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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 line 1 recites the limitation “suspension of claim 2” which renders the meaning of the claim indefinite. Claim 2 has been cancelled and its limitations amended into claim amended claim 1. In order to advance prosecution the examiner will be interpreting the limitation as “suspension of claim 1”.
Claim 22 line 2 recites the limitation “coated by atomic layer deposition or molecular deposition” which renders the meaning of the claim indefinite. The claimed invention is the product of a suspension of solid carbon particles in a gas, however the limitation as set forth above of claim 22 is directed toward a method, rendering the meaning of the claim indefinite and the method limitation in a product claim is therefore not given patentable weight.
Claim 23 line 2 rites the limitation “coated by atomic layer deposition (ALD) and wherein the ALD coating” which renders the meaning of the claim indefinite. The claimed invention is the product of a suspension of solid carbon particles in a gas, however the limitation as set forth above of claim 23 is directed toward a method, rendering the meaning of the claim indefinite and the method limitation in a product claim is therefore not given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-14, 22 and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha KR20060055632A (using machine English translation provided) in view of Liang US20210252486A1.
Regarding claim 1, Ha discloses a suspension of solid carbon particles in a gas wherein the carbon particles are coated with an ionomer layer (Ha, [0093-0096]), wherein the suspension is a fluidized bed (Ha, [0104]) comprising an inert gas or a reactive gas flowing through the carbon particles (Ha, [0104]), but does not disclose flowing through a distributor plate in a direction counter to a gravitational or centrifugal force.
Liang teaches a suspension is a fluidized bed (Liang, [0042]) comprising an inert gas (Liang, [0049]) wherein flowing through a distributor plate (Liang, [0052]) and through the particles in a direction counter to a gravitational or centrifugal force (Liang, [0064], Fig. 1), the examiner notes that while Liang does not use the terms gravitational or centrifugal force, Fig. 1 shows the fluidized bed reactor in an upright position, which is understood to be counter to at least a gravitational force, satisfying the claim limitation. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ha with the teaching of Liang wherein the suspension is a fluidized bed comprising an inert gas flowing through a distributor plate and through the carbon particles in a direction counter to a gravitational or centrifugal force thereby reducing aggregation, and creating stable, finely dispersed metals with well-defined and uniform dispersion and very high catalytic activity and reducing costs (Liang, [0006], [0085]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ha teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not teach wherein the fluidized bed has a flow rate of at least 20 sccm.
Liang teaches wherein the fluidized bed has a flow rate of at least 20 sccm (Liang, [0052], “the precursor gas flow rate ranges between about 3 sccm and about 30 sccm”). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flow rate of modified Ha with the teaching of Liang wherein the fluidized bed has a flow rate of at least 20 sccm thereby reducing aggregation, and creating stable, finely dispersed metals with well-defined and uniform dispersion and very high catalytic activity and reducing costs (Liang, [0006], [0085]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ha teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above and additionally teaches wherein the inert gas comprises N2 or a reactive gas (Ha, [0104]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ha also teaches wherein the carbon particles are selected from: carbon black and graphite (Ha, [0088], [0092-0093]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ha teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the carbon particles have a particle diameter (size) such that at least 70 mass% of the carbon particles have a size in the range of 50 nm to 500 nm (Ha, [0088], “…diameter of 0.01 to 10 micrometers”). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, modified Ha additionally teaches wherein the carbon particles have a surface area such that at least 70 mass% of the carbon particles have a BET surface area in the range of 500 to 1500 m2/g (Ha, [0088], “…a surface area of 30 to 2000 m2/g”). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ha further teaches wherein the ionomer comprises a pendant group comprising a carboxylate or a sulfonate (Ha, [0049], [0061]), following Instant p. 3 lines 18-25.
Regarding claim 9, modified Ha additionally teaches wherein the ionomer comprises a sulfonated tetrafluoroethylene based fluoropolymer-copolymer (Ha, [0049], “Nafion”, [0061]), following Instant p. 3 lines 18-25.
Regarding claim 10, modified Ha teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above and wherein the particles have surfaces and wherein the ionomer layer completely covers the surfaces of the particles (Ha, [0105], “…the mass ratio of the ion-conductive polymer electrolyte material to the catalyst carrier is preferably maintained at 100:0.1 to 10…”, Fig. 1, “카본 담체” carbon carrier, “이오노머” ionomer).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ha further teaches wherein the ionomer further comprising an additional layer so that the ionomer layer is interposed between the carbon particle and the additional layer (Ha, [0057], [0112], “…the above-mentioned IOC, which is a catalyst carrier, is added thereto…to produce a platinum alloy catalyst dispersed in the IOC carrier.”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ha also teaches wherein the additional layer comprises islands of a transition metal (Ha, [0078], [0085], Fig. 1, “•…금속촉매” metal catalyst, “○…금속촉매” metal catalyst”).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ha additionally teaches wherein an additional layer comprises Pt (Ha, [0085]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ha further teaches wherein the ionomer is present in the range of 0.2 to 3% (Ha, [0073], “…the mass ratio of the porous catalyst carrier and the ion-conductive polymer electrolyte material be 100:0.5 to 100:3.”). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 22, modified Ha further teaches wherein the carbon particles coated by an ionomer are further coated (Ha, [0057], [0112], “…the above-mentioned IOC, which is a catalyst carrier, is added thereto…to produce a platinum alloy catalyst dispersed in the IOC carrier.”).
Regarding claim 24, modified Ha also teaches wherein the carbon particles have a surface area such that at least 70 mass% of the carbon particles have a BET surface area in the range of 500 to 1500 m2/g (Ha, [0088], “…a surface area of 30 to 2000 m2/g”). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 25, modified Ha additionally teaches wherein the carbon particles have a particle diameter (size) such that at least 70 mass% of the carbon particles have a size in the range of 70 to 400 nm (Ha, [0088], “…diameter of 0.01 to 10 micrometers”). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 26, modified Ha further teaches wherein the carbon particles have a surface area such that at least 90 mass% of the carbon particles have a BET surface area in the range of 500 to 1500 m2/g (Ha, [0088], “…a surface area of 30 to 2000 m2/g”). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha KR20060055632A (using machine English translation provided) in view of Liang US20210252486A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang US20150051065A1.
Regarding claim 15, modified Ha teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not teach wherein the ionomer layer has a maximum thickness of at least 0.5 nm and at most 20 nm.
Yang teaches carbon particles are coated with an ionomer layer (Yang, [0023]) and wherein the ionomer layer has a maximum thickness of at least 0.5 nm and at most 20 nm (Yang, [0023], “…a nano-thickness perfluorinated ionomer precursor uniformly coats the particles. The term “nano-thickness” in this disclosure refers to an average thickness of 100 nanometers or less.”).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha KR20060055632A (using machine English translation provided) in view of Liang US20210252486A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chi US20050033075A1.
Regarding claim 21, modified Ha teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not teach further comprising an organometallic compound in the gas phase.
Chi teaches an organometallic compound (Chi, [0020]) in the gas phase (Chi, [0022], “the resulting metal complexes are chemically stable and can be easily volatilized into the gas phase”). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suspension of modified Ha with the teaching of Chi wherein further comprising an organometallic compound in the gas phase thereby the resulting metal complexes are chemically stable (Chi, [0022]).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha KR20060055632A (using machine English translation provided) in view of Liang US20210252486A1, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Shi, Wenjuan, et al. "Sub-nanometer thin TiO2-coating on carbon support for boosting oxygen reduction activity and durability of Pt nanoparticles." Electrochimica Acta 394 (2021): 139127 (hereafter referred to as Shi-2021; available 21 August 2021).
Regarding claim 23, modified Ha teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not teach wherein the carbon particles coated by an ionomer are further coated by aluminum oxide or titanium oxide.
Shi-2021 teaches coating carbon particles by titanium oxide (Shi-2021, p. 4, left column, [0001], “TiO2 /C”). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating of the carbon particles of modified Ha with the teaching of Shi-2021 wherein the carbon particles coated by an ionomer are further coated by titanium oxide thereby improving the electrocatalytic performance of Pt NPs and protecting carbon (Shi-2021, p. 4, left column, [0001], “TiO2 /C to be the most suitable for the purpose of improving the electrocatalytic performance of Pt NPs and protecting carbon.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 5, filed 22 December 2025, with respect to the claim objection of claim 11 and 112(b) rejection of claims 6-7 and 12-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claim 11 and 112(b) rejection of claims 6-7 and 12-15 has been withdrawn as they have been overcome by applicant’s arguments.
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues neither Ha nor Liang suggest that placing an ionomer coating on carbon particles lead to a reduced bed pressure drop and that applicant surprisingly discovered that carbon particles coated with an ionomer, as compared with uncoated carbon particles, exhibited greatly reduced pressure drop in a fluidized bed. This is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an ionomer coating on carbon particles lead to a reduced bed pressure drop) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As set forth above, Ha as modified by Liang teaches all of the claim limitation and Ha discloses a suspension of solid carbon particles in a gas wherein the carbon particles are coated with an ionomer layer (Ha, [0093-0096]). Applicant’s arguments that neither Ha nor Liang suggest that placing an ionomer coating on carbon particles lead to a reduced bed pressure drop therefore are not commensurate in scope with the claims as currently drafted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ji US20100291463A1 (discloses carbon particles coated in ionomer and titanium dioxide and Pt catalyst particles/islands),
Suchsland US20150354072A1 (discloses carbon support coated in ionomer, titanium dioxide and Pt catalyst particles/islands),
Chen, Ming, et al. "Research progress of catalyst layer and interlayer interface structures in membrane electrode assembly (MEA) for proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) system." ETransportation 5 (2020): 100075 (discloses it is well known in the art that carbon coated with ionomer provides higher porosity, which the skilled artisan would understand leads to a reduced pressure drop and thereby improving the proton conductivity and reduce mass transfer resistance).
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 JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723