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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicants Priority Document was filed on October 17, 2023.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on May 12, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that unity of invention exists because there is a technical relationship among the claimed inventions, and that Hu et al., while teaching a layered catalyst, does not teach or suggest a catalyst layer such that "at least part of the platinum component and at least part of the rhodium component are supported together on one or more supports", as recited in claim 1.
Applicants’ traversal of the previous Restriction Requirement is persuasive; said Restriction Requirement is hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-19 are now under consideration by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of claim 7, a comma (“,”) should be inserted after “at least 30%”.
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 6, 8-11, 15, 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.
Claims 6 and 8-10 are indefinite for reciting the limitations “preferably” (claims 6, 8, and 9), “more preferably” (claims 8 and 9), and “most preferably” (claim 10), and for “range within range” limitations in claims 8 and 10.
The term "preferably" renders these claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention or not, and the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
Claim 11 is indefinite for reciting the limitation “for example”. The phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 15 and 19 are indefinite for reciting the limitation “especially”, which renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7, 12-14, and 16-18 are allowed.
Claims 6, 8-11, 15, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest Applicants’ claimed (a) layered catalytic article, (b) use of said claimed catalytic article for abatement of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides in an exhaust stream, (c) exhaust treatment system comprising said claimed catalytic article, or (d) method for treating an exhaust stream, by contacting said exhaust stream with said claimed layered catalytic article.
Exemplary prior art includes:
Vjunov et al. (WO 2020/190994, Applicants’ submitted art), which teaches a layered catalyst; however, page 6, lines 25-32 of Vjunov et al. teach an embodiment in which the first layer (corresponding to Applicants’ “bottom layer”) comprises 80-100 wt. % Pd with respect to the total weight of Pd in the catalytic article. Therefore, the second layer (corresponding to Applicants’ “top layer”) comprises 0-20 wt. % Pd, resulting in a ratio of Pd in the top layer to Pd in the bottom layer of at most 20:80 or 1:4, which is not higher than 1:1, as recited in Applicants’ claim 1. Additionally, this reference does not teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding at least part of the platinum component and at least part of the rhodium component being supported together on one or more supports, as also recited in Applicants’ claim 1; and
Liu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,828,343), which teaches a catalyst article comprising a first catalytic layer formed on a substrate, wherein the first catalytic layer comprises palladium impregnated on a ceria-free oxygen storage component and platinum impregnated on a refractory metal oxide, and a second catalytic layer formed on the first catalytic layer comprising platinum and rhodium impregnated on a ceria-containing oxygen storage component (Abstract). Liu et al. further teach an embodiment in which (a) all palladium components are contained in the first catalytic layer, wherein a portion of the palladium component may be supported on a refractory metal oxide support, and the remaining portion of the palladium component may be supported on a ceria-free oxygen storage component, and (b) the second catalytic layer comprises a rhodium component and a platinum component supported on a ceria-containing oxygen storage component, wherein the second catalytic layer is palladium-free; see col. 6, lines 47-67 of Liu et al.
The second catalytic layer disclosed in Liu et al., which corresponds to the “top layer” in Applicants’ claims, does not contain a palladium component, as is required by and recited in Applicants’ claim 1.
Conclusion
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 June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights