DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are subject to a restriction requirement
Claims 1-20 are pending, of claim 20 is withdrawn after consideration
Claims 1-19 are rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. The instant application was effectively filed on January 10, 2025, but claims priority to a US provisional patent (App. No.: 63/620,887) filed on January 15, 2024.
Election/Restrictions
3. Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-19, drawn to a catalyst article for treating exhaust gas, classified in B01J35/19.
II. Claim 20, drawn to a method of treating an exhaust gas from an internal combustion engine, classified in F01N3/101.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In this case, the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product, e.g., a method for treating gasoline liquid comprising inputting the gasoline liquid through a filter including the catalyst article of group I, instead of treating exhaust gas.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
4. During a telephone conversation with Ni Yan on December 15, 2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
5. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. It is noted that, there is no legible copy of WO 2010140780, which cited on the information disclosure statement (IDS) filed February 5, 2025.
7. Therefore, the IDS filed February 5, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadono et al. (US 20210205788 A1) (Kadono).
10. Regarding claim 1, Kadono teaches a catalytic article for treating exhaust gas (Kadono, Abstract) with a substrate comprising an inlet end, an outlet end with an axial length L (Kadono, p. 17, Claim 1), wherein the catalytic article comprises a first catalytic region, a second catalytic region, and a third catalytic region (Kadono, Abstract),
wherein the first catalytic region comprises a first palladium component and a first oxygen storage capacity (OSC) material comprising ceria;
wherein the third catalytic region (i.e., claimed second catalytic region) comprises a third rhodium component and a third OSC material comprising ceria;
wherein the second catalytic region (i.e., claimed third catalytic region) comprises a second palladium component and a second OSC material comprising ceria (Kadono, claim 1; Abstract).
Kadono further teaches, the first catalytic region is directly (Kadono, FIGs. 1b, 2b, 3b, 4b and 5b) or indirectly adjacent to the third catalytic region (Kadono, FIGs. 6b and 7b).
Kadono further teaches the first palladium component and third rhodium component (reading upon the second rhodium component) have a weight ratio from 60:1 to 1:60, preferably from 40:1 to 1:40, more preferably from 30:1 to 1:30, or most preferably the from 10:1 to 1:10 (Kadono, [0027]), which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
11. Regarding claim 2, Kadono further teaches the first catalytic region can comprise 0.1-300 g/ft3, preferably 50-250 g/ft3, or more preferably 100-220 g/ft3 of the first palladium or rhodium palladium component of the first palladium or rhodium palladium component (Kadono, [0027]), which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
12. Regarding claim 3, Kadono further teaches the third catalytic region (i.e., claimed second catalytic region) can comprise 0.1-20 g/ft.sup.3 of the third rhodium or platinum rhodium component (Kadono, [0066]), which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
13. Regarding claim 4, Kadono further teaches the first catalytic region comprises a first palladium component and a first oxygen storage capacity (OSC) material (Kadono, [0023])
wherein the first catalytic region can further comprise a first alkali or alkaline earth metal component and/or a first inorganic oxide (Kadono, [0031]).
14. Regarding claim 5, Kadono further teaches the first OSC material is preferably selected from the group consisting of cerium oxide, a ceria-zirconia mixed oxide, and an alumina-ceria-zirconia mixed oxide (Kadono, [0030]).
15. Regarding claim 6, Kadono further teaches the first alkali or alkaline earth metal is preferably barium, or strontium, and mixed oxides or composite oxides thereof (Kadono, [0038]).
16. Regarding claim 7, Kadono further teaches the first alkali or alkaline earth metal of barium or strontium is loaded in an amount of 0.1 to 15 wt %, and more preferably 3 to 10 wt % of barium or strontium, based on the total weight of the first catalytic region, which encompasses the claimed range.
17. Regarding claim 8, Kadono further teaches the first inorganic oxide is preferably selected from the group consisting of alumina, magnesia, silica, ceria, barium oxides, and mixed oxides or composite oxides thereof (Kadono, [0042]).
18. Regarding claim 9, Kadono further teaches the third catalytic region (i.e., claimed second catalytic region) comprising a third OSC material (i.e., claimed second OSC material) can further comprise a third alkali or alkaline earth metal component and/or a third inorganic oxide (i.e., claimed second inorganic oxide) (Kadono, [0069]).
19. Regarding claim 10, Kadono further teaches the third OSC material (i.e., claimed second OSC material) is preferably selected from the group consisting of cerium oxide, a ceria-zirconia mixed oxide, and an alumina-ceria-zirconia mixed oxide (Kadono, [0068])
20. Regarding claim 11, Kadono further teaches the third inorganic oxide (i.e., claimed second inorganic oxide) is preferably selected from the group consisting of alumina, ceria, magnesia, silica, lanthanum, zirconium, neodymium, praseodymium oxides, and mixed oxides or composite oxides thereof (Kadono, [0075]).
21. Regarding claim 12, Kadono further teaches the second catalytic region (i.e., claimed third catalytic region) can comprise 0.1-100 g/ft3, 5-60 g/ft3, or more preferably 10-50 g/ft3 of the second palladium (i.e., claimed third palladium component).
22. Regarding claim 13, Kadono further teaches the second catalytic region (i.e., claimed third catalytic region) can further comprise a second alkali or alkaline earth metal component (i.e., claimed third alkali or alkaline earth metal component) and/or a second inorganic oxide (i.e., claimed third inorganic oxide) (Kadono, [0049]).
23. Regarding claim 14, Kadono further teaches the second OSC material (i.e., claimed third OSC material) is preferably selected from the group consisting of cerium oxide, a ceria-zirconia mixed oxide, and an alumina-ceria-zirconia mixed oxide (Kadono, [0048]).
24. Regarding claim 15, Kadono further teaches the second inorganic oxide (i.e., claimed third inorganic oxide) is preferably selected from the group consisting of alumina, magnesia, silica, ceria, barium oxides, and mixed oxides or composite oxides thereof (Kadono, [0048]).
25. Regarding claim 16, Kadono further teaches the third alkali or alkaline earth component (i.e., claimed second alkali or alkaline earth component) is preferably barium, strontium, mixed oxides or composite oxides thereof.
26. Regarding claim 17, Kadono further teaches the third alkali or alkaline earth component (i.e., claimed second alkali or alkaline earth component) of barium or strontium is loaded in an amount of 0.1 to 15 wt %, and more preferably 3 to 10 wt % of barium or strontium, based on the total weight of the first catalytic region, which encompasses the claimed range.
27. Regarding claim 18, Kadono teaches the substrate is preferably a flow-through monolith (Kadono, [0100])
28. Regarding claim 19, Kadono teaches that the flow-through monolith substrate is a single component
wherein by adhering together a plurality of smaller substrates an emission treatment system will be created (Kadono, [0107]).
Conclusion
29. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 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, Ching-Yiu 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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732