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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
1. This application is a Continuation of PCT/JP22/02682, which was filed on 01/25/2022.
Claims 1-6 were originally presented in this application for examination.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending in this application and under consideration.
Response to Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
2. The information disclosure statement filed 06/10/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because of the following reason(s).
The U.S. patent numbers (2013/243659 A1 and 2012/009092 A1) provided on the PTO-1449 Form by Applicants are not recognized or incorrect.
The PTO-1449 Form has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
3. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file.
Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any.
The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any, should be updated in a timely manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Second Paragraph)
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The expression “most of” in line 2 of the claim renders the claim unclear and indefinite because it does not particularly point out the amount of inorganic particles positioned in the pores of the filter wall in the instant claim. The instant specification also does not provide meaning or define how much, in terms of weight percentage, for this phrase.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 & 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sutton et al. (US 9,352,277 B1), hereinafter “Sutton et al. ‘277”.
The instant claimed invention relates to an exhaust gas-purifying catalyst comprising: a catalyst-coated filter comprising a filter substrate (a wall-flow filter) and a catalyst layer on a pore wall of the filter substrate, and inorganic particles (a metal oxide, a metal hydroxide, a metal nitrate, a metal carbonate, a metal phosphate, a metal sulfate, or a clay mineral) in a powder form which are localized at a surface of the filter wall adjacent to the entry-side cell at a cross section parallel to a thickness direction of the filter wall.
Sutton et al. ‘277 discloses a filter for filtering particulate matter from a lean-burn exhaust gas comprising:
(a) a porous substrate having an inlet surface and an outlet surface, wherein the inlet surface and the outlet surface are separated by a porous structure; and
(b) a catalytic filter cake in the form of a bridge network on the inlet surface, said bridge network comprising interconnected inorganic particles selected from the group consisting of silicate zeolite, aluminosilicate zeolite, metal-substituted aluminosilicate zeolite, non-zeolitic molecular sieve, and metal oxide, provided that said metal oxide particles have an average size of greater than 0.2 um and less than 5 um, wherein the interconnected inorganic particles are dry aerosol deposited, the particles form a bridge over the pores (col. 15- col. 16, claim 1).
The disclosed catalyst filter further comprises a catalytic washcoat selected from a group consisting of Three-Way-Catalyst (TWC), NOx absorber, oxidation catalyst, hydrocarbon trap, lean NOx catalyst, and combinations thereof (col. 16, claim 10).
Regarding claim 1, the reference appears to teach the same exhaust gas catalyst as claimed. The catalyst filter disclosed by the reference comprises a porous filter substrate (col. 15, claim 1; col. 16, claim 5) having washcoated with a catalyst (col. 16, claim 10) and inorganic particles (a catalytic filter cake) (col. 15, claim 1; col. 16, claims 8 & 9), which is in the powder form (col. 16, claims 2 & 3), located on the inlet surface of the filter substrate (col. 15, claim 1).
There is no patentable distinction seen between the claimed exhaust gas-purifying catalyst and the catalyst filter disclosed by the reference.
Regarding claim 4, the claimed inorganic particles compounds are taught by the reference (see col. 15- col. 16, claims 1, 8, & 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
Claim(s) 3, 5, & 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutton et al. (US 9,352,277 B1), hereinafter “Sutton et al. ‘277”.
Sutton et al. ‘277 discloses a filter for filtering particulate matter from a lean-burn exhaust gas as discussed in the precedent paragraph, except for the following difference.
Regarding claim 3, the reference teaches the inorganic particles having an average particle size of greater than 0.2 um and less than 5 um (col. 16, claim 1), which appears overlapping the instant claimed range of 1 um to 50 um.
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).
Regarding claim 5, the instant claim further defines “a ratio D1/D2 between an average particle size D1 of the inorganic particles and an average pore diameter D2 of pores of the filter wall is in a range of 0.15 to 2”. The reference teaches inorganic particles having an average particle size of greater than 0.2 um and less than 5 um (col. 16, claim 1) and wall-flow filters having mean pore diameters about 15.0 – 20.0 um (col. 4, lines 60-61). Thus, the ratio D1/D2 of the reference catalyst filter would be 0.013 to 0.25 (0.2 um/15 um = 0.013 and 5 um/20 um = 0.25), which overlaps the instant claimed range of 0.15 to 2.
Regarding claim 6, the reference teaches the filer cake (inorganic particles) present in the filter in an amount of less than 1.2 g/in3 (col. 16, claim 6). This amount appears to be lower than the instant claimed amounts (3 g/L to 50 g/L).
Examiner considers finding of an optimum amount of the inorganic particles in order to achieve an effective and useful catalyst material is prima facie obvious to a skilled person in the art (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) because metal content is a results-effective variable, see In re Boesch.
Citations
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for related art. See PTO-892 Form prepared.
Conclusion
8. Claims 1-6 are pending. Claims 1-6 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov.
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, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached at 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/CNN/
February 26, 2026