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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I invention (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 11/06/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-14 are thus withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 on11/06/2025.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 7-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Takashi et al (JP2021/126636A) (for applicant’s convenience, machine translation has been used hereof for citations) in view of Taira (JP2016/147256) (applicant provided machine translation has been used hereof for citations).
Takashi et al teaches an exhaust gas purification catalyst device having a substrate, and a front-side catalyst coating layer and a rear-side catalyst coating layer on the substrate, wherein the front-side catalyst coating layer has a length from an upstream end of the substrate in the exhaust gas flow direction that is 10% to 90% of the length of the substrate (i.e. substrate having a length of Ls between the upstream end and the downstream end), and the rear-side catalyst coating layer has a length from a downstream end of the substrate in the exhaust gas flow direction that is 10% to 90% of the length of the substrate, the front-side catalyst coating layer contains a catalytic precious metal and inorganic oxide particles that are substantially free of an OSC (oxygen storage capacity) material, and the rear-side catalyst coating layer contains a catalytic precious metal and inorganic oxide particles that include an OSC material, and the catalytic precious metal contained in the front-side catalyst coating layer and the rear-side catalyst coating layer includes Rh and is substantially free of catalytic precious metals other than Rh (claim 1, para. [0012]-[0018], example 1-3). Takashi et al further teaches the inorganic oxide particles in the front-side catalyst coating layer may be particles composed of one or more selected from, for example, alumina, silica, silica alumina, zeolite, titania, zirconia, oxides of rare earth elements other than ceria, and composite oxides thereof, specifically alumina and zirconia (para. [0027], [0079]) and the rear-side inorganic oxide particles can be ceria or ceria-zirconia composite oxide (para. [0037], [0038], [0078]). Hence, Takashi et al. disclosed rear-side catalyst coating layer having a cerium content based on volume capacity of the substrate in the rear-side substrate being higher than the front-side catalyst coating layer cerium content based on volume capacity of the substrate in the front-side substrate (see also claim 8’s explanation).
It is noted that Takashi et al disclosed front-side catalyst coating layer reads onto the instantly claimed a second catalyst layer, since such front-side catalyst coating layer has a length from an upstream end of the substrate in the exhaust gas flow direction that is 10% to 90% of the length of the substrate, therefore such front-side catalyst layer extending across a second region, the second region being at a second distance (Lb) from the upstream end toward the downstream end as that of instantly claimed. Similarly, Takashi et al. disclosed rear-front side catalyst coating layers reads onto the instantly claimed a first catalyst layer, since such rear-front side catalyst layer has a length from a downstream end of the substrate in the exhaust gas flow direction that is 10% to 90% of the length of the substrate, therefore, such rear-front side catalyst having a first region extending between the downstream and a first position, the first position being at a first distance (La) from the downstream end toward the upstream end as that of instant claimed.
Regarding claim 1, Takashi et al. does not expressly teach a mean particle size distribution of the rhodium particles of rear side catalyst coating layer being from 1.5 nm to 18 nm.
Taira teaches noble metal particles selected from the group consisting of platinum, palladium and rhodium supported onto one or more oxides selected from the group consisting of titanium oxide, zirconium oxide and cerium oxide having an average particle size within a range of 2.5 nm to 4.0 nm and having a deviation of ±0.4 nm (claim 10, para. [0016], [0024], [0025], table 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such particle size distribution (with such deviation) of noble metal particle size as shown by Taira to modify rhodium particles of rear side catalyst coating layer in the exhaust gas purification device of Takashi et al. because by doing so can help provide rhodium particles being finely dispersed onto oxide support and aggregation is suppressed as suggested by Taira (para. [0025]). Furthermore, adopting such well-known particle size distribution of noble metal particles (e.g. rhodium particles) to modify a well-known rhodium particles of rear side catalyst coating layer in an exhaust gas purification catalyst for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 2, Taira already teaches such limitation has discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, Takashi et al. further teaches the rear side catalyst coating layer having a dry mass of 120 gram, metal equivalent Rh of 0.2 gram (para. [0079]-[0080], example 1-3), such catalyst coating layer having a rhodium amount based on the total amount of the metal oxide carrier and such rhodium particles being within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Takashi et al. also teaches the front side catalyst coating layer length being 20% to 80% of the length of the substrate, while the rear side catalyst coating layer being 20% to 80% of the length of the substrate (claim 2), therefore, Takashi et al. suggests the substrate length Ls, first distance (La)-i.e. rear side catalyst coating layer distance, second distance (Lb)- i.e front side catalyst coating layer distance having La+Lb range from 40% to 160% of substrate length, such ratio overlapping with that of instantly claimed La+Lb range ( i.e. Ls<La+Lb≤1.2 Ls) thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I).
Regarding claim 8, Takashi et al. already teaches the front side catalyst coating layer contains a catalytic precious metal and inorganic oxide particles that are substantially free of an OSC (oxygen storage capacity) material, wherein such inorganic oxide particles being "substantially free of OSC material" means that the
amount of OSC material relative to the total amount of inorganic oxide particles in the front side catalyst coating layer is, for example, 5 mass% or less, 3 mass% or less, 1 mass% or less, specifically 0% (para. [0025], example 1-3), while the amount of the OSC material in the rear-side catalyst coating layer, in terms of the mass of the OSC material relative to the total amount of inorganic oxide particles in the rear side catalyst coating layer, may be, for example, 8 mass% and 30 mass% or less (specifically 10 mass%) (para. [0033], example 1-3). Takashi et al. also teaches the front side catalyst coating layer and the rear side catalyst coating layer having similar coating amount of the catalyst per 1 L of substrate volume based on their corresponding region (para. [0030], [0044]). Therefore, Takashi et al. disclosed the cerium content in the rear side catalyst coating layer based on the volume capacity of the substrate in the first region is twice or more the cerium content in the front side catalyst coating layer based on the volume capacity of the substrate in the second region.
Regarding claim 9, Takashi et al. already teaches such limitation as discussed above.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Takashi et al (JP2021/126636A) (for applicant’s convenience, machine translation has been used hereof for citations) in view of Kitamoto (US2020/0030775).
Takashi et al. has been described as above.
Regarding claim 1, Takashi et al. does not expressly teach a mean particle size distribution of the first rhodium particles being from 1.5 nm to 18 nm.
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], [0079], [0080], 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 rhodium particles of the rear side catalytic coating layer in the exhaust purification catalyst device of Takashi et al. 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).
Regarding claim 2-3, Kitamoto already teaches such limitations as discussed above.
Regarding claim 4 and 7-9, Takashi et al. already teaches such limitation as discussed above.
Regarding claim 5, 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 supported second rhodium particles in the exhaust purification catalyst device of Takashi et al. 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).
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Chiba et al (WO2020/203424) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2022/0152593 has been used hereof for citations) in view of Kitamoto (US2020/0030775).
Chiba et al. teaches an exhaust gas purification catalytic device comprises a substrate (having a length Ls) (item 3, Fig. 1) and a first catalytic coating layer on the substrate wherein the first catalytic coating layer comprises a first catalytic coating layer upstream portion (item 1a, Fig. 1) on an exhaust gas flow upstream side and a first catalytic coating layer downstream portion (item 1b, Fig. 1) on an exhaust gas flow downstream side, wherein the first catalytic coating layer upstream portion and the first catalytic coating layer downstream portion each comprise inorganic oxide particles and rhodium supported on the inorganic oxide particles, wherein at least a part of the inorganic oxide particles contains ceria, wherein the ceria content per unit length of the first catalytic coating layer downstream portion is greater than the ceria content per unit length of the first catalytic coating layer upstream portion (Fig. 1, para. [0035]-[0040]), [0045]-[0052], example 1-4, noted chiba et al disclosed Fig 1 has been reproduced as following).
PNG
media_image1.png
208
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chiba et al. also teaches the length of the first catalytic coating layer upstream portion may be, for example, 30% or greater, and, for example, 70% or less (para. [0062]), while the length of the first catalytic coating layer downstream portion may be a length obtained by subtracting the length of the first catalytic coating layer upstream portion from the total length of the first catalytic coating layer (para. [0060]-[0063]). It is noted that Chiba et al. disclosed 1a reads onto the instantly claimed second catalyst layer, while Chiba et al. disclosed 1b layer reads onto the instantly claimed first catalyst layer.
Regarding claim 1, Chiba et al. does not expressly teach a mean particle size distribution of the first rhodium particles being from 1.5 nm to 18 nm.
Kitamoto has been described as above.
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 rhodium particles of first catalytic coating layer downstream portion in the exhaust purification catalyst device of Chiba et al. 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).
Regarding claim 6, Chiba et al further teaches a second catalytic coating layer containing pallidum particles (para. [0082]- [0084], example 4) wherein such second catalytic coating layer length can be present in a region of 80% or more the substrate length, apparently extending from an upstream end of the substrate to a third position, wherein the third position being a third distance (Lc) from the upstream end toward the downstream end (para. [0083], Fig. 1).
Double Patenting
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.
Claim 1-4 and 6-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-6 and 8 of co-pending Application No. 18/318,238 in view of Chiba et al (WO2020/203424). Co-pending application’238 teaches a substantially the same exhaust gas purification catalyst device, except the first catalyst layer containing ceria or a second catalyst layer containing rhodium, or cerium content in the first catalyst layer being higher than the second catalyst layer. Chiba et al. has been described as above. Chiba et al. also teaches the ceria content (ceria concentration) per unit length of the first catalytic coating layer downstream portion is greater than the ceria content (ceria concentration) per unit length of the first catalytic coating layer upstream portion (para. [0067]). It is noted that Chiba et al. disclosed first catalytic coating layer downstream portion reads onto the instantly claimed second instantly claimed second catalyst layer. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt ceria content (ceria concentration) per unit length of the first catalytic coating layer downstream portion is greater than the ceria content (ceria concentration) per unit length of the first catalytic coating layer upstream portion as shown by Chiba et al. to modify the first catalyst layer in the exhaust gas purification catalyst device of co-pending application’238 because by doing so can help effectively mitigate fluctuations in the air-fuel ratio in the first catalytic upstream portion without increasing absorption of HCs as suggested by Chiba et al. (para. [0067]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such first catalytic coating layer upstream portion containing rhodium particles supported on metal oxide carrier as shown by Chiba et al. to modify an exhaust gas purification device of co-pending application’238 because adopt such well-known first catalytic coating layer upstream portion containing rhodium particles supported on metal oxide carrier as shown by Chiba et al. to modify a well-known exhaust gas purification device of co-pending application’238 for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-6 and 8 of co-pending Application No. 18/318,238 in view of Chiba et al (WO2020/203424) as applied above, and further in view of Kitamoto (US2020/0030775). Copending appplication’238 in view of Chiba et al does not expressly teach the mean particle size distribution of the second rhodium particles being from 0.1 nm to 1.0 nm. Kitomoto has been described as above. 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 supported rhodium particles of the first catalytic coating layer upstream portion in the exhaust purification catalyst device of co-pending application in view of Chia et al. 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).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
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