DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the November 25th, 2025 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The
text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
Office 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 25th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on November 25th, 2025:
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 and 17-19 are amended. Claim 20 is newly added.
Claim 1 is amended to describe a powder diffractogram of the graphitized, porous carbon material and measurement thereof.
Claims 17-19 are amended to remove “graphitized, porous carbon material” as Claim 1 provides sufficient antecedent basis and to include minor grammatical changes.
Applicant’s amendment finds support in the disclosure including para. 19, 88-89, and 98 of the specification.
The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170141405 A1) in view of Iijima et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180069247 A1), and further in view of Wakayama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5888430 A) as further evidenced by Seki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20100297501 A1). The rejection is withdrawn based on the amendment to Claim 1.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170141405 A1) in view of Iijima et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180069247 A1) and Wakayama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5888430 A) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Dadheech et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20100323276 A1). The rejection is withdrawn based on the amendment to Claim 1.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170141405 A1) in view of Iijima et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180069247 A1) and Wakayama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5888430 A) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Shinozaki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20100330451 A1). The rejection is withdrawn based on the amendment to Claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments filed November 25th, 2025 have been fully considered as further described below:
Applicant presents arguments to Claim 1 in which are based on the claims as amended. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As applicant argues that the claimed La/Lc ratio is dependent on the structure of the graphite material and prior art Neumann et al. cannot be simply modified by Wakayama et al. to include said ratio (see pgs. 7-10 of the “Remarks”), the claimed La/Lc ratio is deemed an inherent property of a graphite material possessing the same structure or produced by the same process (see rejection below). “Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433” (emphasis in original, see MPEP 2112.01).
The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Neumann et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170141405 A1) (“Neumann et al.”)
Previously Cited Iijima et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180069247 A1) (“Iijima et al.”)
Previously Cited Dadheech et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20100323276 A1) (“Dadheech et al.”)
Previously Cited Shinozaki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20100330451 A1) (“Shinozaki et al.”)
Previously Cited Wakayama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5888430 A) (“Wakayama et al.”)
Previously Cited Seki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20100297501 A1) (“Seki et al.”)
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170141405 A1) in view of Iijima et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180069247 A1) as further evidenced by Wakayama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5888430 A) and Seki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20100297501 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Neumann et al. teaches a method for producing a catalyst support (catalyst) for an electrochemical cell (para. 49). The method comprises treating a graphitized porous carbon material in an oxidizing oxygen-containing atmosphere (para. 67). A noble metal compound (used as the catalytically active substance, para. 87) is deposited on the treated carbon material such that an impregnated carbon material is obtained (para. 165). The impregnated carbon material is dried in (brought in contact with) inert gas (N2) (reducing agent) in which the nitrogen atmosphere has a reducing effect such that platinum oxalate (noble metal compound) is decomposed or reduced into metallic platinum (metallic noble metal) (para. 165) forming a noble-metal loaded carbon material.
The graphitized, porous carbon exhibits basal planes (para. 50) observed by powder diffractometry and crystallite sizes (para. 84) determined with the full width half maximum (para. 123). The observance of an La/Lc ratio as claimed wherein La is the average crystallite size in a direction parallel to the basal planes, and Lc is the average crystallite size in a direction perpendicular to the basal planes is a well-known measurement as further evident by Wakayama et al. and Seki et al. as described below:
[AltContent: textbox (Wakayama et al. (Fig. 1))]
PNG
media_image1.png
285
305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wakayama et al. teaches a graphite composite with a high degree of graphitization and pores existing between the graphite particles (porous graphitized carbon material) (para. 4-7 of “Description”). The graphite structure includes graphene layers (Fig. 1) in which basal planes are surfaces parallel to the layered structure. An La/Lc ratio is 0.15 or larger (equivalent to at least 0.15 as claimed) in which La is the crystallite size in a direction parallel to the basal planes and Lc is the crystallite size in a direction perpendicular to the basal planes (Fig. 1). La/Lc is observed using X-ray diffractometry of the graphite powder (powder diffractometry) (para. 17-19 of “Description”). Further, La and Lc can be observed as an average value as further evident by Seki et al. (Seki et al., para. 10 of “Summary”).
Additionally,
“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 either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
“‘When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.’ In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433” (see MPEP 2112.01).
As the graphitized, porous carbon material of the claimed invention and prior art are identical in structure and produced by identical processes (see rejection of Claims 2-6 in which Neumann et al. teaches a degree of graphitization, specific BET surface area, pore volume, and method of obtaining said graphitized carbon material meeting the claimed limitations), the claimed properties such as an La/Lc ratio of 0.15, a (100) diffraction reflection, and a (002) diffraction reflection are presumed to be inherent. Further, Neumann et al. teaches observance of crystallite sizes and the full width half maximum by powder diffractogram using a monochromator with Cu(copper)-K alpha, λ = 1.54056 angstroms (15.4056 nm) (para. 123).
Neumann et al. does not teach the oxygen-containing atmosphere comprising an oxygen-containing plasma or an aqueous medium containing an oxidizing agent.
Iijima et al. teaches a method of treating a graphitized porous carbon material with concentrated hydrogen peroxide, analogous to an aqueous medium containing an oxidizing agent (para. 206).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oxidation treatment of the graphitized porous carbon material of Neumann et al. to include treatment in concentrated hydrogen peroxide (an aqueous medium containing an oxidizing agent) as taught by Iijima et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification as taught by Iijima et al. to include a strong oxidation treatment for imparting various oxygen-containing functional groups providing a carbon material having a suitable oxygen content (Iijima et al., para. 81).
Regarding Claim 2, Neumann et al. is modified by Iijima et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Neumann et al. teaches the graphitized porous carbon material having a graphitization degree (degree of graphitization) of 69.67% in which is at least 60% as claimed (para. 59;63). The degree of graphitization (g) is determined based upon the following formula (g = (344 pm−d002)/(344 pm−335.4 pm)) multiplied by 100 to obtained the percentage, equivalent to the formula as claimed (para. 61). D002 is the graphite-basal plane spacing or distance determined on the basis of a diffraction line or reflection of the (002) plane (para. 60). The degree of graphitization formula is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art as the Bragg equation in which D002 can be determined by powder diffractometry.
Regarding Claim 3, Neumann et al. is modified by Iijima et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Neumann et al. teaches the graphitized porous carbon material having a specific BET surface area of 5 m2/g to 200 m2/g, equivalent to the claimed range, determined in accordance with ISO 9277 (para. 86). It would be best practice by one of ordinary skill in the art to comply with current international standards such as ISO 9277:2022, a new version of the withdrawn International Standard ISO 9277:2010. It is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the BET Method is used to calculate the specific surface area based on nitrogen adsorption isotherm measurements at 77 K.
Regarding Claim 4, Neumann et al. is modified by Iijima et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Neumann et al. teaches the graphitized porous carbon material obtained by converting a carbon precursor in which can be polyvinyl alcohol or phenolic resin (polyhydroxy compounds) into a carbonized carbon material via a carbonization and by graphitizing the carbonized carbon material (para. 48).
Regarding Claim 5, Neumann et al. is modified by Iijima et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 4 above. As applied to Claim 4, Neumann et al. teaches a polyvinyl alcohol or phenolic resin polyhydroxy compound.
Regarding Claim 6, Neumann et al. is modified by Iijima et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 4 above. Neumann et al. further teaches obtaining the graphitized porous carbon material by impregnating a template material (porous inorganic solid, para. 110) with pitch (polyhydroxy compound) (para. 141). The pitch (polyhydroxy compound) present in the porous inorganic solid is reduced or carbonized to obtain a carbonized carbon material (para. 143). The SiO2 (inorganic solid) template framework is removed (para. 144) and the carbonized carbon material free of the template material (exposed by the removal of the inorganic solid) is graphitized (para. 147).
Regarding Claim 8, Neumann et al. is modified by Iijima et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the oxidation treatment of the graphitized porous carbon material of Neumann et al. is modified to include treatment in concentrated hydrogen peroxide, an aqueous medium containing an oxidizing agent, as taught by Iijima et al. As described, the oxidizing agent present in the aqueous medium is H2O2 as claimed.
Regarding Claim 9, Neumann et al. is modified by Iijima et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Neumann et al. teaches the noble metal compound distributed or deposited on the treated carbon material by impregnating with a Pt (noble metal) solution (aqueous medium) in which the noble metal can be performed in an aqueous medium (para. 100;165).
Regarding Claim 10, Neumann et al. is modified by Iijima et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Neumann et al. teaches platinum as the metallic noble metal. Further, the noble metal compound can be divalent platinum (II) complexes or compounds (para. 96).
Regarding Claim 12, Neumann et al. is modified by Iijima et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Neumann et al. teaches the catalyst support in which is the noble-metal-loaded carbon material comprising a quantity of the platinum (noble metal) of 9.03, 8.96, 10.13, and 40.32 wt.%, all which lie within the claimed range of 5 to 60 wt.%.
Regarding Claim 13, Neumann et al. is modified by Iijima et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Neumann et al. teaches a catalyst produced by the method described.
Regarding Claim 14, Neumann et al. is modified by Iijima et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. As applied to Claim 1, Neumann et al. teaches an electrochemical cell containing the catalyst.
Regarding Claim 15, Neumann et al. is modified by Iijima et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 14 above. Neumann et al. teaches the electrochemical cell including a PEM fuel cell (para. 133).
Regarding Claim 17, Neumann et al. is modified by Iijima et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, as the graphitized, porous carbon material of the claimed invention and prior art are identical in structure and produced by identical processes in view of the modification by Iijima et al., the claimed properties such as an La/Lc ratio within the claimed range of 0.15 to 3.0 is deemed an inherent characteristic (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding Claim 18, Neumann et al. is modified by Iijima et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, as the graphitized, porous carbon material of the claimed invention and prior art are identical in structure and produced by identical processes, the claimed properties such as an La/Lc ratio within the claimed range of 0.15 to 1.5 is deemed an inherent characteristic (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding Claim 19, Neumann et al. is modified by Iijima et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, as the graphitized, porous carbon material of the claimed invention and prior art are identical in structure and produced by identical processes, the claimed properties such as an La/Lc ratio within the claimed range of 0.15 to 0.5 is deemed an inherent characteristic (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding Claim 20, Neumann et al. is modified by Iijima et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As the graphitized, porous carbon material of the claimed invention and prior art are identical in structure and produced by identical processes, the claimed properties observed by powder diffractometry such as a (100) diffraction reflection, (002) diffraction reflection, and La/Lc ratio within the location/range disclosed are presumed to be inherent. A powder diffractogram does not transform the method of producing the graphitized, porous carbon material, but is rather a measurement of the properties of the product formed by following said process.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170141405 A1) in view of Iijima et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180069247 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Dadheech et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20100323276 A1).
Claim 7 is dependent on Claim 1; claim 16 is dependent on Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Neumann et al. is modified by Iijima et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Neumann et al. does not teach generation of the oxygen-containing plasma.
Dadheech et al. teaches a plasma treatment using reactive plasma including oxygen containing gases such as pure oxygen in which is used for the generation of the oxygen-containing plasma (para. 29-30); it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a pure oxygen gas stream contains an oxygen content of 100 vol.%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the oxidation treatment of the graphitized porous carbon material of Neumann et al. to include treatment with oxygen-containing plasma including pure oxygen gas (oxygen content of 100 vol.%), meeting the limitations of at least 20 vol.% (as required by claim 7) and at least 95 vol.% (as required by claim 16). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide an oxidation treatment in which improves long-term performance of a carbon material coating for a PEM fuel cell catalyst (Dadheech et al., para. 28).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170141405 A1) in view of Iijima et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180069247 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Shinozaki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20100330451 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Neumann et al. is modified by Iijima et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Neumann et al. does not teach the reducing agent present in an aqueous medium; and/or wherein the reducing agent is a compound as claimed.
Shinozaki et al. teaches an ethanol (alcohol) reducing agent in which is added to a solution comprising water forming an aqueous medium (para. 96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reducing step of Neumann et al. to include contact with the reducing agent, such as ethanol, in an aqueous medium as taught by Shinozaki et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a reducing agent having a relatively strong reducing power to aid in efficiently loading catalyst particles on the surface of a porous carbon film (Shinozaki et al., para. 61-62).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729