 655 further require t he catalyst article of claim 1, wherein the first catalytic region is supported/deposited directly on the substrate ( Claim 17 ), which reads on the limitations of the present claim 16. 1 5 . The claims of ‘US 655 further require t he catalyst article of claim 1, wherein the second catalytic region is supported/deposited directly on the substrate ( Claim 18 ), which reads on the limitations of the present claim 1 7 . 1 6 . The claims of ‘US 655 further require t he catalyst article of claim 1, wherein the third catalytic region is supported/deposited directly on the substrate ( Claim 19 ), which reads on the limitations of the present claim 18 . 17. Claims 1-3, 8- 9 , 12, 15-1 7, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1 , 5 , 8, 12, 14 , 17 -18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. US US 11439987 B2 (‘US 987 ) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : 18. The present claims require a catalyst article for treating exhaust gas comprising: a substrate comprising an inlet end, an outlet end with an axial length L; a first catalytic region beginning at the inlet end and extending for less than the axial length L, wherein the first catalytic region comprises a first platinum group metal (PGM) component, a first inorganic oxide, and an optional first oxygen storage capacity (OSC) material; a second catalytic region beginning at the outlet end and extending for less than the axial length L, wherein the second catalytic region comprises a second PGM component, an optional second inorganic oxide, and a second OSC material; and a third catalytic region; wherein the weight ratio of the first inorganic oxide to the optional first OSC material is greater than 1:1 ( Claim 1 ) . 19. The claims of ‘US 987 require a catalyst article for treating exhaust gas comprising: a substrate comprising an inlet end, an outlet end with an axial length L; a first catalytic region beginning at the inlet end and extending for 30 to 70 percent of the axial length L, wherein the first catalytic region comprises a first palladium component and a first oxygen storage capacity (OSC) material; a second catalytic region beginning at the outlet end and extending for 30 to 70 percent of the axial length L, wherein the second catalytic region comprises a second palladium component and a second OSC material; a third catalytic region beginning at the outlet end and extending for 50 to 95 percent of the axial length L, wherein the third catalytic region comprises a third rhodium component; wherein the third catalytic region overlies the second catalytic region; and wherein the first palladium component and the second palladium component have a weight ratio of greater than 1:1 ( Claim 1 ), which reads on the limitations of the present claims 1-3, 8-9, 12 , and 15 . 19. The claims of ‘US 987 further require t he catalyst article of claim 1, wherein the third catalytic region extends for 60 to 95 percent of the axial length L ( Claim 5 ), which reads on the limitations of the present claim 8. 20. The claims of ‘US 987 further require t he catalyst article of claim 1, wherein the first catalytic region further comprises a first alkali or alkaline-earth metal component and/or a first inorganic oxide ( Claim 8 ), which reads on the limitations of the present claim 1. 21. The claims of ‘US 987 further require t he catalyst article of claim 1, wherein the second catalytic region further comprises a second alkali or alkaline-earth metal component and/or a second inorganic oxide ( Claim 12 ), which reads on the limitations of the present claim 1. 22. The claims of ‘US 987 further require t he catalyst article of claim 1, wherein the third catalytic region further comprises a third oxygen storage capacity (OSC) material, a third alkali or alkaline-earth metal component, and/or a third inorganic oxide ( Claim 1 4 ), which reads on the limitations of the present claim 15 . 23. The claims of ‘US 987 further require t he catalyst article of claim 1, wherein the first catalytic region is supported/deposited directly on the substrate ( Claim 17 ), which reads on the limitations of the present claim 16. 24. The claims of ‘US 987 further require t he catalyst article of claim 1, wherein the second catalytic region is supported/deposited directly on the substrate ( Claim 18 ), which reads on the limitations of the present claim 17. 25. The claims of ‘US 987 further require a n emission treatment system for treating a flow of a combustion exhaust gas comprising the catalyst article of claim 1 ( Claim 20 ), which reads on the limitations of the present claim 19. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 26 . 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 . 27 . Claim s 1 - 6, 9 -1 7, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hongyu et al. ( US 20200391187 A1 ) . 28 . Regarding claim 1, Hongyu teaches a catalyst article for treating exhaust gas ( Hongyu , p. 14, claim 1) with a substrate comprising an inlet end, an outlet end with an axial length L ( Hongyu , p. 11, claim 1), wherein the catalytic article comprises a first catalytic region, a second catalytic region, and a third catalytic region ( Hongyu , Abstract), wherein there is a first catalytic region begin ning at the inlet end and extending for less than the axial length L ( Hongyu , p. 11, c laim 1 ) and comprises a first palladium component ( Hongyu , p. 11, c laim 1 ) ; wherein the second catalytic region beginning at the outlet end and extending for less than the axial length L ( Hongyu , p. 11, Claim 1) compris es a second palladium component , ( Hongyu , p. 11, Claim 1) a second oxygen storage capacity (OSC) material, a second alkali or alkaline earth metal component, and/or a second inorganic oxide ( Hongyu , [0038] ); wherein the third catalytic region compris ing a third rhodium component ( Hongyu , p. 11, Claim 1) . Hongyu further teaches the weight ratio of the first inorganic oxide to the first OSC material ranges from 10:1 to 1:10, preferably, 8:1 to 1:8 or 5:1 to 1:5; more preferably, 4:1 to 1:4 or 3:1 to 1:3; and most preferably, 2:1 to 1:2, which overlaps with the claimed range ( Hongyu , [0035]). 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). 2 9 . Regarding claim 2, Hongyu further teaches the first catalytic region extends for 30 to 70 percent of the axial length L , which falls within the claimed range ( Hongyu , p. 11, claim 2). 30 . Regarding claim 3, Hongyu teaches the second catalytic region extends for 30 to 70 percent of the axial length L, which falls within the claimed range ( Hongyu , p. 11, claim 3 ). 31 . Regarding claim 4, Hongyu further teaches the weight ratio of the first inorganic oxide to the first OSC material ranges from 10:1 to 1:10, which overlaps with the claimed range ( Hongyu , [0035]). 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). 32 . Regarding claim 5, Hongyu further teaches the weight ratio of the second inorganic oxide to the second OSC material ranges from 10:1 to 1:10, which overlaps with the claimed range ( Hongyu , [0053]). 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). 33 . Regarding claim 6, Hongyu further teaches the weight ratio of the second inorganic oxide to the second OSC material ranges from 10:1 to 1:10, which overlaps with the claimed range ( Hongyu , [0053]). 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). 34 . Regarding claim 9, Hongyu further teaches t he first catalyst layer comprises PGM metals other than the first palladium component, such as platinum and/or rhodium ( Hongyu , [0019] ). 35 . Regarding claim 10, Hongyu further teaches t he first OSC material is preferably selected from the group consisting of cerium oxide, zirconium oxide, a ceria-zirconia mixed oxide, and an alumina-ceria-zirconia mixed oxide ( Hongyu , [0022]) . 36 . Regarding claim 11, Hongyu further teaches the first inorganic oxide is preferably an oxide of Groups 2, 3, 4, 5, 13 and 14 elements ( Hongyu , [0033]) wherein t he first inorganic oxide is preferably selected from the group consisting of alumina, magnesia, silica, ceria, barium oxides, and mixed oxides or composite oxides ( Hongyu , [0033]) . 37 . Regarding claim 12, Hongyu further teaches the second catalytic region comprises a second palladium component ( Hongyu , p. 11, Claim 1) that comprise PGM metals other than the palladium, such as platinum and/or rhodium ( Hongyu , [0037]). 38 . Regarding claim 13, Hongyu further teaches t he second OSC material is preferably selected from the group consisting of cerium oxide, zirconium oxide, a ceria-zirconia mixed oxide, and an alumina-ceria-zirconia mixed oxide ( Hongyu , [0039]). 39 . Regarding claim 14, Hongyu further teaches t he second inorganic oxide is preferably an oxide of Groups 2, 3, 4, 5, 13 and 14 elements ( Hongyu , [0051]) wherein t he second inorganic oxide is preferably selected from the group consisting of alumina, magnesia, silica, ceria, barium oxides, and mixed oxides or composite oxides thereof ( Hongyu , [0051]) . 40 . Regarding claim 15, Hongyu further teaches a third catalytic region comprising a third rhodium or platinu m and rhodium component ( Hongyu , [0055]) wherein the third catalytic region further comprise s a third oxygen storage capacity (OSC) material, a third alkali or alkaline earth metal component, and/or a third inorganic oxide ( Hongyu , [0057]). 41 . Regarding claims 16-17, Hongyu further teaches the first catalytic and second catalytic region s are deposited directly on the substrate ( Hongyu , [0081] ). 42 . Regarding claim 19, Hongyu further teaches an emission treatment system for treating a flow of a combustion exhaust gas comprising the catalyst article of claim 1 ( Hongyu , p. 12, Claim 39) . 43 . Claim s 1, 7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deeba et al. ( WO 2016210221 A1 ) ( Deeba ) . 44 . Regarding claim 1, Deeba teaches automotive catalyst composites having a catalytic material (i.e. a catalyst article for treating exhaust gas) on a carrier (i.e. substrate) ( Deeba , Abstract) wherein the carrier is a wall-flow filter substrate with an inlet and an outlet ( Deeba , p. 11, lines 6-8) with an axial length ( Deeba , Fig. 12, drawings, p. 4). Deeba further teaches a second catalytic layer deposited on top of the first layer catalytic layer (i.e. third catalytic region) ( Deeba , Abstract) that is zoned ( Deeba , p. 3, line 21) into an inlet zone (i.e. first catalytic region) and outlet zone ( i.e second catalytic region) ( Deeba , Fig. 12), see annotated figure 12 below ; Annotated Fig. 12 wherein the length of the inlet zone (i.e. first catalytic region) is about 25-75% of the total length of the substrate ( Deeba , p. 9, line 4) beginning at the inlet end (Annotated Fig. 12) wherein the inlet zone (i.e. first catalytic region) and outlet zone (i.e. second catalytic region) in the second catalytic layer comprises a rhodium component (i.e. first platinum group metal) supported on a second refractory metal oxide component (i.e. first inorganic oxide) and a second palladium component (i.e. first platinum group metal) supported on a second oxygen storage component (i.e. first oxygen storage capacity material) ( Deeba , Abstrac t) wherein the outlet zone (i.e. second catalytic region) in the second catalytic layer extends for 25% - 75 % of the second layer ( Deeba , p. 9, line 4) beginning at the outlet (Annotated Fig. 12) comprising a rhodium component (i.e. second platinum group metal) supported on a second refractory metal oxide component (i.e. second inorganic oxide) and a second palladium component (i.e. second platinum group metal) supported on a second oxygen storage component (i.e. second oxygen storage capacity material) ( Deeba , Abstract) Deeba further teaches the inlet zone (i.e. first catalytic region) of the second catalytic layer comprises a weight percent of the second refractory metal oxide component (i.e. first inorganic oxide) in an amount of about 50-80% and the second oxygen storage component (i.e. first oxygen storage capacity material) comprising a second ceria-zirconia composite in the amount of 20-50% wherein the weight ratio of the second refractory metal oxide component (i.e. first inorganic oxide) to second oxygen storage component (i.e. first oxygen storage capacity material) is about 1:1 (i.e. 50 wt. % / 50 wt. %) to about 4:1 ( i.e. 80 wt. % / 20 wt. %), 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). 45 . Regarding claims 7 and 18, Deeba further teaches the first catalytic layer (i.e. third catalytic region) is deposited directly on the carrier (i.e. substrate) ( Deeba , p. 2, lines 2-3) and extends the entire length of the carrier (i.e. substrate) ( Deeba , Fig. 12), see annotated F ig . 12 above. Conclusion 46 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1819 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ching-Yiu 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. /R.F.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1732 /KELING ZHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732