DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office action addresses claims 1-9. The claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103. Accordingly, this action is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabolsky et al. (US 20160172683) in view of Gerdes et al (US 9960428) and Liebscher (Eur. J. Org. Chem., 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Sabolsky et al. is directed to a process of incorporating a catalyst on the surface of and within a plurality of pores of an electrode of a solid oxide fuel cell (abstract, [0074]). The fuel cell contains an anode and cathode ([0074]). The process comprises the steps of dripping a catechol-based bio-surfactant onto the surface and within the pores of the cell, and dripping a nano-catalyst precursor solution onto the surface and within the pores that have been pretreated with the surfactant, and firing, in a single firing step, the modified cell above a calcination temperature for forming a nano-catalyst on the surface and within the pores ([0046]- [0048], [0084]). The catalyst solution contains an inorganic salt of a metal ion ([0044]). The reference further teaches that the catechol can be dopamine and that the dopamine is polymerized in the process. Regarding claim 2, the catechol can be dopamine hydrochloride or epinephrine hydrochloride ([0083]).
The reference teaches that the particle size of the nanocatalyst deposits can be controlled by controlling temperature ([0047]). However, it is not expressly taught that the nanocatalyst has a particle size less than 10 nm, as recited in claim 1.
However, the limitation would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the reference provides guidance (noted above) that the particle size can be controlled and it is also known in the art that catalyst particles with smaller size have higher surface area and catalytic activity. It has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
The reference further does not expressly teach that the catechol solution and the nano-catalyst solution are sprayed onto the surface, in a sequential manner, as recited in claim 1, or that the spraying of the catechol is in the form of an atomized aerosol as recited in claim 9.
Gerdes et al. is directed to a method of forming a solid oxide fuel cell electrode by catalyst infiltration (abstract). A catalyst precursor solution containing an inorganic metal salt is sprayed onto an electrode substrate via ultrasonic spray atomization (col. 4, line 29; col. 6, lines 1-39). The infiltrated electrode is then calcined (“upon calcination”; col. 7, line 14).
Therefore, the limitations would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the skilled artisan would be motivated to spray both the catechol pretreatment solution and the catalyst precursor solution of Sabolsky. In column 6, line 22, Gerdes et al. teach the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
371
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Among other advantages, the process of Gerdes et al produces a more even distribution of drops. Accordingly, the skilled artisan would be motivated to spray both the catechol pretreatment solution and the catalyst precursor solution of Sabolsky using ultrasonic spray atomization. Therefore, the spraying limitations in claims 1 and 9 would be rendered obvious. Further, the limitations would have been obvious because a particular known technique (spraying/atomizing a solution on a porous electrode substrate) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
As noted above, Sabolsky teaches that the dopamine is polymerized in the process. However, the reference does not expressly teach that an oxidant is mixed with the catechol to form a polymerizing mixture and then immediately spraying the mixture to the surface (claims 1 and 7). The reference further does not teach that the oxidant causes polymerization within a time of about 1 second to about one hour (claim 3), or that the oxidant contains an iodate group (claim 4) or is sodium periodate (claim 5).
Liebscher is directed to an overview of the chemistry of polydopamine. On page 6, first column, the reference teaches that an oxidizing agent such as sodium periodate assists in faster self-polymerization reactions of dopamine, among other advantages.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the artisan would be motivated to add an oxidizing agent such as sodium periodate to the process of Sabolsky et al (for example by mixing beforehand and spraying the mixed solution), to polymerize the dopamine. The motivation to do so would be to conduct a faster process than would otherwise be available with, i.e., air as an oxidizing agent. Accordingly, the artisan would be motivated to add an oxidizing agent to the process of Sabolsky et al, by mixing with the catechol beforehand and spraying in a single step, to polymerize the catechol. The recitations of “spraying in a single spraying step a catechol based bio-surfactant and an oxidant agent” and “spraying a nano-catalyst precursor solution” would therefore be met (“single spraying step” as claimed refers to the spraying of the catechol and oxidant together). Furthermore, the recitations of “about one second to less than about 1 hour” and “immediately” in the claims are not considered to distinguish over the references. It would have been within the skill of the art to polymerize the dopamine within the specified time frame, and also to “immediately” spray the mixed polymerizing solution as claimed.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabolsky, Gerdes et al and Liebscher as applied to claims 1-5, 7 and 9 above, and further in view of Ko (US 20140308364).
Modified Sabolsky et al. do not expressly teach that the oxidant is ammonium periodate (claims 6 and 8), or that the catechol is a nor-epinephrine solution.
Ko is directed to nanocomposites. In [0040], the reference teaches that it is thought that an oxidizing agent speeds up the dopamine self-polymerization process. The oxidizing agent may be any of a number of compounds including ammonium periodate.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to use ammonium periodate as the oxidizing agent of modified Sabolsky et al.
In addition, the recitation of nor-epinephrine in claim 8 is not considered to distinguish over Sabolsky. As noted above, the reference discloses epinephrine. Epinephrine and nor-epinephrine differ by a methyl group and are considered to be obvious variants. As such, claim 8 is rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants stats that “the particle size of less than 10 nm is correlated with the superior performance of the electrodes, as explicitly described throughout the as-filed application.” The data in Figure 4 is then discussed.
In response, although this argument and data has been carefully considered, it is not persuasive for the following reasons. The Examiner acknowledges that the data in Figure 4 seems to indicate beneficial results. However, the claimed invention has not been compared to the closest prior art, which is Sabolsky (that is, Sabolsky alone). The data set in Figure 4 of the present specification comprises 1) an untreated LSCF electrode, 2) a nanocatalyst infiltrated (sprayed) LSCF electrode, and 3) an “r-PNE” rapid polymerized [i.e., including oxidant] nor-epinephine assisted nanocatalyst infiltrated (sprayed) LSCF electrode. Of these, number 3 corresponds to the claimed invention. However, neither of the other two embodiments corresponds to Sabolsky, which teaches a catechol-assisted nanocatalyst infiltration that is performed by immersion or point deposition. Sabolsky, as noted in the rejection above, does not teach the addition of oxidant to rapidly polymerize the catechol. Sabolsky also does not teach spraying. While Applicant’s data may show good results, the claimed invention has not been compared to the closest prior art, which is a catechol-only assisted (without oxidant) nanocatalyst infiltration that is performed by immersion or point deposition. It cannot be ascertained or concluded that the structure or results shown in the instant specification are a result of the differences (spraying, oxidant) between Sabolsky’s process and the instant claim. Sabolsky specifically discusses that particle size of the nanocatalyst may be manipulated by firing temperature. Absent evidence to the contrary, the position is taken that Sabolsky’s process would be capable of producing the claimed nanocatalyst particle size of less than 10 nm. For the reasons noted in the rejection, a skilled artisan would have motivation to use this particle size in Sabolsky.
Additionally, arguments that the claimed process, which uses oxidant, would be faster and thus better than the process of Sabolsky, would not be persuasive, without more. Liebscher, applied above, teaches that the use of oxidant can rapidly polymerize a catechol. Therefore, such a result would be expected. See also remarks made in the previous Office action regarding spraying, which are incorporated herein.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, the claims are still believed to be properly rejected under 35 USC 103.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
February 25, 2026