DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected were rejected in Office action mailed 04/06/2026
Applicant filed a response, amended claim 1 and cancelled claim 5, on 06/26/2026
Claims 1-4, 6-20 are pending, of Claims 8 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-6, 9-17, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hongyu et al. (US 20200391187 A1).
4. 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 beginning at the inlet end and extending for less than the axial length L (Hongyu, p. 11, claim 1) and comprises a first palladium component (Hongyu, p. 11, claim 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) comprises 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 comprising 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]).
Hongyu further teaches the weight ratio of the second inorganic oxide to the second OSC material ranges from 10:1 to 1:10 (Hongyu, [0053]), 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).
5. 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).
6. 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).
7. 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).
8. 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).
9. Regarding claim 9, Hongyu further teaches the first catalyst layer comprises PGM metals other than the first palladium component, such as platinum and/or rhodium (Hongyu, [0019]).
10. Regarding claim 10, Hongyu further teaches the 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]).
11. 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 the 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]).
12. 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]).
13. Regarding claim 13, Hongyu further teaches the 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]).
14. Regarding claim 14, Hongyu further teaches the second inorganic oxide is preferably an oxide of Groups 2, 3, 4, 5, 13 and 14 elements (Hongyu, [0051])
wherein the 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]).
15. Regarding claim 15, Hongyu further teaches a third catalytic region comprising a third rhodium or platinum and rhodium component (Hongyu, [0055])
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 (Hongyu, [0057]).
16. Regarding claims 16-17, Hongyu further teaches the first catalytic and second catalytic regions are deposited directly on the substrate (Hongyu, [0081]).
17. 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).
18. Claims 1, 7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deeba et al. (WO 2016210221 A1) (Deeba).
19. 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;
PNG
media_image1.png
313
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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, Abstract)
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) (Deeba, p. 9, line 4) and outlet zone (i.e. second catalytic region) (Annotated Fig. 12) of the second catalytic layer (i.e. first catalytic region and second catalytic region) comprises a weight percent of the second refractory metal oxide component (i.e. first inorganic oxide and second inorganic oxide) in an amount of about 50-80% and the second oxygen storage component (i.e. first oxygen storage capacity material and second oxygen storage capacity material) comprising a second ceria-zirconia composite in the amount of 20-50% (Deeba, p. 3, lines 5-10)
wherein the weight ratio of the second refractory metal oxide component (i.e. first inorganic oxide and second inorganic oxide) to second oxygen storage component (i.e. first oxygen storage capacity material and second 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 ranges.
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 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 Fig. 12 above.
Response to Arguments
21. In response to the amended claim 1, the previous nonstatutory double patenting rejections of claims 1-3, 8-10, 12-13, and 15-18 over claims 1-3, 7-8, 12, 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. US 11642655 B2 (‘US 655) are withdrawn.
22. In response to the amended claim 1, the previous nonstatutory double patenting rejections of claims 1-3, 8-9, 12, 15-17, and 19 over claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 14, 17-18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11439987 B2 (‘US 987) are withdrawn.
23. Applicants primarily argue:
“the evidence of record does not demonstrate that those of ordinary skill in the art would have had any reason to make every one of the numerous specific selections from Hongyu that would be required to produce a claimed invention.”
Remarks, p. 5
“It would be necessary for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the specific motivation with respect to each of these selections because Hongyu does not itself disclose a catalyst article having the claimed arrangement of first and second catalytic regions in which each of these catalytic regions comprises an inorganic oxide and an OSC material and in which the weight ratio of inorganic oxide to OSC material is greater than 1:1 in the first catalytic region and less than 1:1 in the second catalytic region.”
Remarks, p. 6
The examiner respectively traverses as follows:
Given that Hongyu discloses the catalyst article for treating exhaust gas that overlaps the presently claimed catalyst article, including first and second catalytic regions in which each of these catalytic regions comprises an inorganic oxide and an OSC material and in which the weight ratio of inorganic oxide to OSC material is greater than 1:1 in the first catalytic region and less than 1:1 in the second catalytic region, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the catalyst article for treating exhaust gas, which is both disclosed by Hongyu and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
The fact remains, Hongyu explicitly teaches the catalyst article having 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]), and the weight ratio of the second inorganic oxide to the second OSC material ranges from 10:1 to 1:10 (Hongyu, [0053]), 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).
Therefore, it is the examiner position that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the ranges of the weight ratios of the weight ratio of the first inorganic oxide to the first OSC material and the weight ratio of the second inorganic oxide to the second OSC material in the catalyst article, including those presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. See item #4 of Office action set forth above.
24. Applicants further argue:
“the presently claimed catalyst article, including the required selections of materials and ratios in the first catalytic region and second catalytic region, yields unexpectedly beneficial results. As described in the present specification, the presently claimed articles confer improved three-way catalytic activity. For example, it can be seen from Table 2 that Inventive Catalyst 2 (which is in accordance with claim 1 as presently amended) achieves better accumulative NOx and CO conversion than the corresponding catalyst in which the inorganic oxide and OSC material are uniformly present (i.e., the same inorganic oxide : OSC ratio is used) in the first and second catalytic regions (Comparative Catalyst A).”
Remarks, p. 7-8
The examiner respectively traverses as follows:
While applicant points to Inventive Catalyst 2 to support the position. The data is unpersuasive as set forth below.
Firstly, the data is not commensurate in the scope of the claims. Specifically, the data only shows using catalyst articles comprising: specific type of a substrate (i.e., ceramic substrate) comprising specific axial length L; a first catalytic region beginning at the inlet end and extending for a specific percentage of the axial length L, wherein the first catalytic region comprises specific amounts and specific types of a first platinum group metal (PGM) component (i.e. palladium or rhodium), a first inorganic oxide (i.e., La-stabilized alumina), and a first oxygen storage capacity (OSC) material (i.e., CeZr mixed oxide); a second catalytic region beginning at the outlet end and extending for a specific percentage of the axial length L, wherein the second catalytic region comprises specific amounts and specific types of a second PGM component (i.e., palladium or rhodium), a second inorganic oxide (i.e., La-stabilized alumina), and a second OSC material (i.e., CeZr mixed oxide); and a specific type of third catalytic region; wherein the first inorganic oxide to the optional first OSC material in specific weight ratios (i.e. 1:1, 3:1, and ∞); and wherein the weight ratio of the second inorganic oxide to the second OSC material in specific weight ratios (i.e. 0, 1:3, and 1:1) while the claims broadly recite a catalyst article comprising any type of a substrate comprising any axial length L; a first catalytic region beginning at the inlet end and extending for a specific percentage of the axial length L, wherein the first catalytic region comprises any amounts and any types of a first platinum group metal (PGM) component, a first inorganic oxide, and a first oxygen storage capacity (OSC) material; a second catalytic region beginning at the outlet end and extending less than the axial length L in any percentage, wherein the second catalytic region comprises any amounts and any types of a second PGM component, a second inorganic oxide, and a second OSC material; and any type of third catalytic region; wherein the first inorganic oxide to the optional first OSC material in any weight ratios; and wherein the weight ratio of the second inorganic oxide to the second OSC material in any weight ratios, the weight ratio of the first inorganic oxide to the first OSC material is greater than 1:1; and wherein the weight ratio of the second inorganic oxide to the second OSC material is less than 1:1.
Additionally, the data does not show using the lower ends of the claimed ranges of (1) a percentage of a first catalytic region beginning at the inlet end and extending less than the axial length L, (2) a percentage of a second catalytic region beginning at the outlet end and extending less than the axial length L, and (3) the weight ratio of the first inorganic oxide to the first OSC material (note to Remy: They do show infinity; that’s good enough for upper end) and the data does not show using the upper end of the weight ratio of the second inorganic oxide to the second OSC material. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(d), whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support”. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occurred over the entire claimed range, In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Applicants have not provided data to show that the unexpected results do in fact occur over the entire claimed range of the weight ratio of the first inorganic oxide to the first OSC material greater than 1:1; and the weight ratio of the second inorganic oxide to the second OSC material less than 1:1.
25. Applicants further argue:
“Like Hongyu, Deeba also does not disclose a catalyst article having the claimed arrangement of first and second catalytic regions in which each of these catalytic regions comprises an inorganic oxide and an OSC material and in which the weight ratio of inorganic oxide to OSC material is greater than 1:1 in the first catalytic region and less than 1:1 in the second catalytic region.”
Remarks, p. 8
The examiner respectively traverses as follows:
Deeba does teach the claimed catalyst article. Specifically, Deeba teaches the weight ratio of the second refractory metal oxide component (i.e. first inorganic oxide and second inorganic oxide) to second oxygen storage component (i.e. first oxygen storage capacity material and second 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 ranges.
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).
Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that Deeba meets the claimed catalyst article, as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. See item #19 of Office action set forth above.
Conclusion
26. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
27. 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