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 1-4 are presently pending in this application. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Applicants’ Priority Document was filed on October 17, 2023. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 is objected to for reciting the limitation “OSC material” without defining the acronym. The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be amended to include “oxygen storage component”; see, for example, page 5, lines 28-35 of Applicants’ Specification. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-4 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 1 is (and claims 2-4 depending therefrom are) indefinite because the claim limitation “supported on a ZrO 2 -containing composite oxide selected from zirconia”, as recited in lines 19 and 20 therein, is unclear, as zirconia is not a composite oxide. Claim 1 presently recites , “ZrO 2 -containing composite oxide selected from zirconia…” , However, it is unclear how zirconia alone would be ZrO 2 -containing composite oxide (emphasis added). The examiner interprets “ZrO 2 -containing composite oxide” as “ZrO 2 -containing oxide or composite oxide selected from zirconia, an alumina-zirconia-based composite oxide (AZ), and an alumina-zirconia-titanium-based composite oxide (AZT)”. Clarification is requested. Claims 2-4 are additionally rejected, as these claims depend from claim 1 and do not remedy the aforementioned deficiency thereof. 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. (JP 2020-032306; English translation provided and relied upon) in view of Nihashi et al. ( U. S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0134313; Applicants’ submitted art). Regarding claim 1 , Yasuda et al. teach a catalyst for purifying exhaust gas, comprising at least: a base material that partitions a gas flow path through which exhaust gas passes; an OSC (oxygen storage and release) layer provided on the base material and containing an oxygen storage and release material; a first catalyst layer provided on the OSC layer and containing Rh; an upstream catalyst layer provided on the first catalyst layer on the upstream side of the gas flow path and containing Pd; and a second catalyst layer provided on the first catalyst layer on the downstream side of the gas flow path in parallel with the upstream catalyst layer and containing Rh. See paragraph [0013] of Yasuda et al. Figure 1 of Yasuda et al. depicts an embodiment of the aforementioned catalyst for purifying exhaust gas, wherein element 21 is the OSC layer, element 31 is the first catalyst layer containing Rh, element 41a is the upstream catalyst layer provided on the first catalyst layer, and element 41b is the second catalyst layer provided on the first catalyst layer on the downstream side of the gas flow path in parallel with the upstream catalyst layer, which also contains Rh. See also paragraph [0020] of Yasuda et al. Element 41a is considered to read upon the claim limitations “first catalyst coating layer containing Pd and/or Pt as a catalyst metal” and “first catalyst coating layer is formed from an end portion in an upstream side…”, as recited in Applicants’ claim 1 . See also paragraph [0043] of Yasuda et al. Elements 21, 31, and 41b are considered to read upon the claim limitations recited in Applicants’ claim 1 regarding the “second catalyst coating layer containing Rh as a catalyst metal” and “second catalyst coating layer includes an upstream coating layer and a downstream coating layer”, with elements 21 and 31 reading upon the claim limitation “the upstream coating layer being formed from the end portion in the upstream side with respect to the exhaust gas flow direction in the exhaust gas purification catalyst”, and element 41b reading upon the claim limitation “downstream coating layer being formed from an end portion in a downstream side with respect to the exhaust gas flow direction in the exhaust gas purification catalyst”. Examples of the aforementioned OSC layer (element 21), containing an oxygen and storage release material, include ceria-based (composite) oxides and include zirconia-based (composite) oxides, e.g., cerium (IV) oxide (ceria), cerium-zirconium composite oxides, cerium-rare earth element complex oxides, etc. (“OSC material”; claim 1 ). See paragraphs [0025]-[0027] of Yasuda et al. The catalyst layer 31 is a catalyst layer containing Rh; see paragraphs [0040]-[0041] of Yasuda et al. The OSC layer, with catalyst layer 31 containing Rh thereon, is considered to read upon the claim limitation “upstream coating layer includes...Rh is supported on an OSC material”, as recited in claim 1 . Further, because catalyst layer 31 containing Rh is supported on OSC layer 21 in its entirety (i.e., 100 weight % of the Rh in catalyst layer 31 is supported on OSC layer 21), and because, as stated above, elements 21 and 31 are considered to read upon Applicants’ “upstream coating layer being formed from the end portion in the upstream side…”, the claim limitation “support amount of Rh on the OSC material is 20 weight% or more relative to a total weight of the whole in the upstream coating layer”, as recited in claim 1 , is considered read upon by Yasuda et al. The catalyst layer 41b (“downstream coating layer”) comprises composite catalyst particles comprising rhodium supported on matrix particles, example of which include alumina-containing composite oxides, metal oxide, metal composite oxides, etc. Yasuda et al. additionally teach that this catalyst layer may contain, in addition to these matrix particles, matrix particles capable of supporting the rhodium, wherein the matrix particles capable of supporting the rhodium may or may not have rhodium supported thereon. Examples of these additional matrix particles include metal composite oxides such as zirconia (“ZrO 2 -containing composite oxide selected from zirconia”). See paragraphs [0044], [0045], and [0047] of Yasuda et al. Regarding claim 2 , Yasuda et al. teach that the mass ratio (considered equivalent to the limitation “weight ratio” in this claim) of rhodium contained in catalyst layers 31 and 41b “can be appropriately set according to the desired performance and is not particularly limited, but from the viewpoint of keeping the amount of platinum group elements used relatively low and obtaining high catalytic performance, it is preferable that the Rh content in the downstream catalyst layer 41b is greater than the Rh content in the first catalyst layer 31. Specifically, the ratio of the Rh content in the downstream catalyst layer 41b to the Rh content in the first catalyst layer 31 is preferably greater than 1 and less than or equal to 5, more preferably between 1.1 and 4, and even more preferably between 1.2 and 3.” See paragraph [0053] of Yasuda et al. As catalyst layer 31 reads on Applicants’ “upstream coating layer” and catalyst layer 41b reads on Applicants’ “downstream coating layer”, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to invert the mass ratios of rhodium contained in catalyst layers 31 and 41b, i.e., greater than 1 (1:1 or more) and less than or equal to 5 (5:1 or less), or between 1:1 and 4:1, and thereby obtain a mass ratio of rhodium in catalyst layer 41b to rhodium in catalyst layer 31 of, for example, greater than 1:1 and less than or equal to 1:5, or between 1:1 and 1:4. Additionally, Yasuda et al. teach, in paragraphs [0048] and [0050], that the amounts of rhodium in catalyst layers 31 (“upstream coating layer”) and 41b (“downstream coating layer”) are not particularly limited, but catalyst layer 31 may contain rhodium in an amount ranging from 0.01-0.4 g per unit volume (1 L) of the catalyst substrate, and that the amount of rhodium in catalyst layer 41b may range from 0.10 to 0.5 g per unit volume (1 L) of the catalyst substrate. From these teachings, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to select the optimal amounts of rhodium in catalyst layers 31 and 41b to obtain a ratio of the amount of rhodium in catalyst layer 31 (“upstream coating layer”) to the amount of rhodium in catalyst layer 41b (“downstream coating layer) falling within the range recited in Applicants’ claim 2 . Regarding claims 3 and 4 , in Figure 1 of Yasuda et al., the portion of catalyst layer 41b (“downstream coating layer”) lies on top of catalyst layer 31 (“upstream coating layer”), thereby showing a mutually overlapping region. Yasuda et al. do not teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding the rhodium exhibiting a mean particle diameter of 1.0 nm to 2.0 nm with a standard deviation σ of 0.8 nm or less in a measurement by a transmission electron microscope observation, as recited in Applicant’s claim 1 . Regarding claim 1 , Nihashi et al. teach a supported catalyst particle comprising an oxide carrier particle and noble metal particles supported thereon, wherein the noble metal particles have an average particle size of 1.0 nm to 2.0 nm with a standard deviation σ of 0.8 nm or less, as measured by observation with a transmission electron microscope ([0038], [0066], [0067]). Examples of the oxide carrier particle include a composite oxide comprising two or more metals, or a mixture of one or more metal oxides and one or more composite oxides; a preferred oxide carrier is an oxide of one or more metals selected from titanium, zirconium, cerium, and aluminum; examples of the noble metal include rhodium. See paragraphs [0057], [0059], and [0060] of Nihashi et al. Nihashi et al. further teach that, when the aforementioned supported catalyst particle can be suitably applied as, for example, an exhaust gas purification catalyst for purifying exhaust gas from automobiles. See paragraph [0032] of Nihashi et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the catalyst for purifying gas disclosed in Yasuda et al. by incorporating therein rhodium in the form of noble metal particles having an average particle size of 1.0 nm to 2.0 nm with a standard deviation σ of 0.8 nm or less, as measured by observation with a transmission electron microscope, as suggested by Nihashi et al., in an endeavor to obtain an exhaust gas catalyst exhibiting high catalytic activity. See paragraph [0064] of Nihashi et al. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kitamura et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0150792) teach an exhaust gas purifying catalyst comprising a substrate and a catalyst coating layer thereon containing a noble metal (e.g., Rh) and a refractory inorganic oxide, but does not teach or suggest a coating layer containing Pd and/or Pt formed from an end portion in an upstream side with respect to an exhaust gas flow direction. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1369 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 March 20, 2026