DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/429,460 application filed 1 February 2024, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
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.
Claims 3 and 15-18 are 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 15-18, it is not clear how the third catalytic region differs from the first or second catalytic regions since the materials of the third catalytic region may be the same as either the first or second catalytic regions. Consequently, in keeping with a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the Examiner assumes as much.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (US 2016/0279613 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 4-5, and 13-14, Suzuki et al discloses “[i]n Reference Example 1, the lower catalyst layer contains Pt as a catalyst (Pt(0.2)/Al2O3(25)+CZ(30)), and the upper catalyst layer contains Rh as a catalyst (Rh(0.12)/Ce—Zr composite oxide A(40)+Al2O3(20)). Herein, the unit of the numerical values in the parentheses is g/L…using nitric acid Rh, a Rh/Ce—Zr composite oxide A (i.e., material 2) in which Rh is carried on a Ce—Zr composite oxide A was prepared. Herein, the proportion of Ce in the Ce—Zr composite oxide A was 30 mass %” [paragraph 0054]. More particularly, the reference teaches a “catalytic converter shown in the drawings has an upper catalyst layer that is formed in the range of 80% of the total length of a substrate from an end of the substrate on the downstream side of the exhaust gas flow direction, and also has a lower catalyst layer that is formed in the range of 80% of the total length of the substrate from an end of the substrate on the upstream side of the exhaust gas flow direction. It should be noted that the length over which each of the upper catalyst layer and the lower catalyst layer is formed is preferably in the range of 65 to 95% of the total length of the substrate…A catalytic converter 10 shown in FIG. 1 generally includes a cylindrical substrate 1 with a number of cells and a catalyst layer 3 formed on the surface of a cell wall 2 of each cell as shown in FIG. 2. Herein, examples of the substrate 1 include cordierite made of a composite oxide of magnesium oxide, aluminum oxide, and silicon dioxide, ceramic materials, such as silicon carbide, and materials other than ceramic materials, such as metal materials. The substrate 1 has a honeycomb structure with a number of cells whose lattice contour is a quadrangle, a hexagon, an octagon, or the like…The catalyst layer 3 shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 includes a lower catalyst layer 4 that is formed on the surface of a cell wall 2 and an upper catalyst layer 5 that is formed on the surface of the lower catalyst layer 4…the upper catalyst layer 5 contains a zirconia support (ZrO2) with rhodium (Rh) carried thereon, and two types of ceria-zirconia-based composite oxides (CeO2—ZrO2 composite oxides) with different specific surface areas” [paragraphs 0036, 0039-0041, 0043 & 0046; see also figures 1-3 below].
PNG
media_image1.png
581
447
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
613
749
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
445
557
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to the foregoing, the substrate 1 depicted above with areas denoted by Fr (front) and Rr (rear) corresponds to the substrate comprising an inlet end and an outlet end with an axial length L of instant claim 1; the area of the catalyst wherein the upper catalyst layer 5 extends to the edge of the substrate 1 may correspond to the first catalyst region. The concentration of Rh in the reference example is 0.12 g L-1, which is equivalent to about 3.4 g ft-3.
Suzuki et al does not appear to explicitly disclose that concentration of supported Rh ranges from 0.001 to 3.5 wt %.
However, it is well-known in the art that Ce-Zr composites have a density ranging from 5.9 to 6.8 g cm-3. Consequently, a concentration of Rh of 0.12 g L-1, corresponds to a concentration of supported Rh ranging from 0.00176 to 0.00203 wt %, which is within the recited range of instant claim 1. Therefore, the concentration of supported Rh would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 3, based on the discussion and figures above, clearly a portion of substrate does not support Rh.
With respect to claim 6, note that 40 g L-1 of Ce-Zr composite oxide is equivalent to about 0.66 g
in-3.
With respect to claims 7-10, see discussion of the lower catalyst layer containing Pt as a catalyst (Pt(0.2)/Al2O3(25)+CZ(30)) above, wherein Al2O3 corresponds to the second inorganic oxide.
With respect to claims 11-12, see figure 3. Obviously, there are portions of the upper and lower catalyst layers directly deposited on cell wall 2.
With respect to claims 15-18, either the first catalytic region or the second catalytic region may be the same as the third catalytic region.
With respect to claim 19, it is well known in the art that Pd and Pt are art-recognized equivalent catalytic metals for the conversion of “CO…into CO2, and NOx is converted into N2 and O2, while HC and VOC are burned to generate CO2 and H2O” [paragraph 0006]. Additionally, it has been held to be "prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose....[T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072. Likewise, it would have been obvious to add either Pt or Pd to Rh.
With respect to claim 20, recall that the reference discloses “substrate 1 has a honeycomb structure.” It is well known in the art that catalysts having a honeycomb structure may include “wall flow filters.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 2, Suzuki et al teaches a lower Rh concentration as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ito et al (JP 2008-150264), which discloses the density of Ce-Zr composites [see, e.g., Table 2] and Zhang et al (US 2023/0347288), which discloses “filter structures that remove particulate matter from exhaust include honeycomb wall flow filters” [paragraph 0070].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
9 June 2026
Prosecution Insights