DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 were subject to restriction requirement mailed on 11/06/2025.
Applicant filed a response, and elected Group V, claims 15-17, and withdrew claims 1-14, without traverse on 12/31/2025.
Claims 1-17 are pending, and claims 1-14 are withdrawn.
Claims 15-17 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group V, claims 15-17 in the reply filed on 12/31/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/31/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 is an improper multiple independent claim, as claim 16 is based on two sets of claims and two different inventions. See MPEP 608.01(n).
The examiner interprets “the selection method of an oxygen reduction catalyst according to claim 15, wherein the oxygen reduction catalyst is the oxygen reduction catalyst according to any one of Claims 1-9”, as set forth below:
“the selection method of an oxygen reduction catalyst according to claim 15, wherein the oxygen reduction catalyst is the oxygen reduction catalyst according to claim 1”.
Claim 17 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim 17 cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
The examiner interprets “The selection method of an oxygen reduction catalyst according to Claim 15 or 16” of claim 17 refers to “The selection method of an oxygen reduction catalyst according to Claim 15”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al., Fe azaphthalocyanine unimolecular layers (Fe AzULs) on carbon nanotubes for realizing highly active oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) catalytic electrodes, NPG Asia Materials, published October 2019 (Abe) in view of Kurozumi et al., EP 2177263 A1 (Kurozumi) (provided in IDS received on 07/24/2025).
Regarding claims 15-17, Abe teaches a new class of catalysts that included molecular iron phthalocyanine derivatives, namely, iron azaphthalocyanine unimolecular layers adsorbed on oxidized multiwall carbon nanotubes (iron azaphthalocyanine reads upon a metal complex and oxidized multiwall carbon nanotubes read upon a conductive material) (Abe, Abstract);
and the catalyst was prepared into catalytic electrode which exhibited oxygen reduction reaction (the catalyst reads upon an oxygen reduction catalyst) (Abe, Abstract);
the catalytic electrodes are promising catalytic electrode materials for applications, such as polymer electrolyte fuel cells and metal-air batteries (Abe, Abstract).
Further regarding claims 15-16, Abe does not explicitly disclose selecting the catalyst by measuring an ionization potential value of the oxygen reduction catalyst and the catalyst having an ionization potential value of 5.8 eV or lower.
With respect to the difference, Kuromumi teaches catalyst layers having high oxygen reduction activity (Kuromumi, Abstract). Kuromumi specifically teaches the electrocatalyst preferably has an ionization potential in the range of 4.9 to 5.5 eV (Kuromumi, [0049]).
As Kuromumi expressly teaches, this ionization potential ensures that the electrocatalyst shows high oxygen reduction activity (Kuromumi, [0049]).
Kuromumi is analogous art as Kuromumi is drawn to catalyst layers having high oxygen reduction activity.
In light of the motivation of a catalyst with an ionization potential in the range of 4.9 to 5.5 eV, as taught by Kuromumi, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to measure the ionization potential of the catalyst that included molecular iron phthalocyanine derivatives, namely, iron azaphthalocyanine unimolecular layers adsorbed on oxidized multiwall carbon nanotubes, of Abe, to select catalysts that have an ionization potential in the range of 4.9 to 5.5 eV, in order to have high oxygen reduction activity, and thereby arrive a the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732