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 .
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 (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.
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, 3, 8, 9, 10, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0183962 to Oakes (Oakes) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0236355 to Yang et al. (Yang).
As to claim 1, Oakes teaches a system for hydrogen and oxygen generation via water electrolysis, the system comprising an anode and a cathode each comprising a platinum catalyst, in contact with an acidic electrolyte comprising sulfuric acid, H2SO4, (Abstract; Paragraphs 0042 and 0053; Claim 26). Thus, a composition, at an anode and/or cathode surface comprising a metal and an electrolyte material. However, Oakes fails to teach that the metal is an alloy of the claimed formula, instead teaching, as discussed above, platinum alone.
However, Yang discusses platinum catalysts for use in electrolytic reactors and teaches that the electrocatalyst activity for both the hydrogen evolution reaction and the oxygen evolution reaction can be improved via the provision of a bimetallic or trimetallic alloy, the bimetallic alloy comprising, for example, platinum (a group 10 metal) and nickel (a group 10 metal), in the form of a nanoframe with an average particle size of about 50 nm (Paragraphs 0004, 0005, 0049-0051 and 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the platinum catalyst of both the anode and the cathode of Oakes, with the alloy catalyst of Yang, the bimetallic Pt-Ni embodiment comprising the formula of the claim, in order to improve the catalytic activity of the catalyst as taught by Yang. Thus a metal component of the formula of the claims disposed in sulfuric acid, a material comprising hydrogen ions and sulfate ions, thus a material comprising all of an acid electrolyte material (sulfuric acid as a whole), an ion of an acid electrolyte material (both hydrogen ions and sulfate ions are ions of an acid electrolyte) and an ion of an anion surfactant (sulfate ions are ions of many anionic surfactants such as SDS), thus a composition at the surface of the electrodes that meets the claim limitations.
As to claim 3, the combination of Oakes and Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Yang further teaches that the metal alloy catalyst is provided as a nanoframe (Paragraphs 0086). Yang fails to specifically teach that the nanoframe is determined via HAADF-STEM; however, the means by which it is confirmed that the structure of the composition is a nanoframe is not patentably significant in a composition claim. Furthermore, Yang teaches that other parameters are determined by HAADF-STEM (Paragraph 0063).
As to claims, 8 and 9, the combination of Oakes and Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, Oakes teaches that the electrolyte comprises sulfuric acid, H2SO4, an acid with a pKa of about 3 or less, as evidenced, at least, by applicant’s own disclosure.
As to claim 10, the combination of Oakes and Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, the combination teaches the alternative embodiment of “an ion thereof”, sulfate is an ion of SDS, SDS meeting the formula of the claims.
As to claim 21, the combination of Oakes and Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Yang fails to further teach that the average particle size is from 75 to 325 nm. However, Yang teaches that the average particles size can be, for example, about 20 nm under certain reactions conditions (Paragraph 0084) or about 50 nm under different reaction conditions (Paragraph 0086). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the specific size of the nanoparticles is variable and that the synthesis could be scaled up to provide even larger nanoparticles that would be effective for use as catalysts.
Claims 5, 6 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Oakes and Yang as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0281060 to Yang et al. (Yang ‘060).
As to claims 5, 6 and 22, the combination of Oakes and Yang teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 11 and 21. As discussed above, Yang teaches that the first group 8-11 metal comprises nickel and the group 10-11 metal comprises platinum. Yang further teaches that the metal can comprise a trimetallic, thus positive numbers for e, f and g of the claim (Paragraph 0049). However, Yang is silent as to the specific trimetallic. However, Yang ‘060 also discusses bimetallic and trimetallic catalyst materials and teaches that an appropriate third metal for a trimetallic comprising nickel and platinum is palladium (Paragraph 0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the third metal of the trimetallic of Yang as palladium with the reasonable expectation of effectively forming the catalyst as taught by Yang ‘060.
Claims 7 and 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes in view Yang and further in view of Yang ‘060.
As to claims 7, 24 and 25, Oakes teaches a system for hydrogen and oxygen generation via water electrolysis, the system comprising an anode and a cathode each comprising a platinum catalyst, in contact with an acidic electrolyte comprising sulfuric acid, H2SO4, (Abstract; Paragraphs 0042 and 0053; Claim 26). Thus, a composition, at an anode and/or cathode surface comprising a metal and an electrolyte material. However, Oakes fails to teach that the metal is an alloy of the claimed formula, instead teaching, as discussed above, platinum alone.
However, Yang discusses platinum catalysts for use in electrolytic reactors and teaches that the electrocatalyst activity for both the hydrogen evolution reaction and the oxygen evolution reaction can be improved via the provision of a bimetallic or trimetallic alloy, the bimetallic alloy comprising, for example, platinum (a group 10 metal) and nickel (a group 10 metal), in the form of a nanoframe with an average particle size of about 50 nm (Paragraphs 0004, 0005, 0049-0051 and 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the platinum catalyst of both the anode and the cathode of Oakes, with the alloy catalyst of Yang, the bimetallic Pt-Ni embodiment comprising the formula of the claim, in order to improve the catalytic activity of the catalyst as taught by Yang. Thus a metal component of the formula of the claims disposed in sulfuric acid, a material comprising hydrogen ions and sulfate ions, thus a material comprising all of an acid electrolyte material (sulfuric acid as a whole), an ion of an acid electrolyte material (both hydrogen ions and sulfate ions are ions of an acid electrolyte) and an ion of an anion surfactant (sulfate ions are ions of many anionic surfactants such as SDS), thus a composition at the surface of the electrodes that meets the claim limitations.
As discussed above, Yang teaches that the first group 8-11 metal comprises nickel and the group 10-11 metal comprises platinum. Yang further teaches that the metal can comprise a trimetallic, thus positive numbers for e, f and g of the claim (Paragraph 0049). However, Yang is silent as to the specific trimetallic. However, Yang ‘060 also discusses bimetallic and trimetallic catalyst materials and teaches that an appropriate third metal for a trimetallic comprising nickel and platinum is palladium (Paragraph 0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the third metal of the trimetallic of Yang as palladium with the reasonable expectation of effectively forming the catalyst as taught by Yang ‘060.
As to claim 23, the combination of Oakes, Yang and Yang ‘060 teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Yang further teaches that the metal alloy catalyst is provided as a nanoframe (Paragraphs 0086). Yang fails to specifically teach that the nanoframe is determined via HAADF-STEM; however, the means by which it is confirmed that the structure of the composition is a nanoframe is not patentably significant in a composition claim. Furthermore, Yang teaches that other parameters are determined by HAADF-STEM (Paragraph 0063).
As to claims 26 and 27, the combination of Oakes and Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, Oakes teaches that the electrolyte comprises sulfuric acid, H2SO4, an acid with a pKa of about 3 or less, as evidenced, at least, by applicant’s own disclosure.
As to claim 28, the combination of Oakes and Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, the combination teaches the alternative embodiment of “an ion thereof”, sulfate is an ion of SDS, SDS meeting the formula of the claims.
As to claim 29, the combination of Oakes and Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Yang fails to further teach that the average particle size is from 75 to 325 nm. However, Yang teaches that the average particles size can be, for example, about 20 nm under certain reactions conditions (Paragraph 0084) or about 50 nm under different reaction conditions (Paragraph 0086). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the specific size of the nanoparticles is variable and that the synthesis could be scaled up to provide even larger nanoparticles that would be effective for use as catalysts.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes in view of Yang and further in view of the NPL “The prospects of developing a highly energy-efficient water electrolyser by eliminating or mitigating bubble effects” to Swiegers et al. (Swiegers).
As to claim 1, Oakes teaches a system for hydrogen and oxygen generation via water electrolysis, the system comprising an anode and a cathode each comprising a platinum catalyst, in contact with an acidic electrolyte comprising sulfuric acid, H2SO4, (Abstract; Paragraphs 0042 and 0053; Claim 26). Thus, a composition, at an anode and/or cathode surface comprising a metal and an electrolyte material. However, Oakes fails to teach that the metal is an alloy of the claimed formula, instead teaching, as discussed above, platinum alone.
However, Yang discusses platinum catalysts for use in electrolytic reactors and teaches that the electrocatalyst activity for both the hydrogen evolution reaction and the oxygen evolution reaction can be improved via the provision of a bimetallic or trimetallic alloy, the bimetallic alloy comprising, for example, platinum (a group 10 metal) and nickel (a group 10 metal), in the form of a nanoframe with an average particle size of about 50 nm (Paragraphs 0004, 0005, 0049-0051 and 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the platinum catalyst of both the anode and the cathode of Oakes, with the alloy catalyst of Yang, the bimetallic Pt-Ni embodiment comprising the formula of the claim, in order to improve the catalytic activity of the catalyst as taught by Yang. Thus, a metal component of the formula of the claims.
However, the combination further fails to teach that the composition, at the anode and/or cathode surface, comprising the electrolyte material and the metal component further comprises an anionic surfactant.
However, Swiegers also discusses water electrolysis and teaches that the formation of the gaseous hydrogen and oxygen bubbles leads to inefficiency within the cell, and that the removal of these bubbles from the surfaces of the anode and cathode is of importance (Page 1282; Column 2). Swiegers teaches that in order to remove these bubbles at hydrogen generating electrodes a surfactant such as SDS should be added to the electrolyte (Page 1302; Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the electrolyte in contact with the hydrogen evolving cathode of Oakes with the addition of SDS in order to remove bubbles from the surfaces of the cathode and mitigate inefficiencies as taught by Swiegers. SDS is an amphiphile, as evidenced by, at least, applicants’ own disclosure as SDS as an appropriate amphiphile choice. Thus, a composition at the electrocatalyst surface comprising the metal, the electrolyte and the surfactant.
As to claim 3, the combination of Oakes, Yang and Swiegers teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Yang further teaches that the metal alloy catalyst is provided as a nanoframe (Paragraphs 0086). Yang fails to specifically teach that the nanoframe is determined via HAADF-STEM; however, the means by which it is confirmed that the structure of the composition is a nanoframe is not patentably significant in a composition claim. Furthermore, Yang teaches that other parameters are determined by HAADF-STEM (Paragraph 0063).
As to claims, 8 and 9, the combination of Oakes, Yang and Swiegers teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, Oakes teaches that the electrolyte comprises sulfuric acid, H2SO4, an acid with a pKa of about 3 or less, as evidenced, at least, by applicant’s own disclosure.
As to claim 10, the combination of Oakes, Yang and Swiegers teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, Swiegers teaches that the amphiphile is SDS, an anionic surfactant meeting the formula of the claims.
As to claim 21, the combination of Oakes, Yang and Swiegers teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Yang fails to further teach that the average particle size is from 75 to 325 nm. However, Yang teaches that the average particles size can be, for example, about 20 nm under certain reactions conditions (Paragraph 0084) or about 50 nm under different reaction conditions (Paragraph 0086). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the specific size of the nanoparticles is variable and that the synthesis could be scaled up to provide even larger nanoparticles that would be effective for use as catalysts.
Claims 5, 6 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Oakes, Yang and Swiegers as applied to claims 1, 11 and 21 above, and further Yang ‘060.
As to claims 5, 6 and 22, the combination of Oakes, Yang and Swiegers teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 11 and 21. As discussed above, Yang teaches that the first group 8-11 metal comprises nickel and the group 10-11 metal comprises platinum. Yang further teaches that the metal can comprise a trimetallic, thus positive numbers for e, f and g of the claim (Paragraph 0049). However, Yang is silent as to the specific trimetallic. However, Yang ‘060 also discusses bimetallic and trimetallic catalyst materials and teaches that an appropriate third metal for a trimetallic comprising nickel and platinum is palladium (Paragraph 0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the third metal of the trimetallic of Yang as palladium with the reasonable expectation of effectively forming the catalyst as taught by Yang ‘060.
Claims 7 and 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes in view of Yang and further in view of Swiegers.
As to claims 7, 24 and 25, Oakes teaches a system for hydrogen and oxygen generation via water electrolysis, the system comprising an anode and a cathode each comprising a platinum catalyst, in contact with an acidic electrolyte comprising sulfuric acid, H2SO4, (Abstract; Paragraphs 0042 and 0053; Claim 26). Thus, a composition, at an anode and/or cathode surface comprising a metal and an electrolyte material. However, Oakes fails to teach that the metal is an alloy of the claimed formula, instead teaching, as discussed above, platinum alone.
However, Yang discusses platinum catalysts for use in electrolytic reactors and teaches that the electrocatalyst activity for both the hydrogen evolution reaction and the oxygen evolution reaction can be improved via the provision of a bimetallic or trimetallic alloy, the bimetallic alloy comprising, for example, platinum (a group 10 metal) and nickel (a group 10 metal), in the form of a nanoframe with an average particle size of about 50 nm (Paragraphs 0004, 0005, 0049-0051 and 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the platinum catalyst of both the anode and the cathode of Oakes, with the alloy catalyst of Yang, the bimetallic Pt-Ni embodiment comprising the formula of the claim, in order to improve the catalytic activity of the catalyst as taught by Yang. Thus, a metal component of the formula of the claims.
However, the combination further fails to teach that the composition, at the anode and/or cathode surface, comprising the electrolyte material and the metal component further comprises an anionic surfactant.
However, Swiegers also discusses water electrolysis and teaches that the formation of the gaseous hydrogen and oxygen bubbles leads to inefficiency within the cell, and that the removal of these bubbles from the surfaces of the anode and cathode is of importance (Page 1282; Column 2). Swiegers teaches that in order to remove these bubbles at hydrogen generating electrodes a surfactant such as SDS should be added to the electrolyte (Page 1302; Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the electrolyte in contact with the hydrogen evolving cathode of Oakes with the addition of SDS in order to remove bubbles from the surfaces of the cathode and mitigate inefficiencies as taught by Swiegers. SDS is an amphiphile, as evidenced by, at least, applicants’ own disclosure as SDS as an appropriate amphiphile choice. Thus, a composition at the electrocatalyst surface comprising the metal, the electrolyte and the surfactant.
As to claim 23, the combination of Oakes, Yang and Swiegers teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Yang further teaches that the metal alloy catalyst is provided as a nanoframe (Paragraphs 0086). Yang fails to specifically teach that the nanoframe is determined via HAADF-STEM; however, the means by which it is confirmed that the structure of the composition is a nanoframe is not patentably significant in a composition claim. Furthermore, Yang teaches that other parameters are determined by HAADF-STEM (Paragraph 0063).
As to claims 26 and 27, the combination of Oakes, Yang and Swiegers teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, Oakes teaches that the electrolyte comprises sulfuric acid, H2SO4, an acid with a pKa of about 3 or less, as evidenced, at least, by applicant’s own disclosure.
As to claim 28, the combination of Oakes, Yang and Swiegers teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, Swiegers teaches that the amphiphile is SDS, an anionic surfactant meeting the formula of the claims.
As to claim 29, the combination of Oakes, Yang and Swiegers teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Yang fails to further teach that the average particle size is from 75 to 325 nm. However, Yang teaches that the average particles size can be, for example, about 20 nm under certain reactions conditions (Paragraph 0084) or about 50 nm under different reaction conditions (Paragraph 0086). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the specific size of the nanoparticles is variable and that the synthesis could be scaled up to provide even larger nanoparticles that would be effective for use as catalysts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the interface of the electrode surface and the materials in the electrolyte cannot be properly considered a composition. However, the Examiner disagrees. Applicants specification specifically discloses an embodiment wherein the composition comprises the first metal component in the form of a film, the second component and third components in the form of solution. Thus, reading on a mixed solution of the second and third component in contact with a solid film form of the metal component, as taught by the combinations above, regardless of whether this “composition” is utilized for the same time or purpose intended by Applicant in the disclosure as a whole. It may be important to note that this interpretation could be overcome by narrowing limitation found in applicants disclosure, for example limiting that the composition is a suspension.
Applicants further argue that there is no motivation to modify the electrode of Oakes with the electrodes of Yang. The Examiner disagrees, as discussed above, Oakes discusses platinum for electrode for hydrogen and oxygen evolution reactions and Yang discusses platinum catalysts for use in electrolytic reactors and teaches that the electrocatalyst activity for both the hydrogen evolution reaction and the oxygen evolution reaction can be improved via the provision of a bimetallic or trimetallic alloy.
Applicants further argue that there is no motivation to modify the combination with the addition of a surfactant of Swiegers specifically discussing different electrode materials; however, the Examiner disagrees and maintain that bubble formation in the production of hydrogen gas in an aqueous environment would be an issue of concern for all electrode materials.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights