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 .
Non-Compliant Claim Identifier
The identifier of claim 9 need be remarked as withdrawn since these claims are directed to non-elected inventions in the instant application. A correct status identifier (Withdrawn) has not been set forth for the amended claims. See MPEP § 714 and 37 CFR 1.121(c). Appropriate correction is required. A non-compliant form has not been sent out for advancing the prosecution and correction is required in next response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa et al. (JP2010/260046) (For applicant’s convenience, machine translation has been used for citations) in view of Koito (WO2021/075313) (For applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2022/0280921 has been used for citations).
Morikawa et al. teaches a process of forming an exhaust gas purification material discloses a process comprising supporting Rh (rhodium) onto a first oxide particles containing alumina and zirconia and substantially no ceria (claim 1, para.[0021], [0022], [0061]-[0063], [0065]), immersing the first oxide particles into a solution comprising a rhodium salt dissolved in water or alcohol (i.e. impregnating the first metal oxide with a rhodium compound solution) to obtain a rhodium containing catalyst containing the first oxide particles and rhodium particles, then removing the solvent(i.e. drying), heated and calcining the rhodium supported first oxide particles under 500 °C in air (para. [0066], [0069]-[0071]), then mixing the rhodium supported first oxide particles with a second oxide particles comprising ceria which can be ceria, or composite oxide of ceria and zirconia, composite oxide of ceria and alumina, composite oxides of ceria, zirconia and alumina etc. (para. [0030], [0031], [0065], Synthesis example 2-4, example 1-3). Morikawa et al. disclosed second oxide particles comprising ceria having a basicity higher than a basicity of the first oxide particles which support rhodium in light of the instant specification - because instant specification discloses such high basicity material is a material functioning as an OSC material. For example, ceria and a composite oxide containing ceria (see instantly published application US2023/0372907 para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 1, Morikawa et al. does not expressly teach the calcining temperature from 700 °C to 900 °C under an inert atmosphere.
Koito teaches precious metal Pd, Pt and Rh supported onto porous material (e.g. alumina, zirconia, zirconia-alumina etc. and such supported precious metal can be dried to remove any unnecessary solvent, and calcined wherein calcining can be performed in temperature of 200 °C or more and 1000 °C or less in air, in a reducing atmosphere or in an inert gas atmosphere (para. [0037], [0046], [0058]- [0069]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known calcining temperature range as shown by Koito to modify the calcining temperature of Morikawa et al. because adopting such well calcining temperature range to practice a well-known supported Rh catalyst calcining process for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR). Furthermore, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical (see MPEP §2144 05 II).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to "obvious to try” an inert calcining atmosphere as shown by Koito to modify the calcining atmosphere of Morikawa et al. because choosing an inert calcining atmosphere from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of calcining atmosphere (air, reducing or inert) for calcining supported Rh containing catalyst would have a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 5, Morikawa et al. further teaches the amount of rhodium supported is preferably 0.01 to 3 parts by mass, more preferably 0.05 to 1 part by mass, per 100 parts by mass of the carrier (para. [0062]), wherein such teachings suggest rhodium content is within or overlaps with that of instantly claimed rhodium content based on the total amount of the metal oxide carrier and the rhodium particles, thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144 05 I).
Morikawa et al. also teaches if the amount of rhodium supported is less than the lower limit, sufficient catalytic activity tends to be difficult to obtain, whereas if the amount exceeds the upper limit, the purification performance tends to saturate (para. [0062]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a same rhodium content range as that of instantly claimed via routine optimization (see MPEP §2144 05 II) for help obtaining a supported rhodium catalyst with sufficient catalytic activity and desired purification performance as suggested by Morikawa et al. (para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 6, Morikawa et al. teaches the first oxide particles being alumina and zirconia containing composite oxide (claim 1, para. [ 0020]-[0025], [0069]) as discussed above.
Regarding claim 7, Morikawa et al. disclosed first oxide particles “substantially free of ceria” means such first oxide particles having less than 2.5% by mass (claim 1, para. [0021]-[0025]), which means such first oxides being a composite oxide containing zirconia, alumina and ceria as main components.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa et al. (JP2010/260046) (For applicant’s convenience, machine translation has been used for citations) in view of Koito (WO2021/075313) (For applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2022/0280921 has been used for citations) as applied above, and further in view of Kitamoto (US2020/0030775).
Regarding claim 2-4, Morikawa et al. in view of Koito does not expressly teach the claimed size distribution of rhodium particles.
Kitamoto teaches an exhaust gas purification catalyst comprising PGM nanoparticles which can be rhodium wherein the PGM nanoparticles have an average particle size of about 1 nm to about 20 nm (or from about 2 to 15 nm or from about 3 to 10 nm) with a standard deviation (SD) no more than 1 nm (para. [0011]-[0013], [0030]-[0033], table 1, example 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt Rh nanoparticles with such particle size distribution as shown by Kitamoto to modify the support rhodium particle in the process of Morikawa et al. in view of Koito because by doing so can help provide a desired exhaust gas purification catalyst to reduce the emission of NOx, CO and HC through effective suppression of sintering of PGM during aging as suggested by Kitamoto (para. [0010], table 1).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa et al. (JP2010/260046) (For applicant’s convenience, machine translation has been used for citations) in view of Koito (WO2021/075313) (For applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2022/0280921 has been used for citations) as applied above, and further in view of Yamamoto (WO2022/009590) (For applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2023/0201770 has been used for citations).
Regarding claim 8, Morikawa et al. in view of Koito does not expressly teach the inert atmosphere being a nitrogen atmosphere.
Yamamoto teaches inert gas of nitrogen is used as inert atmosphere for calcining exhaust gas catalyst (para. [0056]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known nitrogen atmosphere as shown by Yamamoto to practice the well-known inert atmosphere calcining of Morikawa et al. in view of Koito because adopting a well-known nitrogen atmosphere to practice a well-known process of inert atmosphere calcining exhaust gas purification catalyst for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s explanation about “main components” means sum of such components being at least 50% by weight (see filed specification para. [0012]) has been acknowledged.
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments about “(c) heating the rhodium-containing catalyst at a temperature within a range from 700°C to 900°C under an inert atmosphere is not a mere optimization of heating conditions. Rather, this step specifically provides an improvement in NOx reduction performance after aging in a system in which the rhodium-containing catalyst is mixed with a material having a higher basicity”, or “unexpected results demonstrated by examples and comparative examples in the specification”, the examiner would like to remind the applicant that evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range (MPEP § 716.02(d) - § 716.02(e)). In this case, the instantly claimed subject matter having a much broader scope as compared to data shown by the examples (1-5), for example, instant example 1-5 using specific alumina, ceria and zirconia containing particles (ACZ particles) as support and supporting 0.34 wt. % of rhodium (see the instantly published application US 2023/0372907 para. [0053], [0054], example 1-5), and calcining being performed under nitrogen atmosphere, even if such example 1-5 showing improved results over comparative examples (e.g. comparative example 4 in air or comparative example 5 in hydrogen atmosphere), but it is not readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that such alleged improved results would occur over the entire claimed range, such as, for any metal oxide carrier having any rhodium supported thereof, being calcined at temperature 700-900 °C under any inert gas atmosphere, e.g. argon, helium atmosphere etc. It is also noted that comparative example 6 and 7 rhodium containing catalyst not being mixed with a material having a high basicity, but applied primary reference Morikawa teaches rhodium containing catalyst being mixed with a material having a high basicity, therefore, such comparative example 6 and 7 not compared the applied closest prior art. In summary, such alleged unexpected results arguments are not found convincing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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 (Coris) 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights