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 § 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2022/059772 (US 2023/0338929 is used as the English language equivalent – all references are made to that document).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 11-17, WO 2022/059772 discloses an exhaust gas purifying catalyst comprising a substrate, an undercoat layer provided on the substrate, and a catalyst layer provided on the undercoat layer ([0022]). The WO reference teaches that the substrate is preferably silicon carbide ([0033]-[0036]), that the undercoat layer contains a Group 2 metal such as magnesium, calcium, strontium or barium ([0056]), and that the catalyst layer contains one or more noble metals, preferably platinum, palladium, and rhodium ([0079).
Regarding claims 2-3, the WO reference teaches that the undercoat layer does not contain a platinum group metal ([0075]).
Regarding claims 4-5, the WO reference teaches that the undercoat layer contains alumina in an amount of 60-95 mol % ([0050], [0056], [0057]).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 18-19, the WO reference teaches that the catalyst layer further contains an oxygen storage capacity inorganic oxide powder including cerium oxide and cerium zirconium based composite oxide ([0085], [0088], [0089]).
Regarding claim 10, the WO reference teaches an exhaust gas purification apparatus comprising the catalyst and a heating unit to electrically heat the catalyst ([0023]).
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021/131545 (US 12,521,699 is used as the English language equivalent – all references are made to that document).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 11-12, and 15-17, WO 2021/131545 discloses an exhaust gas purifying catalyst comprising a base material, a catalyst layer, and an intermediate layer arranged between the base material and the catalyst layer (column 2, lines 5-15). The WO reference teaches that the base material is silicon carbide (column 3, lines 45-60), that the catalyst layer contains a noble metal such as platinum, palladium, and rhodium (column 4, lines 20-35), and that the intermediate layer contains an alkaline earth metal such as barium or strontium (column 5, lines 35-67).
Regarding claims 2-3, the WO reference teaches that the intermediate layer contains substantially no platinum group metal (column 5, lines 35-50).
Regarding claim 4, the WO reference further teaches that the intermediate layer may further contain alumina (column 5, lines 50-67 and Examples).
Regarding claim 7, the WO reference further teaches that the catalyst layer may be a multi-layer structure of 2 or more layers, each having a platinum group metal (column 5, lines 15-22).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 18-19, the WO reference teaches that the catalyst layer may further contain an inorganic material with oxygen storage capacity such as cerium oxide or ceria/zirconia based composite oxide (column 4, lines 55-67).
Regarding claim 10, the WO reference teaches an exhaust gas purification apparatus including the catalyst composition and a heating unit to electrically heat the catalyst (column 7, lines 10-25).
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xue et al. (US 2014/0260214).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6, and 11- 17, Xue et al. (US 2014/0260214) teaches a nitrogen oxide storage catalyst comprising a first layer on a substrate including ceria-alumina particles having an alkaline earth metal supported thereon and a second layer on the first layer ([0012]). Xue et al. teaches that the substrate may be or contain silicon carbide ([0052]), that the alkaline earth metal in the first layer includes magnesium, calcium, strontium, and barium ([0045]), and that the second layer includes the noble metals platinum, palladium, and rhodium ([0061]).
Regarding claim 5, Xue et al. teaches amounts of ceria, alumina, and alkaline earth metals which meet the ratio instantly claimed (see [0060], [0062], [0064], [0080], Table 1).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 18-19, Xue et al. teaches that the catalyst layer also includes ceria-alumina particles ([0012]), which would meet the oxygen storage capacity material required by the instant claims.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/131545 as applied to claims 1 and 4 above.
The teachings of the WO reference are applied as above for claims 1 and 4.
The difference between the WO reference and the claims is that the WO reference does not disclose the molar ration between the alumina and alkaline earth metal in the intermediate layer, as required by claim 5.
However, the WO reference teaches that the purpose of the intermediate layer is to prevent metal migration from the noble metal containing catalyst layer to the base material during the high temperatures used during exhaust gas purification (column 2, lines 5-15). The WO reference further teaches that the intermediate layer has an appropriate thickness and specific surface area in order to provide an effective barrier layer (column 2, lines 20-25), which suggests that the composition of the intermediate layer is a result effective variable motivating one of ordinary skill to optimize the quantities of alumina and alkaline earth metal contained to provide an efficient catalyst composition. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that there the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/131545 as applied to claim 1 above.
The teachings of the WO reference are applied as above for claim 1.
The difference between the reference and the claims is that the reference broadly teaches “alkaline earth metals” but does not specifically teach magnesium, as required by claim 13, or calcium, as required by claim 14. The claims differ from the reference by reciting a specific species and a more limited genus than the reference. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select any of the species taught by the reference, including those of the claims, because an ordinary artisan would have the reasonable expectation that any of the species of the genus would have similar properties and, thus, the same use as the genus as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA ANN JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6am - 2pm.
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, Alexa Neckel 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.
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights