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
Applicant’s amendment filed 25 February 2026 has been considered. It is acknowledged that Applicant amended claim 1. Accordingly, Claims 1-2 and 11 are under full consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The respective arguments are addressed below:
Applicant argues that the freeze-drying method of Seki cannot be a cooling step because it is a drying step. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as there is no reason that a freeze-drying step cannot both cool and dry the material. Applicant’s amendment, however, necessitates that the cooling step is sequentially after the drying step, therefore necessitating that the two steps cannot occur simultaneously. Accordingly, the rejection of this limitation, as written, is no longer applicable as the limitation has changed with the addition of the amendment. As such, Applicant argued that Seki does not disclose this newly added limitation. Examiner reminds Applicant that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Seki does not disclose a slow oxidation step and teaches away from oxidation. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Seki explicitly discloses an oxidation step of contacting oxygen with the core-shell metal particles supported carbon powder obtained in the drying step (see [0018]). Applicant also claims that Seki relates “to supplying air during the drying step, which is fundamentally different from the slow oxidation step of the instantly claimed system”, however the claim explicitly reads, “a slow oxidation step for performing a slow oxidation treatment… by supplying air”. Applicant further argues that the oxidation step in the claimed system is performed after completion of both drying and cooling, not simultaneously with drying, which is a newly added limitation that Applicant argues is not disclosed by Seki. Examiner reminds Applicant that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, Seki does not disclose oxidation occurring simultaneously with drying, but discloses oxidation by bringing the core-shell metal particle-supported carbon powder obtained in the drying step into contact with oxygen – clearly indicating oxidation after drying, not simultaneously.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to combine Lu with Seki because there would be no motivation to combine. Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant to the claim 1 rejection of the previous office action, as well as this one, where motivation to combine is provided. Applicant further argues that Lu combined with Seki would not achieve the intended result of the present invention. Examiner reminds Applicant that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Further, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Relating this argument to the newly added limitations to claim 1, Applicant’s argument becomes moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record.
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki (JP-2018153754-A) in view of Lu (CN-104075550-A) and Diamond et al. (US-20170120219-A1), hereinafter “Diamond”, and further in view of Park et al. (US-8957117-B2), hereinafter “Park”.
Regarding Claim 1, Seki discloses an electrode catalyst production system for producing an electrode catalyst (“method for producing a supported platinum catalyst”; see [0001]; and “catalyst used in the anode electrode or cathode electrode”; see [0024]), comprising: an electrode catalyst precursor production device for producing an electrode catalyst precursor as a raw material of an electrode catalyst (mixing a core metal salt with a complexing agent to prepare a core metal complex solution, a step of mixing a shell metal salt with a complexing agent to prepare a shell metal complex solution, and a step of mixing a carbon powder with a dispersing agent to prepare a carbon powder dispersion solution, and which includes a first reduction step of mixing the core metal complex solution with the carbon powder dispersion solution and adding a reducing agent, a second reduction step of adding the shell metal complex solution and then adding a reducing agent; see [0019]; it is understood that this is a process for producing an electrode catalyst precursor, and that the process being carried out implicitly necessitates a production device to do so); a washing device for washing the electrode catalyst precursor (the particles are dissolved by washing with an acidic solution; see [0027]); and a drying device for drying the electrode catalyst precursor that has been washed by the washing device (a drying step of drying; see [0017]), wherein the drying device includes executors for executing: an introduction step for introducing the electrode catalyst precursor into a container main body of the stirring treatment device (to dry the precursor, as disclosed by Seki, the precursor must physically be subject to a drying device, which necessitates being introduced to a drying device, which necessitates some kind of executor to execute introduction); a drying processing step for drying the electrode catalyst precursor by heating (heating drying is generally used; see [0129]) and depressurizing the container main body (pressure during drying is not limited, and may be… reduced pressure; see [0124]); and depressurizing the container main body (pressure during drying is not limited, and may be… reduced pressure; see [0124]); a slow oxidation step for performing a slow oxidation treatment on the electrode catalyst precursor (an oxidation step of contacting oxygen with the core-shell metal particle-supported carbon powder obtained in the drying step; see [0018]) by supplying air to the container main body (The gas to be passed during drying is not limited, but from an economical point of view, air, nitrogen, etc. are usually used; see [0127]); and a retrieving step for retrieving the electrode catalyst precursor inside the container main body (to dry the precursor, as disclosed by Seki, the precursor must physically be subject to a drying device, which necessitates being received by a drying device, which necessitates some kind of executor to execute reception).
Seki does not explicitly teach a stirring device within a drying device. However, Lu discloses a dryer with a stirring treatment device equipped with a stirring blade having a spiral ribbon impeller (a stirring shaft vertically rotatably fitted within the support, and a lower middle part of the stirring shaft placed within the cylindrical body; a double spiral ribbon distributed on the lower middle part of the stirring shaft; see [0007]). Because Seki and Lu both address the same technical problem of efficiently drying particulate/powder material, Lu constitutes as analogous art.
KSR Rationale C (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to use a “known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the stirring structure taught by Lu in the dryer taught by Seki in order to lift the material and continuously shear and disperse it, which is conducive to rapid drying and crushing, ensuring that the material in different parts of the whole container can be stirred (see Lu [0010]).
Seki also does not explicitly disclose a cooling step after drying. However, Lu discloses a cooling step for cooling the dried material, obtained through the drying processing step, by cooling (cooling tank B used in conjunction with the mixing dryer A; see [0022] and Fig. 4). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because after being cooled, impurities can be precipitated out (see Lu [0024]).
Regarding the limitation claiming that the oxidation step occurs on the cooled electrode catalyst precursor, obtained through the cooling step, indicating that the oxidation step occurs after the cooling step, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Specifically, Seki discloses that the drying method can be freeze-drying (see [0125]), which is followed by oxidation as previously explained. This is effectively an oxidation step following a cooling step. Further, Diamond discloses oxidation occurring after cooling (after cooling to room temperature the catalyst was passivated with 1% O2; see [0420]).
Seki and Diamond are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of catalyst production systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to place the oxidizing step after the cooling step to enable oxidation/passivation to occur around room temperature (see Diamond [0420]). Additionally, it is well known in the art that oxidation should not be carried out at non-elevated temperatures to prevent rapid and exothermic reaction with oxygen (see Park, Col. 8 Lines 5-6).
Regarding Claim 11, Seki, Lu, Diamond, and Park together disclose the electrode catalyst production system according to claim 1. Seki further discloses wherein the electrode catalyst produced has a structure where noble metal catalyst particles are supported on an electrically conductive support (Therefore, in this embodiment, a method for producing a core-shell metal supported catalyst will be described in which, as an example of the core-shell metal, inexpensive copper is used as the core metal and platinum is used as the shell metal; see [0030]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki (JP-2018153754-A) in view of Lu (CN-104075550-A), Diamond et al. (US-20170120219-A1), hereinafter “Diamond”, and Iwata (JP-3631920-B2), and further in view of Park et al. (US-8957117-B2), hereinafter “Park”.
Regarding Claim 2, Seki, Lu, Diamond, and Park together disclose the electrode catalyst production system according to claim 1. Lu further discloses the stirring blade including: a rotary main shaft (stirring shaft vertically rotatably fitted within the support; see [0007]) for rotating the stirring blade when rotated by a driving device (The motor 4 and the gearbox 5 are located on the top of the support 3. The stirring shaft 6 is vertically installed inside the support 3 through the bearing 7 and its upper end is connected to the gearbox 5; see [0020]); the spiral ribbon impeller for stirring and mixing the electrode catalyst precursor inside the container main body (The lower end of the stirring shaft 6 is placed inside the cylinder 1… double spiral ribbons 10 are connected to the stirring shaft 6; see [0020]); and rotor blade supporting pillars connecting the rotary main shaft and the spiral ribbon impeller (The symmetrically arranged double spiral ribbons 10 are connected to the stirring shaft 6 through the support rods 9; see [0020]). This configuration would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it ensures that the materials in different parts of the entire container can be stirred, avoids clumping, and prevents the materials in the entire container from moving as a whole (see Lu [0006]).
Modified Seki does not explicitly teach a hollow shaft configuration. However, Iwata discloses the rotary main shaft and the horizontal rotary vane are each formed into the shape of a hollow tube (gas G ventilation passages 34 and 35 from the rotary shaft 12 to the rotary vane 3; see [0008]), a gas ejection hole is provided on a lower side of a tip portion of each rotor blade (the ejection holes 36 are formed so as to have a plurality of openings from the base end portion to the tip end portion of the wing piece 32; see [0011]), and the rotary main shaft is joined to a flow path of a gas (gas G ventilation passages 34 and 35 from the rotary shaft 12; see [0008]). When modifying Seki modified by Lu by incorporating the gas passages and ejection holes of Iwata, it naturally follows that the gas ejection holes and rotary vanes would be disposed on the support rods taught by Lu due to the horizontal rotary vanes being incorporated in the wing piece 32, which is analogous to the rotor blade support pillars and the support rods of Lu as they are both the horizontal rotating components of the stirring structure.
Because Seki and Iwata both address the same technical problem of efficiently drying particulate/powder material, Iwata constitutes as analogous art. KSR Rationale C (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to use a “known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the stirring structure that incorporates hollow vanes within the stirrer to introduce gas into a drying device, as taught by Iwata, into the drying device taught by modified Seki. Doing so would enable the dryer device to uniformly stir and mix the raw material powder and dry the wet particles, thereby improving the efficiency of granulation (see Iwata [0007]).
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 ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights