DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 were subject to restriction requirement mailed on 12/31/2025.
Applicant filed a response, and elected Group I, claims 1-6, and withdrew claims 7-14, without traverse on 02/26/2026.
Claims 1-14 are pending, and claims 7-14 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-6 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 02/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/26/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 3, it is suggested to amend “the X-ray” to “an X-ray” to ensure proper antecedent basis and clarity.
Claim 4, line 4, it is suggested to amend “is larger” to “has higher absorbance” to ensure clarity and consistency according to specification [0063].
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al., Comparable electrocatalytic performances of carbon- and Rh-loaded SrTiO3 nanoparticles, Chinese Chemical Letters, 2018 (Yoon) in view of Kato et al., Carrier recombination in SrTiO3 single crystals: impacts of crystal faces and Nb doping, J. Phys. D: App. Phys, 2021 (Kato).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Yoon teaches Rh-loaded strontium titanate (SrTiO3) (i.e., strontium titanate reads upon metal oxide support) nanoparticles for water splitting and CO2 reduction (Yoon, Abstract); for the TEM image of the Rh-loaded nanoparticle, much smaller nanoparticles were appeared to be decorated on the surface of the SrTiO3 nanoparticle (Yoon, page 802, left column, 1st paragraph).
Yoon does not explicitly disclose that the strontium titanate (SrTiO3) is doped with a cation having a higher oxidation number than the cation of the strontium titanate (SrTiO3).
With respect to the difference, Kato teaches SrTiO3 as photocatalysts (Kato, Abstract). Kato specifically teaches SrTiO3 doped with 0.01 wt% and 0.05 wt.% Nb (Kato, page 3, left column).
As Kato expressly teaches, based on the dependence of the Nb doping concentration, a high doping concentration significantly enhances the carrier recombination (Kato, Abstract); photogenerated carrier recombination is a material property that has a strong influence of the energy conversion efficiency of photocatalysts (Kato, page 2, left column, 2nd paragraph); Nb-doped StTiO3 will achieve a higher efficiency than pure SrTiO3 (Kato, page 6, right column).
Kato is analogous art as Kato is drawn to SrTiO3 as photocatalysts.
In light of the motivation of doping SrTiO3 with Nb, as taught by Kato, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to dope the Rh-loaded strontium titanate (SrTiO3) with Nb, such as 0.01 wt% and 0.05 wt.% Nb of SrTiO3, in order to enhance the carrier recombination and/or achieve higher efficiency for photocatalysis, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Further regarding claims 1 and 6, the recitation in the claims that the catalyst is an exhaust gas purification catalyst and is a three-way catalyst, is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Yoon in view of Kato discloses the Rh-loaded and Nb doped strontium titanate, as presently claimed, it is clear that the Rh-loaded and Nb doped strontium titanate of Yoon in view of Kato would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. an exhaust gas purification catalyst and a three-way catalyst, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, given molecular weight of SrTiO3 (183 g/mol) and atomic mass of Nb (93 g/mol), it can be derived that 0.01 wt% and 0.05 wt.% Nb of SrTiO3 correspond to 0.02 mol% and 0.1 mol% (i.e., 0.01%*183/93=0.02%; 0.05%*183/93=0.1%).
Regarding claims 3-5, as applied to claim 1, given that Yoon in view of Kato teaches a material, i.e., the Rh-loaded and Nb doped strontium titanate, that is identical or essentially identical to the presently claimed (claims 1-6), therefore it is clear that the Rh-loaded and Nb doped strontium titanate would necessarily and inherently meet the claimed limitations, including has a peak from SrTiO3 of the SrTiO3 support in the range of 32.20°< 2θ< 32.38°, in a X-ray diffraction spectrum by X-ray crystal diffraction using CuKα rays; the near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectrum of the SrTiO3 support at a wavelength of 900 nm or greater has higher absorbance than the near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectrum of a non-Nb-doped SrTiO3 support at a wavelength of 900 nm or greater; the peak for the bond energy of the 3d orbital of Rh is in the range of 306 to 307 eV after hydrogen reduction in a 1% H2/N2 atmosphere with a heating temperature of 400°C and a heating time of 1 hour.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights