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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15, Group I drawn to the product of a composition, in the reply filed on 11/4/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16, 24, 33, 37, 40, 42, 44-45 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II-VI, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/4/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,2,8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Neumann (US 20170141405 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Neumann teaches a composition, comprising: a graphitic carbon material having a plurality of pores (abstract, [porous graphitized carbon material]), a specific surface area of 350-550 m2/g (claim 21, [20 – 500 m2/g]), inclusive, and wherein the graphitic carbon material is at least 90 at% carbon (abstract, [graphitized carbon material] 100% of the graphitic carbon is carbon) and has a hierarchical porosity (abstract, [hierarchical pore structure]); and a plurality of nanoparticles disposed on a surface of the graphitic carbon material (abstract, [covered with metal nanoparticles]).
Neumann is silent regarding the I(D)/I(G) ratio being 1-10.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Neumann contains the properties claimed in claim 1, and therefore would display an intensity ratio of 1-10 if analyzed via Raman spectroscopy by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner notes that the Raman intensity ratio is a property of the material’s chemical structure and composition.
Regarding claim 2, Neumann teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein the plurality of nanoparticles are present at a concentration of 5 to 80% by weight of the total weight of the composition (para. 0023, [20% by wt.]).
Regarding claim 8, Neumann teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein the graphitic carbon material has a cumulative pore volume of 0.7 ± 0.1 cm3/g (claim 17, [pore volume of at least 0.5 cm3/g]).
Regarding claim 15, Neumann teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein each pore of the plurality of pores has a longest linear dimension or diameter of 1-75 nm, inclusive (para. 0107, [pores with a diameter of less than 100 nm) (para. 0128, [pore diameter of 75nm]).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann (US 20170141405 A1) in view of Yu (US 20170354953 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Neumann teaches the composition of claim 1.
Neumann does not teach wherein the graphitic carbon material is nitrogen- doped with one or more N-dopants.
Yu, in the same field of endeavor, non-noble element compositions of matter, teaches wherein the graphitic carbon material is nitrogen- doped with one or more N-dopants (abstract, [graphitic carbon doped with nitrogen]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Neumann’s graphitic carbon, to be doped with nitrogen, as taught by Yu, in order to improve catalytic activity and stability in both acidic and basic solutions, as taught by Yu (para. 0064).
Regarding claim 4, modified Neumann teaches the composition of claim 3, and Neuman further teaches wherein the one or more N-dopants are chosen from pyridinic N-dopants (para. 0064, [pyridinic nitrogen]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Neuman teaches the composition of claim 3, and Neuman further teaches wherein the plurality of nanoparticles are platinum nanoparticles or platinum cobalt nanoparticles (para. 0116, [noble metal, selected from the platinum group, preferably platinum .. is provided as the catalytically active substance, and that the noble metal is present in the form of noble metal nanoparticles])(para. 0088, the use of catalyst metal from the platinum group … which includes Pt metal … and can be present as an alloy with one metal of Co).
Regarding claim 7, modified Neumann teaches the composition of claim 6, and Neumann further teaches wherein the platinum cobalt nanoparticles are L10 PtCo nanoparticles (para. 0116, [noble metal, selected from the platinum group, preferably platinum .. is provided as the catalytically active substance, and that the noble metal is present in the form of noble metal nanoparticles])(para. 0088, the use of catalyst metal from the platinum group … which includes Pt metal … and can be present as an alloy with one metal of Co).
Regarding claim 10, Neumann teaches the composition of claim 1.
Neumann does not teach wherein the graphitic carbon material further comprises iron.
Yu teaches wherein the graphitic carbon material further comprises iron (para. 0005, [comprises a transition metal and graphitic carbon doped with nitrogen]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included the transition metal of iron into Neumann’s graphitic carbon composition, as taught by Yu, in order to improve the performance of the carbon material, which is achieved through the coordination of pyridinic nitrogen with iron in 3D CNTs (para. 0064).
Regarding claim 11, modified Neumann teaches the composition of claim 10, and further teaches wherein the graphitic carbon material comprises a plurality of FeNx groups (para. 0086, [Fe-Nx coordination]), wherein x is 1 to 4 (para. 0086, [high efficient 4-electron mechanism] results in x being equal to 4 due to the 4 electron reaction pathway).
Regarding claim 12, modified Neumann teaches the composition of claim 11, and further teaches wherein x is 4 (para. 0086, [high efficient 4-electron mechanism] results in x being equal to 4 due to the 4 electron reaction pathway).
Regarding claim 13, modified Neumann teaches the composition of claim 12, and further teaches wherein the plurality of nanoparticles are platinum nanoparticles or platinum cobalt nanoparticles (para. 0116, [noble metal, selected from the platinum group, preferably platinum .. is provided as the catalytically active substance, and that the noble metal is present in the form of noble metal nanoparticles])(para. 0088, the use of catalyst metal from the platinum group … which includes Pt metal … and can be present as an alloy with one metal of Co).
Regarding claim 14, modified Neumann teaches the composition of claim 13, and further teaches wherein the platinum cobalt nanoparticles are L10 PtCo nanoparticles (para. 0116, [noble metal, selected from the platinum group, preferably platinum .. is provided as the catalytically active substance, and that the noble metal is present in the form of noble metal nanoparticles])(para. 0088, the use of catalyst metal from the platinum group … which includes Pt metal … and can be present as an alloy with one metal of Co).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann (US 20170141405 A1) in view of Yu (US 20170354953 A1), and further in view of Dai (US 20130183511 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Neumann teaches the composition of claim 3.
Modified Neumann does not teach wherein the N-dopant is present at 0.2-0.5 at %.
Dai, in the same field of endeavor, graphitic carbon nanoparticles, teaches wherein the N-dopant is present at 0.2-0.5 % (para. 0021, [The amount of hetero element can be a minor amount (e.g., up to 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2, or 5 wt % or mol %)]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized Neumann’s nitrogen dopant concentration in an amount of up to 0.5 wt %, as taught by Dai. It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at N-doping the graphitic carbon with a minor amount without undue experimentation, particularly given that T teaches a range of up to 0.5 wt. %.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann (US 20170141405 A1) in view of Yu (US 20170354953 A1), and further in view of Qiao et al. (Qiao, Zhi, et al. “3D porous graphitic nanocarbon for enhancing the performance and durability of pt catalysts: A balance between graphitization and hierarchical porosity.” Energy & Environmental Science, vol. 12, no. 9, 2019, pp. 2830–2841.)
Regarding claim 9, modified Neumann teaches the composition of claim 3.
Modified Neumann teaches wherein the graphitic carbon material is formed from heating (para. 0052, [carbonization and graphitization occur via treatment stages involving high temperatures]).
Modified Neumann does not teach the heating of a mixture of polymerized aniline, pyrrole, and manganese to form graphitic carbon.
Qiao, in the same field of endeavor, porous graphitic carbon material, teaches wherein the graphitic carbon material (abstract, [developed highly stable porous graphitic carbon]) is formed from heating a mixture of polymerized aniline, pyrrole, and manganese (Fig. 4c, evolution of carbon in the Mn-PANI-PPy (Manganese- Polyaniline- Polypyrrole) precursor at heating temperatures of RT, 400, 800, 1000, and 1100 deg. C).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed modified Neumann’s graphitic carbon by heating a mixture of polymerized aniline, pyrrole, and manganese, as taught by Qiao, in order to develop a highly stable and favorable carbon support for Pt nanoparticles based on a polymer composite hydrogel precursor consisting of PANI and PPy as carbon/nitrogen sources in combination with Mn as a graphitization catalyst, as taught by Qiao (pg. 2839, 3. Conclusion).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721