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 Arguments
The following is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 12/16/25.
The applicant submits that the 112b rejections are overcome by amendment, and that the
previous rejection is in error as the cited art does not teach all the claimed limitations. Specifically, the applicant submits that the washing device of Park does not teach all the limitations of the claimed washing device.
The examiner agrees, and the previous rejection is withdrawn.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizusaki, US20160226078A1, Tanii, US5110466A, and Bauman, EP2002873A1.
Regarding claim 1, Mizusaki teaches an electrode catalyst production system for producing an electrode catalyst [0001], comprising:
an electrode catalyst precursor [0131] production device [0278] for producing an electrode catalyst precursor as a raw material of an electrode catalyst [0067] containing an electrically conductive support [0129] and a catalyst particle supported on the electrically conductive support [0130];
a washing device for washing the electrode catalyst precursor [0061][0160]
a drying device for drying the washed electrode catalyst precursor that has been washed by the washing device [0161],
wherein in the injection step, the cake is formed in such a manner that a thickness thereof falls into a range (catalyst thickness range)[0200] that has been previously and experimentally determined (experimentally determined)[0154][0200] in consideration of a washing degree and a washing time that are required for the electrode catalyst precursor used (continuing washing time/degree until impurity content setpoint is reached)[fig. 1][0154].
Mizuaki does not teach washing the electrode catalyst precursor by filter press,
wherein the washing device includes executors for executing: a plate closing step for forming a filter chamber by clamping together filter plates; an injection step for injecting a liquid containing the electrode catalyst precursor into the filter chamber from a stock liquid supply tube so as to filtrate the liquid, and then discharging a filtrate from filtrate discharge outlets; a normal washing step for supplying a washing water from the stock liquid supply tube to the filter chamber, allowing the washing water to pass through a cake containing the electrode catalyst precursor, and then discharging the washing water from the filtrate discharge outlets; a reverse washing step for supplying a washing water from one or more of the filtrate discharge outlets to the filter chamber, allowing the washing water to pass through the cake containing the electrode catalyst precursor, and then discharging the washing water from one or more of the filtrate discharge outlets which are different from the filtrate discharge outlet(s) from which the washing water is supplied; a plate opening step for opening the filter plates forming the filter chamber; and a cake peeling step for bringing down a filter cloth so as to peel and drop the cake containing the electrode catalyst precursor, and
Tanni teaches a washing device (press filter)[col. 3. Lin 34 – 60]
wherein the washing device includes executors for executing (components of filter press):
a plate closing step for forming a filter chamber by clamping together filter plates (bring into close contact)[col. 6 lin. 1 – 15];
an injection step for injecting a liquid containing the precursor into the filter chamber from a stock liquid supply tube so as to filtrate the liquid, and then discharging a filtrate from filtrate discharge outlets (injecting and washing sludge as filtrate)[col. 6 lin. 1 – 34];
a normal washing step for supplying a washing water from the stock liquid supply tube to the filter chamber, allowing the washing water to pass through a cake containing the electrode catalyst precursor, and then discharging the washing water from the filtrate discharge outlets (washing sludge to form a cake)[col. 6 lin. 1 – 66];
a plate opening step for opening the filter plates forming the filter chamber; and a cake peeling step for bringing down a filter cloth so as to peel and drop the cake containing the electrode catalyst precursor (opening plates and peeling cake off filter cloth)[col. 6 lin. 34 – 65][col. 7 lin. 1 – 26].
The structures and steps of Tanni above are known in the art and are common features of press filters. Further, Mizuaki teaches that the electrode precusor washing method can be done through press filtration [0160]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the washing device of Tanni into the system of Mizuaki as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods which yields predictable results.
Bauman teaches an electrode catalyst production system for producing an electrode catalyst (filtering device)[0001]
comprising a reverse washing step for supplying a washing water from one or more of the filtrate discharge outlets to the filter chamber, allowing the washing water to pass through the cake containing the electrode catalyst precursor, and then discharging the washing water from one or more of the filtrate discharge outlets which are different from the filtrate discharge outlet(s) from which the washing water is supplied (backwashing the filter cake by reversing the filtrate flow direction)[0016][0037];
Further, Bauman teaches that having a reverse washing step reduces the amount of washing fluid needed during manufacturing [0014]. Then, it would have been obvious to combine the reverse washing step and structures of Bauman into the production system of Mizuaki to reduce washing fluid use.
Regarding claim 2, combined Mizuaki teaches the electrode catalyst production system according to claim 1.
Further, Mizuaki teaches wherein when the electrically conductive support is a conductive carbon [0207].
Further, Tanii teaches an electrode catalyst production system for producing an electrode catalyst (filter press)[col. 1 lin. 5 – 8] wherein the thickness of the cake containing the electrode catalyst precursor at the time of the injection step (cake thickness around 25mm)[col. 6 lin. 24 – 40].
Tanii does not teach the thickness of the cake containing the electrode catalyst precursor is 5 to 10 mm. However, Tanii teaches that the cake thickness is a result effective variable for controlling the efficiency of the injection step (washing)[col. 6 lin. 24 – 40]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed value of cake thickness as a matter of routine optimization.
Regarding claim 4, Combined Mizuaki teaches the electrode catalyst production system according to claim 1.
Further, Bauman teaches wherein a washing time in the reverse washing step and a washing time in the normal washing step are of similar length (forward and reverse washing performed alternatingly)[0033]
Regarding claim 12, Combined Mizuaki teaches the electrode catalyst production system according to claim 2.
Further, Bauman teaches wherein a washing time in the reverse washing step and a washing time in the normal washing step are of similar length (forward and reverse washing performed alternatingly)[0033].
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizusaki, US20160226078A1, Tanii, US5110466A, and Bauman, EP2002873A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feng, CN102343168A
Regarding claim 3, combined Mizuaki teaches the electrode catalyst production system according to claim 1.
Combined Mizuaki does not teach wherein the washing device further includes an executor for executing a filter cloth washing step for washing the filter cloth with a washing water after the cake peeling step.
Feng teaches an electrode catalyst production system for producing an electrode catalyst (plate and frame filter)[pg. 1 para. 3] wherein the washing device further includes an executor for executing a filter cloth washing step for washing the filter cloth with a washing water after the cake peeling step (cleaning filter cloth)[pg. 1 para 10 – 15] Further, Feng teaches the washing step to reduce cleaning time [pg. 1 para. 16]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the washing step of Feng into the production system of combined Mizuaki to reduce cleaning time.
Regarding claim 13, Combined Mizuaki teaches the electrode catalyst production system according to claim 3.
Further, Bauman teaches wherein a washing time in the reverse washing step and a washing time in the normal washing step are of similar length (forward and reverse washing performed alternatingly)[0033]
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizusaki, US20160226078A1, Tanii, US5110466A, Bauman, EP2002873A1, and Tanii, US5110466A as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Feng, CN102343168A
Regarding claim 11, Combined Mizuaki teaches the electrode catalyst production system according to claim 2.
Combined Mizuaki does not teach wherein the washing device further includes an executor for executing a filter cloth washing step for washing the filter cloth with a washing water after the cake peeling step.
Feng teaches an electrode catalyst production system for producing an electrode catalyst (plate and frame filter)[pg. 1 para. 3] wherein the washing device further includes an executor for executing a filter cloth washing step for washing the filter cloth with a washing water after the cake peeling step (cleaning filter cloth)[pg. 1 para 10 – 15] Further, Feng teaches the washing step to reduce cleaning time [pg. 1 para. 16]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the washing step of Feng into the production system of combined Mizuaki to reduce cleaning time.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizusaki, US20160226078A1, Tanii, US5110466A, and Bauman, EP2002873A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niu, CN209848415U.
Regarding claim 5, Combined Mizuaki teaches the electrode catalyst production system according to claim 1.
Combined Mizuaki does not teach wherein the cake peeled and dropped in the cake peeling step has a water content ratio of 60 to 80 wt %.
Niu teaches an electrode catalyst production system for producing an electrode catalyst (plate and frame filter)[pg. 1 para. 3] wherein the water content ratio of the filter cake is controlled to increase the efficiency of the cake removal process [pg. 1 para. 8]. Therefore Niu teaches the water content was an art recognized result effective variable. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed range of water content as a matter of routine optimization to increase efficiency.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizusaki, US20160226078A1, Tanii, US5110466A, Bauman, EP2002873A1, Tanii, US5110466A, and Feng, CN102343168A as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Niu, CN209848415U.
Regarding claim 14, Combined Mizuaki teaches the electrode catalyst production system according to claim 2.
Combined Mizuaki does not teach wherein the cake peeled and dropped in the cake peeling step has a water content ratio of 60 to 80 wt %.
Niu teaches an electrode catalyst production system for producing an electrode catalyst (plate and frame filter)[pg. 1 para. 3] wherein the water content ratio of the filter cake is controlled to increase the efficiency of the cake removal process [pg. 1 para. 8]. Therefore Niu teaches the water content was an art recognized result effective variable. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed range of water content as a matter of routine optimization to increase efficiency.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizusaki, US20160226078A1, Tanii, US5110466A, Bauman, EP2002873A1, and Feng, CN102343168A as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Niu, CN209848415U.
Regarding claim 15, Combined Mizuaki teaches the electrode catalyst production system according to claim 3.
Combined Mizuaki does not teach wherein the cake peeled and dropped in the cake peeling step has a water content ratio of 60 to 80 wt %.
Niu teaches an electrode catalyst production system for producing an electrode catalyst (plate and frame filter)[pg. 1 para. 3] wherein the water content ratio of the filter cake is controlled to increase the efficiency of the cake removal process [pg. 1 para. 8]. Therefore Niu teaches the water content was an art recognized result effective variable. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed range of water content as a matter of routine optimization to increase efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724