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 .
Claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of claim 2, “further comprises” should be amended to recite “further comprising”.
In line 1 of claim 20, “catalytic article of any one of claim 19” should be amended to recite “catalytic article of claim 19”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13 and 20 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 13 is indefinite because the limitation “lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, praseodymium” defines metals, which are not encompassed by the “first inorganic oxide” Markush group recited therein.
Claim 20 is indefinite for lacking antecedent basis for the limitation “second OSC material and/or a second inorganic oxide”. Claims 10, 18, and 19, from which claim 20 directly or indirectly depends, does not recite a first OSC material and/or a first inorganic oxide, which does not provide basis for or facilitate the presence of a second OSC material and/or second inorganic oxide.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feaviour (WO 2018/042167, Applicants’ submitted art).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Feaviour teaches an oxidation catalyst comprising a first catalytic region, wherein the first catalytic region comprises a catalytic material comprising iron or an oxide thereof (“transition metal component is Fe”), a platinum group metal (e.g., platinum, palladium; “PGM component comprises platinum (Pt)”), and a support material. See page 2, lines 18-36 of Feaviour.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Feaviour further teaches that examples of the support material include refractory oxides, e.g., alumina, silica-alumina, ceria-alumina, alumina-magnesium oxide (“inorganic oxide”). See page 5, lines 24-28 and page 6, lines 26-31 of Feaviour.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Feaviour teaches that the aforementioned oxidation catalyst may further comprise second and third catalytic regions, wherein the second and/or third catalytic region may comprise an NOx storage component, examples of which include alkali metal and alkaline earth metal compounds, e.g., oxides of strontium and barium. See page 10, lines 25-34 and page 22, lines 15-35 of Feaviour.
Regarding claim 6, Feaviour teaches an embodiment in which the catalytic region “does not comprise…an NOx storage component comprising, or consisting essentially of, an oxide, a carbonate or a hydroxide of an alkali metal, an alkaline earth metal…”; see page 10, lines 1-7 of Feaviour.
Regarding claim 8, Feaviour teaches an embodiment in which a catalyst containing platinum is prepared, wherein the catalyst has “a PGM loading of 2.5 wt% in a Pt:Pd ratio of 10:1 w/w” is prepared. See Example 1 of Feaviour.
From this weight ratio and the PGM loading, the amount of platinum in the catalyst can be determined to be 2.273 wt%:
Pt/Pd ratio of 10:1 (Pt + Pd) = 2.5 wt%
Pt/Pd = 10/1 10 Pd = 1 Pt
(Pt + Pd) = (10 Pd + 1 Pd) = 11 Pd
11 Pd = 2.5 wt% 2.5 wt%/11 = 0.227 wt% Pd
2.5 wt% - 0.227 wt% Pd = 2.273 wt% Pt.
And, in Example 2 of Feaviour, an embodiment in which a catalyst containing platinum is prepared, wherein the catalyst has “a PGM loading of 2.5 wt% in a Pt:Pd ratio of 4:1 w/w” is prepared. From this weight ratio and PGM loading, the amount of Pt in the catalyst is determined to be 2.0 wt%:
Pt/Pd ratio of 4:1 (Pt + Pd) = 2.5 wt%
Pt/Pd = 4/1 4 Pd = 1 Pt
(Pt + Pd) = (4 Pd + 1 Pd) = 5 Pd
5 Pd = 2.5 wt% 2.5 wt%/5 = 0.5 wt% Pd
2.5 wt% - 0.5 wt% Pd = 2.0 wt% Pt.
Feaviour does not teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding the molar ratio of Pt to the transition metal ranging from 0.2 to 10.0, or from 0.2 to 5.0, as recited in claims 1 and 9.
However, Feaviour teaches that the catalytic material comprises a ratio by weight of the platinum group metal, e.g., platinum, to iron ranging from 10:1 to 1:10, or of 5:1 to 1:3, or of 2:1 to 1:2; see page 9, lines 1-7.
By employing the molecular weights of platinum and of iron, these ratios by weight can be converted to ratios by mole (“molar ratio”):
MW Pt: 195.09 MW Fe: 55.847
Pt/Fe = 195.09/55.847, or 3.493 (Pt/Fe weight ratio of 1:1)
10(195.09)/1 (55.847) = 34.933 (Pt/Fe weight ratio of 10:1)
1/(195.09)/10(55.847) = 0.8865 (Pt/Fe weight ratio of 1:10)
5(195.09)/1(55.847) = 17.466 (Pt/Fe weight ratio of 5:1)
1(195.09)/3(55.847) = 1.164 (Pt/Fe weight ratio of 1:3)
2(195.09)/1(55.847) = 6.986 (Pt/Fe weight ratio of 2:1)
1(195.09)/2(55.847) = 1.747 (Pt/Fe weight ratio of 1:2).
As calculated above, the Pt/Fe weight ratios of 1:1, 1:10, 1:3, 2:1, and 1:2 convert to molar ratios falling within the ranges of “0.2 to 10.0” and “0.2 to 5.0”, as recited in Applicants’ claims 1 and 9. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to select the oxidation catalysts disclosed in Feaviour having Pt/Fe weight ratios of 1:1, 1:10, 1:3, 2:1, and 1:2, which have been shown to exhibit Pt/Fe molar ratios falling within Applicants’ claimed molar ratio range.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Feaviour teaches an oxidation catalyst for treating an exhaust gas, said oxidation catalyst comprising a first catalytic region and a substrate, wherein the first catalytic region comprises a catalytic material comprising iron or an oxide thereof (“transition metal component is Fe”), a platinum group metal (e.g., platinum, palladium; “PGM component comprises platinum (Pt)”), and a support material. See page 2, lines 18-36 of Feaviour.
Feaviour teaches that the oxidation catalyst comprises a catalytic region that may be disposed or supported on a substrate, and that the oxidation catalyst may comprise a single catalytic region, or may further comprise a second catalytic region, wherein the catalytic regions are disposed at or near the inlet and outlet ends of the substrate said regions having lengths of up to 90% of the length of the substrate (“substrate comprising an inlet end and an outlet end with an axial length L”). The second catalytic region may comprise a molecular sieve catalyst comprising a noble metal, examples of which include palladium, platinum, rhodium, gold, silver, iridium, and ruthenium (“second PGM component”). See page 10, line 17 to page 17, line 22 and Figures 1-6 of Feaviour, as well as page 18, lines 23-37.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Feaviour further teaches that examples of the support material include refractory oxides, e.g., alumina, silica-alumina, ceria-alumina, alumina-magnesium oxide (“inorganic oxide”). See page 5, lines 24-28 and page 6, lines 26-31 of Feaviour.
Regarding claim 15, Feaviour teaches that the first catalytic region of the oxidation catalyst comprises from 0.1 to 15.0% by weight, based on the amount of iron (“based on element”) in relation to the amount of refractory oxide that is part of the support material. See page 6, lines 4-8 and 14-18 of Feaviour.
Regarding claim 16, Feaviour teaches that the catalytic region has a loading of the PGM of from 5 to 300 g/ft3; see page 10, lines 9-12 of Feaviour.
Regarding claims 18-20, Feaviour teaches that the aforementioned oxidation catalyst may further comprise second and third catalytic regions, wherein the second and/or third catalytic region may comprise components exhibiting NOx storage activity; exemplary components include (1) a molecular sieve catalyst comprising a noble metal and a molecular sieve, wherein the noble metal may be selected from palladium, platinum, and rhodium, and (2) NOx storage components (e.g., oxides, carbonates, or hydroxides of an alkali metal, an alkaline earth metal, or a rare earth metal) on a support material (e.g., alumina, an oxide of magnesium and aluminum), along with at least one platinum group metal. See page 10, lines 25-34, page 18, lines 23-30, and page 23, line 6 to page 25, line 37 of Feaviour.
Feaviour does not teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding the molar ratio of Pt to the transition metal ranging from 0.2 to 10.0, or from 0.2 to 5.0, as recited in claims 10 and 14.
However, Feaviour teaches that the catalytic material comprises a ratio by weight of the platinum group metal, e.g., platinum, to iron ranging from 10:1 to 1:10, or of 5:1 to 1:3, or of 2:1 to 1:2; see page 9, lines 1-7. By employing the molecular weights of platinum and of iron, these ratios by weight can be converted to ratios by mole (“molar ratio”):
MW Pt: 195.09 MW Fe: 55.847
Pt/Fe = 195.09/55.847, or 3.493 (Pt/Fe weight ratio of 1:1)
10(195.09)/1 (55.847) = 34.933 (Pt/Fe weight ratio of 10:1)
1/(195.09)/10(55.847) = 0.8865 (Pt/Fe weight ratio of 1:10)
5(195.09)/1(55.847) = 17.466 (Pt/Fe weight ratio of 5:1)
1(195.09)/3(55.847) = 1.164 (Pt/Fe weight ratio of 1:3)
2(195.09)/1(55.847) = 6.986 (Pt/Fe weight ratio of 2:1)
1(195.09)/2(55.847) = 1.747 (Pt/Fe weight ratio of 1:2).
As calculated above, the Pt/Fe weight ratios of 1:1, 1:10, 1:3, 2:1, and 1:2 convert to molar ratios falling within the ranges of “0.2 to 10.0” and “0.2 to 5.0”, as recited in Applicants’ claims 10 and 14. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to select the oxidation catalysts disclosed in Feaviour having Pt/Fe weight ratios of 1:1, 1:10, 1:3, 2:1, and 1:2, which have been shown to exhibit Pt/Fe molar ratios falling within Applicants’ claimed molar ratio range.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feaviour (WO 2018/042167, Applicants’ submitted art) as applied to claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 above, and further in view of Yabuzaki et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,546,296).
Feaviour is relied upon for its teachings regarding claims 1, 2, 10, and 11. While Feaviour teaches the limitations of these claims, and also teaches the presence of ceria as an exemplary NOx storage component (page 24, line 15), and teaches ceria-zirconia as an exemplary support material (page 26, lines 5-13; page 29, lines 4-10) this reference does not teach or suggest the presence of an oxygen storage capacity (OSC) material, as recited in claims 3 and 12.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Yabuzaki et al. teach an exhaust gas-purifying catalyst comprising a substrate and a catalytic layer supported thereon. The catalytic layer includes a support made of alumina, an oxygen storage material, an alkaline earth metal or compound thereof supported by a surface of the support, and a precious metal supported by a surface of the support. See col. 1, lines 55-63 of Yabuzaki et al., as well as Figures 2-5.
Examples of the alkaline earth metal include barium and strontium; exemplary compounds thereof include barium oxide. See col. 3, lines 35-43 of Yabuzaki et al.
Examples of the oxygen storage material include ceria, a composite oxide of ceria with another metal oxide, and a composite oxide of ceria and zirconia. See col. 5, lines 58-67 of Yabuzaki et al.
Examples of the precious metal include platinum group elements, e.g., palladium, platinum, or rhodium. See col. 6, line 60 to col. 7, line 4 of Yabuzaki et al.
Note that the alkaline earth metal or compound thereof, and the precious metal disclosed in Yabuzaki et al. are also disclosed in Feaviour, as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the oxidation catalyst of Feaviour by incorporating therein an oxygen storage material, as suggested by Yabuzaki et al., as the oxygen storage material “stores oxygen under and oxygen-rich condition and emits oxygen under an oxygen--lean condition so as to optimize the oxidation reactions of HC and CO and the reductive reactions of NOx.” See col. 5, lines 60-63 of Yabuzaki et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references of record provide technological background in the art of layered catalysts: Liu et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0215557); Kimura et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,022,705); Harada et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,849,443); Marsh (U. S. Patent No. 6,281,161); Andersen et al. U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0078769); Deeba et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0100447).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
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 (Coris) 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.
/Patricia L. Hailey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 February 17, 2026