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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-099117, filed on 20 June 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 19/06/2023 and 25/08/2025 have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “OSC material” without first defining the acronym OSC. As the first mention of the acronym, the limitation should instead read “oxygen storage capacity (OSC) material.”
Claims 2-15 are objected to via their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation, “for use as S/C in a two-catalyst system” where S/C is an undefined acronym within the claim. As the first mention of the acronym, the limitation should instead read “for use as a start-up catalyst (S/C) in a two-catalyst system.”
Claim 15 recites the limitation, “for use as UF/C in a two-catalyst system” where UF/C is an undefined acronym within the claim. As the first mention of the acronym, the limitation should instead read “for use as an underfloor catalyst (UF/C) in a two-catalyst system.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 12, & 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et. al. (cited on IDS, Pub. No. US20160279613A1).
In regard to claim 1, Suzuki et. al. teaches an exhaust gas purification catalyst comprising a substrate (paragraph [0019]), a catalyst layer formed on a cell wall of the substrate (paragraph [0020]), a lower catalyst layer carrying platinum (corresponding to the first catalyst layer, paragraph [0021]), and an upper catalyst layer carrying rhodium (corresponding to the second catalyst layer, paragraph [0018]).
Suzuki et. al. further teaches that the first layer is formed from the front edge of the substrate, corresponding to an end portion on the upstream side of the substrate described in the instant application (Suzuki et. al., paragraph [0044]). Suzuki et. al. also teaches that the upper layer contains two types of ceria-zirconia-based oxides with different specific surface areas and may further contain alumina (paragraph [0021]). Further, the ceria-zirconia-based composite material with a larger specific surface area has a specific surface area of greater than or equal to 40 m2/g and the ceria-zirconia-based composite material with a smaller specific surface area has a specific surface area of less than or equal to 4 m2/g, both of which read onto the OSC materials described in claim 1 and claim 2 (Suzuki et. al., paragraph [0022]). Suzuki et. al. however does not explicitly teach the inclusion of a third, medium specific surface area OSC material as a part of the second layer composition.
The range of the composite material with a larger surface area encompasses the range of the high specific surface area material of the instant application, an area of more than 40 m2/g, and overlaps the range of the medium specific surface area material 4-40 m2/g inclusive. The range of the composite material with a smaller surface area encompasses the range of the low specific surface area OSC material, less than 4 m2/g, and overlaps the range of the medium specific surface area OSC material of the instant application, 4-40 m2/g inclusive. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05 I). Suzuki et. al., identify that the inclusion of these materials can suppress a pressure loss in the cell and generate improved OSC performance (paragraph [0049]), which suggests that the composition and surface areas of the OSC in the catalyst composition taught by Suzuki et al. are result effective variables. As such one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have found it prima facie obvious to have optimized the composition of the OSC materials used in order to maximize OSC performance (see MPEP 2144.04 II A and B regarding routine optimization).
In regard to claim 2, Suzuki et. al. teaches that the OSC materials used (with larger or smaller specific surface areas) may be ceria-zirconia-based composite oxides.
In regard to claim 12, Suzuki et. al. teaches in addition to the limitations of claim 1 that the upper catalyst coating layer (corresponding to the second catalyst coating layer of the present application) is formed from an end of the substrate on the downstream side of the exhaust gas flow direction (paragraph [0027]).
In regard to claim 14, Suzuki et. al. teaches the use of platinum carried on the lower catalyst layer (corresponding to the first catalyst coating layer of present application, paragraph [0020]).
In regard to claim 15, the claim recites an intended use which is not considered to limit the scope of the claim. Suzuki et. al. teaches the structure of the invention as claimed and thus it is capable of performing the intended use.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et. al. as applied to claims 1-2 above and further in view of Chinzei et. al ‘248 (Pub No. US2019126248A1).
The teachings of Suzuki et al. are applied as described above for claim 1 and 2. Suzuki et. al. does not explicitly teach that the OSC materials must have a pyrochlore structure. Chinzei et. al. ‘248 teaches that the use of an OSC material which have a pyrochlore-type structure in the upper layer of a catalyst coating layer (corresponding to the second catalyst coating layer of the instant application) provides improved exhaust gas purifying performance, OSC performance, and pressure loss of an exhaust gas purification catalyst (paragraph [0011]). The taught OSC material with a pyrochlore structure is taught to have a specific surface area of less than 10 m2/g and preferably 1-5 m2/g, which overlaps the range of the low specific surface area OSC material of the present application (paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify the upper catalyst coating layer of Suzuki et. al. by replacing the ceria-zirconia-based composite oxides used as a low specific surface area OSC material with the ceria-zirconia-based composite oxide with a pyrochlore structure taught in Chinzei et. al. ‘248 to yield the claimed invention of the instant application. Both pieces of art are related to two-layer exhaust gas purification catalysts and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the material advantage of the OSC materials described in Chinzei et. al. ‘248 when applied to Suzuki et. al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to replace the OSC material with a lower specific surface area taught in Suzuki et. al. with the OSC material with a pyrochlore structure as taught in Chinzei et. al. ‘248 to improve the performance of an exhaust gas purification catalyst.
Claims 4-5, 7-11, & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et. al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chinzei et. al. ‘900 (cited on IDS, Pub. No. US20220106900A1).
The teachings of Suzuki et al. are applied as described above for claim 1 and 2.
In regard to claim 4, Suzuki et. al. teaches or renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Suzuki et. al. does not teach that the upper catalyst layer is comprised of an upstream coating layer formed from an upstream portion of the substrate and a downstream coating layer formed from a downstream portion of the substrate.
Chinzei et. al. ‘900 teaches a first catalyst layer, 20, in contact with the catalyst substrate stretching from its upstream end (paragraph [0023]) and comprising Pt or Pd particles (paragraph [0030]) and optionally an OSC material (paragraph [0037]) which corresponds to the first catalyst coating layer of the present application. Chinzei et. al. ‘900 teaches a second catalyst layer, 30, in contact with the catalyst substrate stretching from its downstream end (paragraph [0047]) and comprising Rh particles (paragraph [0048]) and optionally an OSC material (paragraph [0054]) which corresponds to the downstream coating layer of the present application. Chinzei et. al. ‘900 teaches a third layer, 40, in contact with at least first layer 20 and extending from the upstream end of the catalyst substrate (paragraph [0060]) comprising Rh particles (paragraph [0061]) and optionally an OSC material (paragraph [0066]), which corresponds to the upstream coating layer of the present application. When three coating layers with varied compositions were used, a superior conversion of NOx was observed as compared to only two coating layers (Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to add the third coating layer taught by Chinzei et. al. ‘900 to the catalyst device taught by Suzuki et. al. to yield the claimed invention of the present application. Both Chinzei et. al. ‘900 and Suzuki et. al. relate to exhaust gas purification catalysts and a person of ordinary skill would be able to apply the teachings of Chinzei et. al. ‘900 to Suzuki et. al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to add the third catalyst coating layer of Chinzei et. al. ‘900 to the catalyst taught by Suzuki et. al. to improve the catalytic conversion of NOx in an exhaust gas purification catalyst.
In regard to claim 5, Suzuki et. al. does not teach the claimed lengths of a downstream and upstream coating layer or the first coating layer.
Chinzei et. al. ‘900 teaches that the first catalyst layer, 20, which corresponds to the first catalyst coating layer with a width of 20-50%, may be 15-50% of the length of the substrate (paragraph [0023]). Further, the second catalyst layer, 30, which corresponds to the downstream coating layer with a width of 30-70%, may be 40-70% of the length of the length of the substrate (paragraph [0047]). Further, the third catalyst layer, 40, which corresponds to the upstream coating layer with a width of 30-70%, may be 40-70% of the length of the substrate. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05 I). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the creation of the invention to apply the taught length of the layers of Chinzei et. al. ‘900 to the device of Suzuki et. al. in order to maximize catalytic efficiency while preventing the alloying of the two catalytic metals from layer overlap.
In regard to claim 7, Suzuki et. al. teaches that the Pt-containing lower catalyst layer, which corresponds to the first catalyst layer of the present application, is disposed between the Rh-containing upper catalyst layer (paragraph [0017]) which corresponds to the upstream and downstream coating layers of the present application, and the substrate.
In regards to claims 8 and 9, the modified teachings of Suzuki et al. and Chinzei et. al. ‘900 does not specifically teach the claimed distribution and amounts of low and medium OSC materials within the upstream and downstream coating layers.
However, Suzuki et. al. teaches that when the upper catalyst layer contains an OSC material with a large specific surface area the NOx purification rate is increased, while the inclusion of an OSC material with a low specific surface area can suppress a pressure loss (paragraph [0018]). The combination of high and low specific surface area OSC materials suggests that the amount and distribution of OSC material contained in the catalyst is a result effective variable. As discussed in regard to claim 1, Suzuki et. al. teaches the use of two OSC materials of high and low specific surface areas with property ranges which overlap the ranges of the instant application’s high and low materials, as well as the range of the claimed medium specific surface area OSC material. As such, it would be obvious to add a third material in the taught range to increase the variety of specific surface area and impede metal alloying. As disclosed by Chinzei et. al. ‘900, the substrate has a finite loading capacity (paragraphs [0039], [0052], [0056]).
It would be obvious to optimize the distribution of different OSC materials and their ratio in respect to each other to maximize oxygen storage efficiency while not exceeding the finite loading capacity of the substrate. As such one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have found it prima facie obvious to have optimized the composition of the OSC materials used in order to maximize OSC performance (see MPEP 2144.04 II A and B regarding routine optimization). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that there the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 10, Suzuki et. al. teaches that the catalyst particles in the first layer are platinum. Suzuki et. al. does not teach that the catalyst particles in the first catalyst layer are palladium. However, Chinzei et. al. ‘900 teaches that the catalyst particles in the first catalyst layer (corresponding to the first catalyst coating layer of the present application) may be palladium (paragraph [0030]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to exchange the platinum particles of Suzuki et. al. for the palladium particles of Chinzei et. al. ‘900 as both platinum and palladium are known for having hydrocarbon oxidation activity (paragraph [0005]) and the catalyst device of Chinzei et. al. ‘900 which contained Pd particles exhibited high hydrocarbon conversion rates (Example 1, paragraph [0097], & Table 1). A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the creation of the invention would recognize the equivalency of Pt and Pd as catalyst for hydrocarbon conversion and see a benefit to using Pd over Pt for increased conversion as suggested by Chinzei et. al. ‘900.
In regard to claim 11, the claim recites an intended use which is not considered to limit the scope of the claim. Suzuki et. al. and Chinzei et. al. ‘900 teach the structure of the invention as claimed and thus it is capable of performing the intended use.
In regard to claim 13, Suzuki et. al. does not teach the claimed lengths of the upstream coating layer, downstream coating layer, or first catalyst layer.
However, Chinzei et. al. ‘900 teaches that the first catalyst layer, 20, which corresponds to the first catalyst coating layer with a width of 20-50%, may be 15-50% of the length of the substrate (paragraph [0023]). Further, the second catalyst layer, 30, which corresponds to the downstream coating layer with a width of 30-70%, may be 40-70% of the length of the length of the substrate (paragraph [0047]). Further, the third catalyst layer, 40, which corresponds to the upstream coating layer with a width of 30-70%, may be 40-70% of the length of the substrate. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05 I). Further, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the creation of the invention to apply the taught length of the layers of Chinzei et. al. ‘900 to the device of Suzuki et. al. in order to maximize catalytic efficiency while preventing the alloying of the two catalytic metals from layer overlap.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et. al. further in view of Chinzei et. al. ‘900 and Miyoshi et. al. (Pub No. JP2010201284A).
The teachings of Suzuki et al. are applied as described above for claim 1 and 2.
In regard to claim 6, Suzuki et. al. teaches that the Pt-containing lower catalyst layer, which corresponds to the first catalyst layer of the present application, is disposed between the Rh-containing upper catalyst layer (paragraph [0017]) which corresponds to the upstream and downstream coating layers of the present application, and the substrate. Suzuki et. al. does not teach that the lower catalyst layer (i.e. first catalyst coating layer) is disposed on the upper catalyst layer (i.e. upstream coating layer). Miyoshi et. al. teaches an exhaust gas purification catalyst where rhodium is supported in the first catalyst layer, closest to the substrate, while platinum and palladium is supported in the second catalyst layer which is farther from the substrate (paragraph [0010]). Miyoshi further teaches that supporting rhodium in the first layer of the catalyst shields the rhodium from a lean oxygen environment, where it is sensitive to thermal grain growth which impedes catalyst performance (paragraph [0007]). It would be obvious to apply the teachings of Miyoshi et. al. to the modified teachings of Suzuki et. al. and Chinzei et. al. ‘900 to reverse the layer composition of the catalyst to prevent Rh particle grain growth which negatively impacts catalyst performance.
Claims 4-5, 7-11, & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et. al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tanaka (Pub No. WO2020241248A1, English equivalent US20220234030A1 used/cited herein).
The teachings of Suzuki et al. are applied as described above for claim 1 and 2.
In regard to claim 4, Tanaka teaches an exhaust gas purification catalyst comprising a substrate and catalyst layer with a first section located upstream and a second section located downstream with respect to exhaust gas flow. Both the first section, V1, and second section, V2, are made up by a multilayer structure, which corresponds to the first and second catalyst coating layers of the present application (paragraph [0021]). The second catalyst layer, 14, of the first section is laminated from the upstream side of the substrate, 111, which corresponds to the formation of an upstream coating layer from an end portion of an upstream side of the substrate in the present application (paragraph [0021]). Similarly, Tanaka teaches that a fourth catalyst later, 16, is laminated onto the substrate from side 112 of the substrate, which corresponds to the formation of a downstream coating layer formed from an end portion in a downstream side of the substrate in the present application (paragraph [0022]). Tanaka teaches that the third and fourth catalyst layers contain rhodium (paragraphs [0037] & [0068]) and contain an OSC material with a surface area between 30-210 m2/g (paragraphs [0039] and [0069]-[0070], paragraph [0029] for a discussion of acceptable OSC materials). Tanaka suggests that sectioning the catalyst into an upstream and downstream component which differ in composition can drastically improve catalytic performance by effectively preventing catalyst poisoning (paragraph [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify the upper catalyst layer of Suzuki et. al. to create two sections with varied compositions as taught by Tanaka in order to yield the upstream and downstream coating layers of claim 4. Both Suzuki et. al. and Tanaka relate to exhaust gas purification catalysts and one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of applying the teachings of Tanaka to Suzuki et. al. It would further be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to replace the continuous upper catalyst layer of Suzuki et. al. with two sections of different composition as taught in Tanaka in order to finely control the ratio of catalytic components in the coating layer to decrease catalyst poisoning by phosphorus and increase catalytic activity.
In regard to claim 5, Suzuki et. al. does not teach the claimed lengths of a downstream and upstream coating layer or the first coating layer. Tanaka teaches that the lower catalyst layer may be comprised of two portions, an upstream first catalyst layer (paragraph [0021]) and a downstream third catalyst layer (paragraph [0022]), which may have the same or different compositions (paragraph [0065]). The first catalyst layer, which corresponds to the first coating layer, may have a length of 20-70% the length of the substrate (paragraph [0077]), which overlaps the claimed length of the first coating layer (20-50% of substrate). Tanaka teaches that an upper catalyst layer may contain two portions, the second catalyst layer (paragraph [0021]), and the fourth catalyst layer (paragraph [0022]), with lengths L1 and L2. Tanaka further teaches that the second catalyst layer with length L1 may have a length of 20-70% the length of the substrate (paragraph [0077), which overlaps the claimed range of the upstream coating layer (30-70% length of substrate). It is then understood that the fourth catalyst layer has a length of 30-80% of the substrate which overlaps the claimed range of the downstream coating layer (30-70% length of substrate). Tanaka teaches that controlling the length ratio of the first section to the second section can enhance performance during start-up and simplify manufacture (paragraph [0077]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05 I). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the creation of the invention to apply the taught length of the layers of Tanaka to the device of Suzuki et. al. to maximize performance during start-up and high-speed operation (paragraph [0077]).
In regard to claim 7, Suzuki et. al. teaches that the Pt-containing lower catalyst layer, which corresponds to the first catalyst layer of the present application, is disposed between the Rh-containing upper catalyst layer (paragraph [0017]) which corresponds to the upstream and downstream coating layers of the present application, and the substrate.
In regard to claim 10, Suzuki et. al. teaches that the catalyst particles in the first layer are platinum. Suzuki et. al. does not teach that the catalyst particles in the first catalyst layer are palladium. However, Tanaka teaches that the catalyst particles in the first catalyst layer (corresponding to the first catalyst coating layer of the present application) may be palladium (paragraph [0017]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to exchange the platinum particles of Suzuki et. al. for the palladium particles of Tanaka as both platinum and palladium are known for having hydrocarbon oxidation activity (Tanaka, paragraph [0026]) and palladium may be superior for its low-temperature activity (Tanaka, paragraph 0009]). A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the creation of the invention would recognize the equivalency of Pt and Pd as catalyst for hydrocarbon conversion and see a benefit to using Pd over Pt for increased conversion as suggested by Tanaka.
In regard to claim 11, the claim recites an intended use which is not considered to limit the scope of the claim. Suzuki et. al. and Tanaka teach the structure of the invention as claimed and thus it is capable of performing the intended use.
In regard to claim 13, Suzuki et. al. does not teach the claimed lengths of the upstream coating layer, downstream coating layer, or first catalyst layer.
However, Tanaka teaches that the first catalyst layer with length L1, which corresponds to the first catalyst coating layer with a width of 20-50%, may be 20-70% of the length of the substrate (paragraph [0023]). The second catalyst layer with length L1, which corresponds to the upstream coating layer with a width of 30-70%, may be 30-80% of the length of the substrate. Further, the fourth catalyst layer, which corresponds to the downstream coating layer with a width of 30-70%, may be 30-80% of the length of the substrate (paragraph [0077]) when considering that the lengths of the L1 and L2 must equal 100% of the substrate length. Tanaka teaches that controlling the length ratio of the first section to the second section can enhance performance during start-up and simplify manufacture (paragraph [0077]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05 I). Further, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the creation of the invention to apply the taught length of the layers of Tanaka to the device of Suzuki et. al. in order to maximize OSC performance during high-speed operation (paragraph [0077]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et. al. further in view of Tanaka and Miyoshi et. al. (Pub No. JP2010201284A).
The teachings of Suzuki et al. and Tanaka are applied as above to claim 4.
In regard to claim 6, Suzuki et. al. teaches that the Pt-containing lower catalyst layer, which corresponds to the first catalyst layer of the present application, is disposed between the Rh-containing upper catalyst layer (paragraph [0017]) which corresponds to the upstream and downstream coating layers of the present application, and the substrate. Suzuki et. al. does not teach that the lower catalyst layer (i.e. first catalyst coating layer) is disposed on the upper catalyst layer (i.e. upstream coating layer). Miyoshi et. al. teaches an exhaust gas purification catalyst where rhodium is supported in the first catalyst layer, closest to the substrate, while platinum and palladium is supported in the second catalyst layer which is farther from the substrate (paragraph [0010]). Miyoshi further teaches that supporting rhodium in the first layer of the catalyst shields the rhodium from a lean oxygen environment, where it is sensitive to thermal grain growth which impedes catalyst performance (paragraph [0007]). It would be obvious to apply the teachings of Miyoshi et. al. to the modified teachings of Suzuki et. al. and Tanaka to reverse the layer composition of the catalyst to prevent Rh particle grain growth which negatively impacts catalyst performance.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et. al. further in view of Tanaka and Onoe et. al. (Pub No. WO2021261209A1).
The teachings of Suzuki et al. and Tanaka are applied as above to claim 4.
In regards to claims 8 and 9, the modified teachings of Suzuki et al. and Tanaka do not specifically teach the claimed distribution and amounts of low, medium, and high OSC materials within the upstream and downstream coating layers.
However, Suzuki et. al. teaches that when the upper catalyst layer contains an OSC material with a large specific surface area, the NOx purification rate is increased while the inclusion of an OSC material with a low specific surface area can suppress a pressure loss (paragraph [0018]). The combination of high and low specific surface area OSC materials suggests that the amount and distribution of OSC material contained in the catalyst is a result effective variable. As discussed in regard to claim 1, Suzuki et. al. teaches the use of two OSC materials of high and low specific surface areas with property ranges which overlap the high and low ranges of the instant application, as well as the range of the claimed medium specific surface area OSC material. As such, it would be obvious to add a third material in the taught range to increase the variety of specific surface area and impede metal alloying.
Onoe et. al. teaches that both upper layers of the catalyst should include an OSC material with a low specific surface area (about 40-60 m2/g) and may include a conventional specific surface area (>60 m2/g, paragraph [0025]). Inclusion of the low specific surface area OSC material is imperative to catalyst longevity as OSC materials with lower specific surface areas are less likely to lose specific surface area over time, suppressing grain growth of the catalytic metal and catalyst deterioration (paragraph [0028]). Further, the low specific surface area OSC material may be added to the rear portion in a greater amount than in the front section to finely control the initial OSC and improve catalyst longevity (paragraph [0036]). As such one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have found it prima facie obvious to have optimized the composition of the OSC materials used in order to maximize OSC performance (see MPEP 2144.04 II A and B regarding routine optimization). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that there the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORDECAI M LEAVITT whose telephone number is (571)272-6637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, CHRISTINA JOHNSON can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/MORDECAI M LEAVITT/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742