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 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 1-7 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 recites “drying it repeatedly up to a preset number of times” and a “predetermined temperature”. It is unclear how many times to the material was dried. It is unclear by what is mean with the “predetermined temperature”. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claim 5 recites a “mole fraction of copper and cerium ranges from 4:6 to 6:4.” It is unclear if the mole fraction requires both copper and cerium, or it is applied to just copper or cerium. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for depending on claim 1 without resolving the ambiguity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ilinich et al. (WO 2017/077479 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ilinich et al. teaches treating a porous refractory oxide material with an aqueous solution of one or more water soluble salts of a platinum group metal to form a first impregnated porous refractory oxide material (page 4, lines 21-23). Drying and calcining the first impregnated porous oxide material (page 4, line 24). Treating the first impregnated porous refractory oxide material in a second impregnation step with an aqueous solution comprising of one or more water soluble salts of a platinum group metal or one or more water soluble salts of a base metal not used in the treatment step and drying and calcining the second impregnated porous refractory oxide material (page 4 lines 25-29). In which the porous refractory oxide material includes gamma alumina, (page 11 line 10). The base metal is defined as a base metal oxide selected from oxides of copper, manganese, iron, chromium, nickel, cerium, cobalt, and combinations thereof (page 2, lines 26-27). In one example platinum and palladium (corresponding to noble metal catalyst precursor) were dissolved in deionized water (corresponding to aqueous solution), and impregnated with the alumina powder. The powder was dried 2 hours at 120 °C and calcined 1 hour at 450 °C. The procedure was repeated twice to impregnate the alumina with the mixed solution of platinum and palladium (page 17, lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 2, Ilinich et al. teaches platinum group metals, and teaches a palladium nitrate solution (page 18, line 22).
Regarding claim 3, the concentrations of at least one platinum group metal is about 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% relative to the weight of the alumina (page 2, lines 31-32). In one example, the final alumina powder contained 2.1 wt% Pt and 1.05 wt% Pd (page 17, line 31).
Regarding claim 6, the metal oxides comprise about 5 wt% to about 25 wt% copper relative to the weight of the porous refractory oxide material on which the base metal oxide is impregnated, and optionally about 1 wt% to 10 wt% of cerium (page 4 lines 6-8), which meets the instant claimed range of 20:1 to 5:1.
Regarding claim 7, the product by process limitations are noted by the examiner. Ilinich et al. teach a NOx adsorber based on a metal oxide supported platinum/palladium alumina catalyst. However, when the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct and not the examiner to show the same process of making. In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324.
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.
Claims 4-5 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilinich et al. (WO 2017/077479 A1) as applied above for claim 1 and further in view of Lee et al. (US 11772090 B2).
The teachings of Ilinich are applied as above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Ilinich teaches copper oxide and cerium oxide (page 4, lines 5-8), and (Cu(NO3)2·2.5H2O) was combined with Ce(NO3)3 and deionized water (page 19, lines 35-56). Ilinich does not teach cerium chloride or cerium sulfate, or cerium nitrate hydrate.
However, Lee et al. (US 11772090 B2) teaches a low temperature de-NOx catalyst using a ceria-alumina complex support in which the ceria precursor may include one of cerium chloride, cerium sulfate, and cerium nitrate hydrate (column 2, lines 47-49).
Therefore, it would have been prima facia obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined the teachings of Ilinich et al. with Lee et al. and to include the cerium chloride, cerium sulfate, and cerium nitrate hydrate as the cerium oxide that is taught by Ilinich et al. Lee et al. teaches the benefit of ceria, as it exists as a support and can avoid deterioration in performance of textural properties through impregnation (column 3, lines 29-31). Ilinich teaches cerium nitrate dissolved in water, but not cerium nitrate hydrate, it would be obvious that cerium nitrate in water would result in identical chemical properties as cerium nitrate hydrate. Lee et al. teaches all three cerium salts as possible additives to impart structure benefits, therefore it would be obvious to use cerium chloride or cerium sulfate in place of the cerium nitrate that is taught by Ilinich et al.
Regarding claim 5, Ilinich et al. teaches the base metal oxide comprises about 5 wt% to about 25 wt% copper relative to the weight of the porous refractory oxide material on which the base metal oxide is impregnated, and optionally about 1 wt% to 10 wt% of cerium (page 4 lines 6-8). This results in a ratio of Cu to Ce of 3:6 to 100:4.
The ratios for the Cu and Ce overlap with the ratios that are required by claim 5. With respect to the encompassing and overlapping ranges previously discussed, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kato et al. (US 3919120 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANNAH E KETCHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/H.E.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights