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 .
Applicants’ Preliminary amendment, filed on April 11, 2024, has been made of record and entered. In this amendment, the drawing has been amended, claim 10 has been amended to eliminate multiple claim dependency, and a Substitute Specification has been filed, in which no new matter is presented.
Claims 1-10 are presently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicants’ Priority Document was filed on April 11, 2024.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, “molar rate” should be amended to recite “molar ratio”; see paragraph [0075] of Applicants’ Specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0299638, Applicants’ submitted art).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, Ogino et al. teach an exhaust gas purification catalyst comprising a three-dimensional structure, a first catalyst layer, and a second catalyst layer, (Figure 1, paragraph [0034]), wherein the first catalyst layer includes a composite oxide containing cerium and zirconium, and rhodium (paragraphs [0043]-[0047], [0058]), and wherein the second catalyst layer includes a composite oxide containing cerium and zirconium, and a palladium element (paragraphs [0065]-[0067]). Ogino et al. further teach the feasibility in the second catalyst layer containing (a) aluminum oxide as an inorganic oxide and (b) a group II element, e.g., strontium, present in the second catalyst layer in amounts of, for example, not less than 0.8 g and not greater than 12 g, per 1 liter of the three-dimensional structure (paragraphs [0082]-[0084]).
Further regarding claim 8, it is noted that while Ogino et al. teach the feasibility in group II metal elements other than strontium being present in the second catalyst layer, this reference additionally teaches that the second catalyst layer most preferably contains strontium. It is also noted that Applicants’ claim 8 recites the limitation “content of a group 2 element other than strontium in the second catalyst layer…is less than 0.1 g/L”. It is noted that “less than” includes zero (0) as a lower limit; therefore, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to (a) select strontium as the only group II metal element present in the second catalyst layer, or (b) select a second group II metal element in addition to strontium, provided the amount of said second group II metal element in an amount that, when combined with the strontium element, falls within the aforementioned range of, for example, not less than 0.8 g and not greater than 12 g, per 1 liter of the three-dimensional structure (e.g., 0.79 g strontium element and 0.01 g group II metal element other than strontium, per 1 liter of the three-dimensional structure).
Regarding claim 10, Ogino et al. teach an exhaust gas purification method wherein an exhaust gas from an internal combustion engine, e.g., a gasoline engine, is brought into contact with the aforementioned exhaust gas purification catalyst. See paragraphs [0090]-[0093] of Ogino et al.
Ogino et al. do not explicitly teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding (a) the catalyst having a pore volume of pores having a pore size of 2 nm or more and 40 nm or less of more than 0.26 ml/g in a pore volume distribution measured by nitrogen adsorption method, as recited in claim 1, (b) a total pore volume of 0.45 ml/g or more, as recited in claim 2, and (c) a pore maintenance rate after a thermal aging is 42.0% or more and less than 80.0%, as recited in claim 7.
However, because Ogino et al. teach an exhaust gas purification catalyst structurally reading upon that instantly claimed, said catalyst comprising a three-dimensional structure, a first catalyst layer thereon comprising rhodium, and a second catalyst layer thereon comprising palladium, strontium, and aluminum oxide (“alumina”), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to reasonably expect the exhaust gas purification catalyst disclosed in Ogino et al. to exhibit a pore volume of pores having a pore size of 2 nm or more and 40 nm or less, a total pore volume, and a pore maintenance rate comparable to that respectively and instantly claimed, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP 2112.01(I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 is (and claims 4-6 depending therefrom are) objected to, as neither Ogino et al. nor the cited references of record teach or suggest the limitations of claim 3 regarding a large pore-volume alumina having a pore volume of pores having a pore size of 2 nm or more and 40 nm or less of 0.60 ml/g or more in a pore volume distribution measured by nitrogen adsorption method.
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 October 1, 2026
