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 .
Claim interpretation
The term “pre-treated” (claim 10) is interpreted in view of the description provided in the Specification. “Pre-treatment of the inventive platinum component refers to a component and/or preparation method, in which the pre-treated platinum component is obtained by impregnating palladium, or rhodium, and/or any other platinum group metal (PGM) of the present invention.” (Pg. 7, lines 10-13).
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019/239325 , in view of US 20150352494 (newly cited).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, WO’9325 discloses (example 4) three-way conversion catalyst (TWC) for the treatment of an exhaust gas stream comprising nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC), comprising platinum group metal (PGM), a refractory metal oxide support, and a carrier characterized in that the platinum group metal (PGM) comprises platinum, palladium and rhodium. (See Pg. 1 lines 5-14).
The WO’9325 does not teach using the platinum group metal in an amount of 70-125 g/ft3.
US’2494 teaches a three way catalyst (TWC) including a substrate and one or more of a washcoat layer, an impregnation layer, and/or an overcoat layer (Abstract). The reference teaches loading PGM at a loading of 0-147 g/ft3 (Para [0040]). The reference highlights a comparison of different catalysts with different levels of palladium (See Fig. 4). This comparison indicates that samples R and S with 90g/ft3 had the lowest temperature for 90% conversion of NOx and CO (Para [0052] and Fig. 4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to use the teaching of US’2494 of 90 g/ft3 palladium loading in the TWC system of WO’9325. One would be motivated to do so because of the low temperature conversion resulting from 90 g/ft3 loading of the PGM loaded on the TWC of US”2494.
Regarding claim 2, The position of the catalyst within a system does not limit the composition of the catalyst. In any event, the three-way conversion catalyst can be in in closed-coupled position (see WO’9325 e.g. page 4, line 6).
Regarding claims 3-7, In WO’9325 the catalyst comprises a bottom washcoat layer and a top washcoat layer, wherein the bottom washcoat comprises platinum and palladium as the only platinum group metal and the top washcoat comprises palladium and rhodium as the only platinum group metals. See Example 4 on Pg. 23, lines 31-37 (bottom layer). The WO’9325 reference indicates (on Pg. 24, line 6) that the top layer in Example 4 is the same as that of example 3 (Pg. 23, line 16-26).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the reference uses a composite of 1:1 ratio of ceria and alumina (WO’9325 Pg. 23, line 31). This composite is considered as the mixed oxide as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, the platinum is pre-treated (see WO’9325 Pg. 23, line 36).
Regarding claim 11, the WO’9325 reference teaches using an oxygen storage component (Pg. 2, line 19).
Regarding claim 12, the WO’9325 reference teaches that the platinum to palladium ratio is from 1:2 to 20:1 (Pg. 6, line 3).
Overlapping ranges are considered prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP §2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 14, the WO’9325 reference teaches using the catalyst of claim 1 to purify the claimed impurities (HC, CO and NOx See Pg.19 line 1-4) from the exhaust gas stream of a gasoline engine (Pg. 20, line 4).
Regarding claim 15, WO’9325 the reference is silent on the engine bed temperature. However, the reference teaches the use of the Three-Way-Catalyst to purify exhaust from a gasoline engine (Pg. 4, line 6). Just like the one used in the claim. Additionally, similar to the instant invention the catalyst is used in a closed coupled position near the engine compartment (Pg. 1, lines 8-10). Furthermore, the exhaust gas is contacted at a temperature sufficient (Pg. 3, lines 30-33) to reduce NOx levels on the same catalyst as the claimed invention. Since the same catalyst is used for treating the same exhaust gas (from a gasoline engine) for NOx reduction, the sufficient temperature of the engine bed will be 1000°C or more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 1, filed 08/31/2026, with respect to the WO’9325 reference have been fully considered and are persuasive. The anticipation rejection over WO’9325 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the WO’9325 reference does not teach the amended range of 70-125 g/ft3 loading of PGM. However, newly cited US’2494 teaches the superior performance of a TWC system with 90g/ft3 PGM loading. This catalyst requires a relatively lower temperature of 90% conversion of NOx and CO (See Fig. 4, sample R and S).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED TAHA IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5857. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7-5.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/SYED T IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
