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
Claims 11-16 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/29/2026.
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) 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyairi et al (US 2007/0048494).
Regarding claim 1, Miyairi teaches a honeycomb catalytic body comprising:
A honeycomb structure constituted of ceramics such as silicon carbide, cordierite, mullite, silicon nitride and alumina (see [0080];
A catalyst layer containing a catalyst carried in a layered form on the inner surfaces of pores on the inner surface of cells of the honeycomb (see [0084]);
The catalyst layer comprising a noble metal including Pt, Rh, Pd, and combinations thereof dispersed in and carried on a carrier coat constituted by active alumina (see [0096]).
First, the preamble language to a catalyst structure for preparing synthetic gas is directed to an intended use of the catalyst structure and not limiting. In so far as for preparing synthetic gas is limited to a property of the catalyst structure, Miyairi teaches a catalyst structure comprising Pt, Rh, Pd and combinations thereof and an artisan would therefore expect Miyairi to comprise synthetic gas preparation activity.
Regarding the composition of the substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the honeycomb catalytic body as taught by Miyairi where the honeycomb structure is constituted of any of the ceramics taught by Miyari including silicon carbide or silicon nitride in order to produce the honeycomb catalytic body suitable for Miyairi’s catalyst.
Regarding claim 2, Miyairi teaches the catalyst layer carried on the inner surface of pores formed inside each partition wall (See [0084]).
Regarding claim 3, Miyairi teaches a honeycomb shape.
Regarding claim 5, Miyairi teaches the partition walls having pores (see [0084]).
Regarding claim 6, Miyairi teaches the partition walls having a porosity of 30% to 80% (see [0091]).
Regarding claim 7, Miyairi teaches a catalyst where the loading of catalyst per liter of honeycomb structure is 100 g (see Examples [0111])
Regarding claim 8, Miyairi teaches the catalyst comprising Pt, Rh, Pd and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 9, Miyairi teaches the metal oxide carrier comprising alumina.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyairi as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Tomita et al (US 2009/0175043).
As applied to claim 1, Miyairi teaches a honeycomb catalytic body comprising all of the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Miyairi does not teach a thermal conductivity of the catalyst structure is 10 W/mK or more.
Tomita teaches a honeycomb structure comprising a silicon carbide based porous material for purification of diesel exhaust gas (see [0001]). Tomita teaches the thermal conductivity of the silicon carbide based porous material being high because it shows excellent thermal shock resistance. Tomita further teaches the thermal conductivity being at least 10 W/mK because at less than 10 W/mK the thermal shock resistance tends to decrease (see [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the honeycomb catalytic body where the thermal conductivity is at least 10 W/mK to improve the thermal shock resistance of the catalyst body.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyairi as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Zheng et al (US 2017/0274321).
As applied to claim 1, Miyairi teaches a honeycomb catalytic body comprising all of the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Miyairi does not teach wherein the metal active particles are included in an amount in a rage of 5 wt% to 30 wt% based on a total weight of the catalytic material.
Zheng teaches emissions treatment systems with three-way catalyst and SCR-HCT catalysts, the catalyst comprising platinum group metal (PGM)-containing catalysts where the amounts of PGMs can be within a range of about 1 to 50 wt% of a given catalyst composition (e.g. a washcoat) (see [0077]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the honeycomb catalytic body comprising PGM metal catalytic material as taught by Miyairi where the amount of PGM metal is in any workable or optimum range overlapping with 1 to 50 wt% as taught by Zheng since Zheng suggests that the range is suitable for three-way catalyst activity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FORREST whose telephone number is (571)270-5833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10AM-6PM).
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights