DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/465,187 application filed 12 September 2023, 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 10-15, 17, and 19 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.
Claim 10 recites “further comprising a second catalytic region.” It is unclear how or if a second catalytic region differs from the first catalytic region. Indeed, instant claim 11 recites “the second catalytic region comprises a second PGM component” and instant claim 12 recites “the second PGM component is selected from the group consisting of platinum, palladium, rhodium, and a mixture thereof.” Moreover, claim 13 recites “the second catalytic region further comprises a second OSC material and/or a second inorganic oxide” and claims 14 and 15 recite “the second OSC material is selected from the group consisting of cerium oxide, zirconium oxide, a ceria-zirconia mixed oxide, and an alumina-ceria-zirconia mixed oxide” and “the second inorganic oxide is selected from the group consisting of alumina, magnesia, silica, zirconia, lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, praseodymium, yttrium oxides, and mixed oxides or composite oxides thereof.” Compare the preceding to instant claims 1-4. Clearly, the second catalytic region may be the same as the first catalytic region, and the claims do not provide any means of differentiating between the two. Therefore, it is unclear how many catalytic regions exist on the claimed catalytic article. For purposes of continued examination and in keeping with a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claims, the Examiner assumes the second catalytic region may be the same as the first catalytic region.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the second catalytic region" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claim 19 depends from 16, which depends from 1. Neither claim 1 nor claim 16 recites a second catalytic region. Perhaps claim 19 should depend from claim 10.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant is reminded that “[u]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327. In the instant case, “a substrate comprising an inlet end and an outlet end with an axial length L” has been interpreted as a limitation that may comprise monoliths and wall-flow filters [see paragraph 0095 of the published application: “[p]referably the substrate is a flow-through monolith. Alternatively, the substrate can be a wall-flow filter.”].
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsueda et al (US 2008/0318770).
With respect to claims 1 and 6, Matsueda et al discloses “[a]n exhaust gas-purifying catalyst (1) contains a rare-earth element, an alkaline-earth element, zirconium and a precious metal, an atomic ratio of the alkaline-earth element with respect to the sum of the rare-earth element and the zirconium is equal to 0.1 atomic % or higher and lower than 10 atomic %, a part of the rare-earth element, a part of the zirconium and at least a part of the alkaline-earth element forming a composite oxide” [abstract], wherein “the exhaust gas-purifying catalyst 1 may take various forms. For example, the exhaust gas-purifying catalyst may be a monolith catalyst” [paragraph 0046]. Matsueda et al further discloses “[i]n this example, oxide powder represented by the chemical formula: (Ce,Zr,La,Nd)O2 was produced by the following method. First, cerium nitrate [Ce(NO3)3], zirconium oxynitrate [ZrO(NO3)2], lanthanum nitrate [La(NO3)3], and neodymium nitrate [Nd(NO3)3] were weighed such that the atomic ratio of cerium, zirconium, lanthanum and neodymium was 50:35:10:5, and were added into 500 mL of deionized water. After stirring sufficiently, an aqueous solution containing 10% by weight of ammonium hydroxide was dropped into the aqueous solution at room temperature to cause a coprecipitation. The aqueous solution containing the coprecipitate was stirred for 60 minutes and then filtrated. The filter cake was sufficiently washed with deionized water and dried at 110o C. The dried material was subjected to a calcination at 500o C. for 3 hours in the atmosphere…An exhaust gas-purifying catalyst was manufactured by the same method as described in Example 5 except that the oxide powder thus obtained was used. In this example, the platinum content and the solid solution-forming ratio were determined by the same method as described in Example 1. As a result, the platinum content was 1% by weight, and the solid solution-forming ratio was 30% in this example” [Example 6 (Ex. 6) as disclosed in paragraphs 0076-0078 & 0080-0081]. Note that the reference discloses, in relation to Example, 5 that “[a]n exhaust gas-purifying catalyst was manufactured by the same method as described in Example 1 except that the oxide powder thus obtained was used instead of the oxide powder represented by the chemical formula: (Ce,Zr)O2” [paragraph 0074]. Additionally, regarding Example 1: “50 g of the oxide powder was weighed and added into 500 mL of deionized water. After the oxide powder was well dispersed in the deionized water by 10 minutes of ultrasonic agitation, a solution of dinitrodiamine platinum nitrate was added to the slurry. The concentration and amount of the dinitrodiamine platinum nitrate solution were adjusted such that the platinum content in the exhaust gas-purifying catalyst as the final product would be 1% by weight” [paragraph 0051]. Thus, from the preceding, 50 g of oxide powder appears to correspond to 100 atomic (at) % of the oxide powder as summarized in Table 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
288
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Consequently, 5 at% Nd [see Table above] appears to be equivalent to 14.4 g Nd per 100 g powder [(5 mol Nd/100 mol oxide powder) x (144 g Nd/mol Nd) x (100 mol oxide powder/50 g oxide powder)] and 1 wt % Pt is 0.5 g Pt per 100 g powder [(1 g Pt/100 g oxide powder) x 50 g oxide powder]. The preceding yields a weight ratio between Nd and Pt of 14.4:0.5 or 28.8:1, which is obviously at least 2:1 and at least 5:2.
With respect to claims 2-4, either the ZrO2 or CeO2 components of the catalyst correspond to the oxygen storage capacity (OSC) material and/or first inorganic oxide. Note, for example, that the instant application discloses “[t]he first OSC material can be cerium oxide, zirconium oxide…” [paragraph 0034].
With respect to claim 5, note that said claim depends from claim 2, which is recited in the alternative.
With respect to claim 7, note that 14.4 g Nd per 100 g powder (see above) is 14.4 wt % Nd, which is at least 2 wt %.
With respect to claim 8, the Zr corresponds to the transition metal component.
With respect to claim 9, Matsueda et al discloses “[f]urther, as the precious metal, an element other than platinum may be used. For example, platinum group elements such as palladium and rhodium may be used. Alternatively, plural precious metals may be used” [paragraph 0035].
With respect to claims 10-20, see discussion above concerning claim 10 under the heading “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112.” Alternatively, applicant is reminded that “repetition of a known process until success is achieved is one of the ‘inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill would employ.’” Perfect Web Technologies Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 92 USPQ2d 1850. Consequently, it would have been obvious to perform a second impregnation of the oxide powder with, say, the aforementioned palladium and/or rhodium in which case, said palladium and/or rhodium corresponds to the second PGM component. Note that the first and second OSC material and/or first and second inorganic oxide may be the same in the instant application [see figures 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d; consider that the instant application states: “monolith substrate acts as a support for holding catalytic material. Suitable materials for forming the monolith substrate include ceramic-like materials such as cordierite, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, zirconia, mullite, spodumene, alumina-silica magnesia or zirconium silicate, or of porous, refractory metal” [paragraph 0100 of the published application] and “[t]he first OSC material can be cerium oxide, zirconium oxide [zirconia—Examiner’s insertion], a ceria-zirconia mixed oxide, an alumina-ceria-zirconia mixed oxide, or a combination thereof” [paragraph 0034] and “[t]he first inorganic oxide is preferably an oxide of Groups 2, 3, 4, 5, 13 and 14 elements. The first inorganic oxide is preferably selected from the group consisting of alumina, magnesia, silica, zirconia…” [paragraph 0035] and “[t]he second OSC material can be cerium oxide, zirconium oxide [zirconia—Examiner’s insertion], a ceria-zirconia mixed oxide, an alumina-ceria-zirconia mixed oxide, or a combination thereof” [paragraph 0052] and “[t]he second inorganic oxide is preferably selected from the group consisting of alumina, magnesia, silica, zirconia, barium oxides, and mixed oxides or composite oxides thereof” [paragraph 0060]].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Matsueda et al (US 2012/0122672).
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
17 March 2026