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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
The amendment has introduced a claim objection to claims 9, 11-13, and 17-25, described below.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not introduced new matter and are supported in the instant specification in at least [49] and [69]-[80].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 5-7 filed 12/17/2025 with respect to claim 9, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant summarizes on Pg. 5-7 of the arguments the amendment to claim 9. Applicant argues on Pg. 7 Sun does not disclose or suggest the specific technique for the collapse of the metal-organic framework (MOF) structure during the heat treatment process for ZIF-8. Applicant summarizes the Office Action on Pg. 8 and highlights the statement in the office action “Sun teaches metals are incorporated into the ZIF-8 framework and that the metals are incorporated into the framework in a fashion that did not result in significant structural changes (Pg. 12374, Results and Discussion, left col.).” From this, Applicant argues on Pg. 10 a person skilled in the art would not recognize the collapse of the ZIF framework during the pyrolysis process in Sun to derive the claimed product.
However, as repeatedly presented in the previous office actions, it is acknowledged that Sun does not explicitly describe the “shape of the template powder collapses during the heat-treating of the mixed powder thereby providing a site for the metal ion of the metal precursor powder to enter the template powder”. Despite Sun not explicitly stating this limitation, the collapse of the template, and the ability of metal ions to enter the material, is determined by the identity of the material and the experimental conditions of the synthesis. See at least [16], [25]-[31], and [45] in the instant specification. This statement has not been refuted by Applicant and has been repeatedly presented to Applicant in Office Actions.
Accordingly, when comparing the process of Sun and the process of the instant invention, the processes are substantially similar. In particular, the temperature, time, and identity of the powder during heat treatment are identical and/or overlapping. The volatilization of zinc and material changes associated with the ZIF-8 powder collapsing during heat treatment would necessarily be the same between the process of Sun and the process of the instant invention because they use the same materials and same conditions. A table has been assembled below that allows for direct comparison:
Process taught by Sun
Process of the instant invention
In a typical procedure, Zn (II) zeolitic imidazolate framework (Basolite Z1200 from BASF, ZIF-8) was firstly mixed with 1, 10-phenanthroline (phen) and different metal acetate using ball milling method, and the precursors were then pyrolyzed in Ar at 1050 °C for 1 h. The catalyst powder was collected and gently ground with a marble mortar and pestle without any post-treatment. In all catalyst precursors, the mass percentage content of each metal was kept the same as 0.5 wt%, and the detailed weight amounts of ZIF-8, phen, metal acetate were summarized in Table S1.” (Pg. S2, Experimental Section.)
Taking basolite powder, 1,10-phenanthroline, a metal precursor powder and mixing with a ball mill for 3 hours, where the weight of the metal powder was 2 wt.%, prior to filtering and recovering the powder, and heating at a temperature of 900 to 1100 °C for about 1 h after which the material was cooled and analyzed ([69]-[76]).
It is noted the processes differ by the amount of metal powder (Sun, 0.5 wt.%; instant invention 2 wt.%), however the metal powder concentration being exchanged would not be expected to effect the volatilization of zinc from the basolite zeolite (i.e. ZIF-8) because the temperature at which zinc volatilizes and when the ZIF-8 decomposes is expected to be an inherent feature to the basolite powder.
Accordingly, although Sun does not explicitly disclose “a shape of the template powder collapses during the heat-treating of the mixed powder thereby providing a site for the metal ion of the metal precursor powder to enter the template powder”, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the ZIF-8 template powder of Sun would be expected to have the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed ZIF-8 template powder because the components of the reaction are substantially similar and the experimental conditions to prepare the material are substantially similar, including the heat treatment from which the shape collapse of the template powder results from. Therefore, a rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 103 is eminently fair and acceptable.
Applicant has not provided convincing showings of unexpected results or presented any arguments and/or data that dispute this conclusion and the rejection is maintained. Additionally, regarding the structure of Sun being maintained against the claimed “template powder collapse,” Applicant does not appear to present x-ray diffraction data following heat treatment and accordingly any arguments regarding the structure of the material, in regards to its crystal structure, do not appear to be supported. Applicant provides XAFS data regarding the coordination environment following heat treatment (see [23] and Figs. 4 to 8), however Sun also teaches extended X-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS) spectra for the M-N-C catalyst series (Pg. 12374, right col.; Supporting Information, Pg. S7-S9). In this regard, the coordination environment of Sun would be expected to be substantially similar to that of the instant invention, as described in detail in the rejection.
Applicant argues Sun does not disclose or suggest the volatilization of zinc during the heat treatment.
However, Sun teaches that during the reaction, the bulk Zn contents are higher than after the reaction, which is attributed to volatile Zn-based products (Pg. 12374, right col.).
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 11-13, and 17-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9, line 17, the phrase “by the volatilizing of the zinc (Zn)” is likely intended to read “by the volatilization of the zinc (Zn)”.
Claims 11-13, and 17-25 depend from claim 9 and are thus also objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 9, 11-13, 16-18, 20, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sun et al. (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141, 12372-12381; provided in IDS 14 January 2022; Sun et al. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141, 12372-12381 Supporting Information) in view of Li et al. (Dalton Trans. 2016, 45, 15595).
Note: The Supporting Information document, provided in the non-final dated 12/27/2024, was published simultaneously during the publication of the prior art Sun et al. (Sun et al. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141, 12372-12381 Supporting Information) and is considered a single disclosure over which the 103 rejection is being made. When citing the Supporting Information of Sun et al., the citation includes “Supporting Information.”
Regarding claim 9, Sun teaches formation of a nitrogen-doped carbon material (M-N-C) featuring atomically dispersed metal cations with potential applications for electrocatalysis (Abstract). Sun teaches the catalyst are prepared by combining ZIF-8 (i.e. Basolite Z1200 from BASF), 1,10-phenanthroline, and a metal acetate source prior to pyrolysis (Pg. 12374, Results and Discussion; Fig. 1(a)). Sun teaches the catalyst includes nitrogen and provides characterization details (XANES, EXAFS, XPS, and XRD) which confirm the transition metal is present as well dispersed metal atoms (Pg. 12374, right col.), which meets the limitation “monoatomic or nanometer sized metal is supported on the nitrogen-doped carbon composite.” Sun teaching the metal-organic framework “ZIF-8” is used in the synthesis meets the limitation “a template powder includes a metal-organic framework”, as supported by the definition provided in the instant specification ([0049]).
Sun further teaches that during the reaction, the bulk Zn contents are higher than after the reaction, which is attributed to volatile Zn-based products (Pg. 12374, right col.), meeting the limitation “wherein the heat treating of the mixed powder comprises volatilizing the zinc (Zn)”. Sun effectively teaches the loss of Zn and incorporation of the metal precursor into the material.
Sun teaches metals are incorporated into the ZIF-8 framework and that the metals are incorporated into the framework in a fashion that did not result in significant structural changes (Pg. 12374, Results and Discussion, left col.), confirming the exchange of the incorporated metals into the sites the Zn atoms previously occupied. Sun teaching the incorporation of metals into the ZIF-8 framework, in exchange for the Zn atoms without significant structural changes meets the limitations “wherein the template powder comprises ZIF (Zeolitic Imidazolate Framework)-8 including zinc (Zn) as a central transition metal ion, wherein a metal ion of the metal precursor powder enters the template powder, wherein the metal ion bonds to a site from which the Zn central transition metal ion is removed from the template powder.”
Sun further teaches extended X-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS) spectra for the M-N-C catalyst series (Pg. 12374, right col.; Supporting Information, Pg. S7-S9). EXAFS is a measurement that provides information about the coordination environment of elements in a material (i.e. what they are bonded to). In Sun, EXAFS is provided for materials with the introduced metal and for the Zn atom prior to reaction. A skilled artisan can compare coordination environments from EXAFS data to assess how the introduced metal is incorporated into the material.
In this regard, Sun teaches the EXAFS spectra provide for M-Nx moieties includes Fe-N4 coordination environments, while further teaching that the Zn atoms, provided in the ZIF-8 MOF template, feature Zn-N4 coordination environments. As stated above, Sun teaches volatile Zn is lost during synthesis and is replaced with introduced metal atoms. Therefore, Sun teaching the introduced metal atoms have the same coordination environment as the Zn atoms, while further teaching the introduced metal atoms are replacing the Zn atoms, meets the limitation required by the claim.
The claim further requires “a shape of the template powder collapses by volatilizing of the zinc (Zn) during the heat-treating of the mixed powder thereby providing a site for the metal ion of the metal precursor powder to enter the template powder.” Sun does not explicitly describe the shape of the template collapsing during heat-treatment that provides a site for the metal ion to enter.
However, the collapse of the template and the ability of metal ions to enter the material is determined by the identity of the material and the experimental conditions of the synthesis. See at least [16], [25]-[31], and [45] in the instant specification.
In this regard, Sun teaches:
“In a typical procedure, Zn (II) zeolitic imidazolate framework (Basolite Z1200 from BASF, ZIF-8) was firstly mixed with 1, 10-phenanthroline (phen) and different metal acetate using ball milling method, and the precursors were then pyrolyzed in Ar at 1050 °C for 1 h. The catalyst powder was collected and gently ground with a marble mortar and pestle without any post-treatment. In all catalyst precursors, the mass percentage content of each metal was kept the same as 0.5 wt%, and the detailed weight amounts of ZIF-8, phen, metal acetate were summarized in Table S1.” (Pg. S2, Experimental Section.)
Comparatively, the instant specification describes taking basolite powder, 1,10-phenanthroline, a metal precursor powder and mixing with a ball mill for 3 hours, where the weight of the metal powder was 2 wt.%, prior to filtering and recovering the powder, and heating at a temperature of 900 to 1100 °C for about 1 h after which the material was cooled and analyzed ([69]-[76]).
It is noted the processes differ by the amount of metal powder (Sun, 0.5 wt.%; instant invention 2 wt.%), however the metal powder concentration being exchanged would not be expected to effect the volatilization of zinc from the basolite zeolite (i.e. ZIF-8) because the temperature at which zinc volatilizes and when the ZIF-8 decomposes is expected to be an inherent feature to the basolite powder.
Although Sun does not explicitly disclose “a shape of the template powder collapses during the heat-treating of the mixed powder thereby providing a site for the metal ion of the metal precursor powder to enter the template powder”, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the ZIF-8 template powder of Sun would be expected to have the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed ZIF-8 template powder because the components of the reaction are substantially similar and the experimental conditions to prepare the material are substantially similar, including the heat treatment from which the shape collapse of the template powder results from. Therefore, a rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 103 is eminently fair and acceptable.
The claim further requires “wherein the metal precursor powder includes at least one of ruthenium (Ru), rhodium (Rh), or iridium (Ir),” to which Sun teaches the metal precursor is Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, or Cu (Abstract).
Li teaches a nitrogen-doped porous carbon derived material from the metal-organic framework ZIF-8 that comprises ruthenium particles with small particle size and good dispersion (Abstract; Title; Fig. 1 and 2; Pg. 15598, left col.).
Advantageously, incorporation of ruthenium into the nitrogen-doped porous carbon material provides easy recycling of the catalyst (which reduces costs of the catalyst) while also providing a catalyst with high conversion and selectivity for hydrogenation reactions with limited side reactions, such as dehalogenation (Pg. 15595, right col.-Pg. 15596, left col.; Pg. 15601, Conclusion).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate ruthenium in the method of preparing a nitrogen-doped carbon material of Sun in order to provide easy recycling of the catalyst while also providing a catalyst with high conversion and selectivity for hydrogenation reactions with limited side reactions, as taught by Li.
Regarding claims 11-12, Sun in view of Li teaches the method of claim 9.
Sun further teaches the carbon precursor is 1,10-phenanthroline, which includes nitrogen atoms (Fig. 1(a); Pg. 12374, left col.) while providing X-ray photoelectron spectra (XPS) that confirm the presence of nitrogen in the material (Pg. 12374, right col.).
Regarding claim 13, Sun in view of Li teaches the method of claim 9.
Sun teaches the metal precursor can be selected from Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, and Cu (Pg. 12374, left col.).
Regarding claim 17, Sun in view of Li teaches the method of claim 9.
Sun further teaches the M-N-C catalysts display a surface area ranging from 315 to 430 m2/g (Pg. 12374, left col.). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Sun (315 to 430 m2/g) overlaps with the claimed range (400 to 1,000 m2/g). Therefore, the range in Sun renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, Sun in view of Li teaches the method of claim 9.
Sun further teaches the materials undergo pyrolysis at 1,050 °C (Supporting Information, Pg. S2, Synthesis). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Sun (1,050 °C) overlaps with the claimed range (900 to 1,100 °C). Therefore, the range in Sun renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 20, Sun in view of Li teaches the method of claim 9.
Sun teaches the carbon precursor phenanthroline is present at values ranging from 19.5 to 19.7 wt.%, based on the total weight of the mixed powders, where the range is derived from experimental examples (Supporting Information, Pg. S15, Table S1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Sun (19.5 to 19.7 wt.%) overlaps with the claimed range (10 to 20 wt.%). Therefore, the range in Sun renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 22, Sun in view of Li teaches the method of claim 9.
Sun teaches experimental examples where the template powder ZIF-8 is present at values ranging from 78.2-78.9 wt% (Supporting Information, Pg. S15, Table S1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Sun (78.2-78.9 wt%) overlaps with the claimed range (50 to 80 wt.%). Therefore, the range in Sun renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 25, Sun in view of Li teaches the method of claim 9.
Sun teaches the method of claim 9 and teaches the M-N-C catalyst materials prepared by the method (Pg. 12374; Abstract; Title; Pg. 12378, Conclusion; Supporting Information, Pg. S2, Experimental; Section).
Claims 19, 21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141, 12372-12381; provided in IDS 14 January 2022; Sun et al. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141, 12372-12381 Supporting Information) in view of Li et al. (Dalton Trans. 2016, 45, 15595) and further in view of Proietti et al. (US20140099571A1).
Regarding claim 19, Sun in view of Li teaches the method of claim 9.
Sun further teaches phenanthroline is present at 200 mg, the template powder ZIF-8 is present at 800 mg, and the metal precursor is present at values ranging from 13.8 to 23.2 mg (Supporting Information, Pg. S15, Table S1). Converting the weights from the examples taught in Sun to weight percent based on the total weight of the mixed powder (calculations below), Sun provides ranges of 78.2-78.9 wt% for the template powder, 19.5 to 19.7 wt.% for the carbon precursor, and 13.6-22.7 wt.% for the metal precursor powder. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Sun (78.2-78.9 wt% for the template powder, 19.5 to 19.7 wt.% for the carbon precursor) overlaps with the claimed ranges (80 wt% or less template powder; 20 wt.% or less carbon precursor). Therefore, the ranges in Sun renders obvious the claimed ranges.
Calculations:
Total weight of powder from the examples in Table S1 of Sun:
Fe-N-C = 200 + 800 + 15.7 = 1015.7 mg
Co-N-C = 200 + 800 + 20.6 = 1020.6 mg
Ni-N-C = 200 + 800 + 23.2 = 1023.2 mg
Cu-N-C = 200 + 800 + 13.8 = 1013.8 mg
Mn-N-C = 200 + 800 + 15.1 = 1015.1 mg
Then, divide each component by the total to arrive at the weight percent (wt.%) per total weight of the mixed powder.
Sun and Li are silent regarding “the metal precursor powder is in a range of 10 wt% or less based on the total weight of the mixed powder.”
Proietti teaches a metal, nitrogen, carbon catalyst (M/N/C) that is prepared from a metal-organic framework as a template, described as a thermally decomposable porous support (TDPS) ([0044]; [0066]-[0067]), a metal component selected from iron, cobalt, copper, chromium, manganese, and nickel ([0074]) and a nitrogen-containing carbon source, described as an organic coating/filling compound (OCFC), which includes phenanthrolines ([0045]; [0084]). Proietti teaches the metal in the catalyst precursor mix is present in a range from 0.6 to 6.0 wt.% ([0072]; Table 2; Claim 15). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Proietti (0.6 to 6.0 wt.%) overlaps with the claimed ranges (metal precursor powder is in a range of 10 wt% or less). Therefore, the range in Proietti renders obvious the claimed ranges.
Advantageously, by supplying the sufficient amount of precursors, including the metal powder, a material with greatly improved high current density can be prepared which offers a substantial improvement over carbon black supported catalysts ([0063]; [0131]-[0134]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include 0.6 to 6.0 wt.% of catalyst metal precursor in the method of Sun in order to greatly improve the high current density operation of the catalyst, especially compared to catalysts derived from carbon black, as taught by Proietti.
Regarding claim 21, Sun in view of Li teaches the method of claim 9.
The claim further requires “the carbon precursor powder is in a range of 10 wt% to 15wt% based on the total weight of the mixed powder.” Sun teaches a weight percent for the carbon precursor ranges from 19.5 to 19.7 wt.%, which lies outside the range required by the claim, while Li is silent.
Proietti teaches a metal, nitrogen, carbon catalyst (M/N/C) that is prepared from a metal-organic framework as a template, described as a thermally decomposable porous support (TDPS) ([0044]; [0066]-[0067]), a metal component selected from iron, cobalt, copper, chromium, manganese, and nickel ([0074]) and a nitrogen-containing carbon source, described as an organic coating/filling compound (OCFC), which includes phenanthrolines ([0045]; [0084]). Proietti teaches the organic coating/filling compound (OCFC) is present at a weight ratio ranging from about 10 wt.% to about 40 wt.% ([0088]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Proietti (about 10 wt.% to about 40 wt.%) overlaps with the claimed ranges (10 wt% to 15 wt%). Therefore, the range in Proietti renders obvious the claimed ranges.
Advantageously, providing the OCFC component within the taught range provides the optimal amount of nitrogen to the pyrolyzed product, which contains a very high density of catalytic sites in the micropores in addition to providing excellent mass transport properties ([0087]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the organic coating/filling compound (OCFC) at a weight ratio ranging from about 10 wt.% to about 40 wt.% in the method of Sun in order to produce a catalyst with a very high density of catalytic sites and excellent mass transport properties, as taught by Proietti.
Regarding claim 23, Sun in view of Li teaches the method of claim 9.
The claim further requires the template power is in a range of 50 wt% to 75 wt% based on a total weight of the mixed powder.” Sun teaches a weight precent ranging from 78.2-78.9 wt.% for the template powder, which lies outside the range required by the claim and Li is silent.
Proietti teaches a metal, nitrogen, carbon catalyst (M/N/C) that is prepared from a metal-organic framework as a template, described as a thermally decomposable porous support (TDPS) ([0044]; [0066]-[0067]), a metal component selected from iron, cobalt, copper, chromium, manganese, and nickel ([0074]) and a nitrogen-containing carbon source, described as an organic coating/filling compound (OCFC), which includes phenanthrolines ([0045]; [0084]). Proietti teaches the thermally decomposable porous support (TDPS) is present at a mass ratio of 95:5 to about 5:95, relative to the OCFC support ([0088]). Proietti teaches the organic coating/filling compound (OCFC) is present at a weight ratio ranging from about 10 wt.% to about 40 wt.% ([0088]) and the metal in the catalyst precursor mix is present in a range from 0.6 to 6.0 wt.% ([0072]). Taken together, Proietti teaches a range for the TDPS material in the mix of about 89.4 wt% to about 54 wt.%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Proietti (54% to about 89.4%) overlaps with the claimed ranges (50 wt.% to 75 wt%). Therefore, the range in Proietti renders obvious the claimed ranges.
Advantageously, providing the TDPS component within the taught range provides improved mass transport of molecules within the material during catalysis ([0087]; [0090]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a thermally decomposable porous support (i.e. a template) at weight ratio from about 54% to about 89.4% in the method of Sun in order to produce a catalyst with excellent mass transport properties, as taught by Proietti.
Regarding claim 24, Sun in view of Li teaches the method of claim 9.
The claim further requires “the metal precursor powder is in a range of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% based on a total weight of the mixed powder.” Sun teaches a weight precent ranging from 13.6-22.7 wt.% for the metal precursor powder, which lies outside the range required by the claim and Li is silent.
Proietti teaches a metal, nitrogen, carbon catalyst (M/N/C) that is prepared from a metal-organic framework as a template ([0066]-[0067]), a metal component selected from iron, cobalt, copper, chromium, manganese, and nickel ([0074]) and a nitrogen-containing carbon source, which includes phenanthrolines ([0084]), where the metal in the catalyst precursor mix is present in a range from 0.6 to 6.0 wt.% ([0072]; Table 2; Claim 15). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Proietti (0.6 to 6.0 wt.%) overlaps with the claimed ranges (metal precursor powder is in a range of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt%). Therefore, the range in Proietti renders obvious the claimed ranges.
Advantageously, by supplying the sufficient amount of precursors, including the metal powder, a material with greatly improved high current density can be prepared which offers a substantial improvement over carbon black supported catalysts ([0063]; [0131]-[0134]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include 0.6 to 6.0 wt.% of catalyst metal precursor in the method of Sun in order to greatly improve the high current density operation of the catalyst, especially compared to catalysts derived from carbon black, as taught by Proietti.
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 Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/J.W.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738