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
Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 11 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.
Claim 11, line 1 “to the channels” lack antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kameoka et al. “One-step synthesis of a high performance Pt-Fe3O4 Catalyst: Intermetallic Al13Fe4 as a Platform and Precursor”.
Kameoka describes an intermetallic compound with the formula:
Al76.5-xFe23.5Ptx, where x= 0, 0.05, 0.5, 1 (abstract).
When x=0, this meets the composition of Claims 1 and 2.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 9, 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameoka.
Claim 3 describes a product with product-by-process features. The catalyst, specifically, the intermetallic compound of Claim 1 was disclosed above. As to how that is made, these are product-by-process features.
Nonetheless, Kameoka does teach that the product is made by leaching (abstract).
As to Claim 9, Kameoka teaches that the solution includes a liquid medium (see table 1, “Al dissolved” column and NaOH aqueous solution).
As to Claim 10, Kameoka teaches that the catalyst is supported on a metal oxide support (introduction, right col, lines 5-6).
As to Claim 13, Kameoka teaches the same composition (see the rejection to Claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition can be considered to have the same effectiveness. Further, since the composition is the same, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition would be effective in the same way if used in the same manner.
Claim(s) 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komeoka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizuno (JP 2006/223985).
Kameoka teaches that their product can be used as a water-gas shift catalyst (page 1310, left col., para. 2). The reference does not teach that the composition includes an oxygen storage component from 20-50% or an inorganic oxide from 50-80wt%.
Mizuno teaches a water gas shift reaction catalyst (title) that is combined with an inorganic oxide that has a number of different components in an amount of 40-80% (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an inorganic oxide to the water gas shift catalyst, as taught by Mizuno for use with the water gas shift catalyst of Kameoka because these catalysts are known to be combined with inorganic oxide in an amount of 40-80%.
As to the inorganic oxide compound being an oxygen storage component, although Mizuno does not teach that the inorganic oxide is an oxygen storage component, since the composition is the same, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition used the same way would have the same effectiveness.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameoka as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Xiang (CN 112169590).
Kameoka teaches that their catalyst can be used for a number of uses, to include as a CO oxidation catalyst (page 1310, left col, lines 8-9), but does not teach the features of Claim 11.
Xiang teaches a CO oxidation catalyst that is coated onto a gas channel (abstract). The catalyst is sprayed as a coating onto the channel (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a CO oxidation catalyst to gas channels as a coating, as taught by Xiang for use with the catalyst of Kameoko because this is a known and effective method of applying these catalysts for use in catalytic function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 6, 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Kameoko does not disclose the features of Claims 4, 5, 6 and 12. The surface area of Claim 4 in the reference are much lower. The composition does not claim Y or Rh (Claims 5 and 6) and loading described in not described to be from 0.5 to 5 g/ft3 (Claim 12).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 September 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights