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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Casanova (Carbon Black as Conductive Additive and Structural Director of Porous Carbon Gels, Materials 2020, 13, 217).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Casanova discloses a carbon-based calcined material (see page 3, top paragraph which discloses a carbonization step at 800C of the mixture) of a mixture of an aromatic compound having a phenolic hydroxyl group and a carbon material having electrical conductivity (see abstract which discloses a mixture of resorcinol and carbon black), wherein the aromatic compound having a phenolic hydroxyl group is a monocyclic or fused polycyclic aromatic compound having at least one phenolic hydroxyl group (resorcinol is a monocyclic aromatic ring with 2 hydroxyl groups).
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Macias (“Carbon black directed synthesis of ultrahigh mesoporous carbon aerogels”, Carbon 63 (2013) 487–497).
Regarding claim 1, Macias discloses a carbon-based calcined material (see the Experimental section 2.1 which states that the produced carbon mixture/gel is pyrolyzed/calcined under nitrogen) of a mixture of an aromatic compound having a phenolic hydroxyl group (the calcined mixture/gel precursor contains resorcinol, see experimental section 2.1) and a carbon material having electrical conductivity (see experimental section 2.1 which discloses carbon black in the precursor mixture) wherein the aromatic compound having a phenolic hydroxyl group is a monocyclic or fused polycyclic aromatic compound having at least one phenolic hydroxyl group (such as resorcinol).
Regarding claim 2, Macias further discloses the aromatic compound having a phenolic hydroxyl group is an aromatic compound having 2 to 6 phenolic hydroxyl groups (resorcinol has 2 phenolic hydroxyl groups).
Claim(s) 1-3, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mayes (US 2015/0306570).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Mayes discloses a carbon-based calcined material (see paragraph 31 which discloses that the precursor material is calcined/carbonized) of a mixture of an aromatic compound having a phenolic hydroxyl group (the calcined mixture precursor contains resorcinol, see paragraph 35) and a carbon material having electrical conductivity (see paragraph 63 which discloses carbon particles including carbon nanotubes) wherein the aromatic compound having a phenolic hydroxyl group is a monocyclic or fused polycyclic aromatic compound having at least one phenolic hydroxyl group (such as resorcinol).
Regarding claim 2, Mayes further discloses the aromatic compound having a phenolic hydroxyl group is an aromatic compound having 2 to 6 phenolic hydroxyl groups (resorcinol has 2 phenolic hydroxyl groups).
Regarding claim 15, Mayes further discloses a composition comprising the calcined material of claim 1 and a metal catalyst (see paragraph 6 which includes a metal which provides catalytic activity).
Regarding claim 17, Mayes further discloses a catalyst layer for a polymer electrolyte fuel cell (this limitation is directed toward an intended use of the claimed catalyst layer and does not further limit the claim, see MPEP §2111.02, the catalyst layer comprising the composition according to claim 15.
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.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayes (US 2015/0306570) in view of Erkey (US 2004/0029982).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Mayes teaches a calcined carbon material that comprises a metal catalyst but does not expressly place this catalytic carbon layer in a membrane electrode assembly as claimed.
Erkey also discloses a material produced by carbonizing organic compounds including resorcinol and formaldehyde (paragraphs 18-20) to produce a catalytic material.
Erkey teaches a metal-carbon composite that includes pyrolyzing/carbonizing a precursor solution (resorcinol is part of the precursor mixture, similar to that of Mayes) to generate a material that comprises a platinum catalyst (similar to that suggested by Mayes in paragraph 13) and is placed on a nafion membrane to act as a fuel cell (PEM) electrode (paragraphs 54-55).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the compound of Mayes in the service described in Erkey (fuel cell electrode in order to generate electricity with the fuel cell. Furthermore, such a modification would have been obvious as utilizing the conductive carbon nanotubes of Mayes in the composition of modified Mayes would have benefitted from the enhanced conductivity of the Mayes composition in addition to providing a matrix which allows for minimal use of expensive catalysts (such as platinum, see paragraph 6).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayes (US 2015/0306570) in view of Erkey (US 2004/0029982) and further in view of Suzuki (US 2011/0076591).
Regarding claim 19, Mayes, as modified above, teaches a catalytic carbon composite material placed on a nafion membrane but is silent regarding the thickness of the layer on the membrane.
Suzuki also discloses a fuel cell with a nafion membrane comprising a catalytic layer on the membrane (see abstract).
Suzuki teaches inclusion of a catalyst, such as platinum, similar to that of Mayes, in the layer of the electrode in order to ensure that hazardous materials that may be produced in the fuel cell or fed into the fuel cell are oxidized (paragraphs 38-39). Suzuki goes on to teach that this layer has a thickness of 50 microns (paragraph 60). Suzuki teaches such a configuration as a known thickness that effectively supports the catalytic layer such that it is able to oxidize the hazardous materials that may be contained in the feed to the fuel cell (paragraph 61)
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the thickness of Suzuki for the Nafion membrane of modified Mayes in order to ensure that hazardous materials that may be produced in the fuel cell or fed into the fuel cell are oxidized.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 14 are allowed.
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and resolving the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, Okada and Casanova, disclose a mixture of a phenolic hydroxyl group and a carbon material. However, the prior art neither teaches nor suggests such a material comprising the formula of claim 22 and, as claimed in claim 7, where the substituent of the calcined material forms a complex with a rare earth metal ion. Furthermore, the prior art neither teaches nor suggests either the material of claim 1 or the complex of claim 7 where the material or complex is (it is noted that these limitations are all simultaneously present in the claim as they are not claimed in the alternative):
at least one kind of electrolyte in a catalyst layer,
a catalyst carrier in the catalyst layer and
an electrolyte in a polymer electrolyte membrane, for a polymer fuel cell.
Relevant Prior Art
Liang (“Effect of the addition of carbon black and carbon nanotubes on the structure and oxidation resistance of pyrolyzed phenolic carbons” New Carbon Materials, 2012, 27(4): 283-287) – Discloses mixing a carbon nanotube and a phenolic hydroxyl group and then heating the mixture. However, Liang teaches a composition that is formed from pyrolysis of the mixture rather than calcination of the mixture, which means that the phenolic hydroxyl group is decomposed which is not the case in calcination.
US 2008/0044693 – discloses a fuel cell with catalyst layer adjacent to a carbon gas diffusion layer, but does not teach a composition that incorporates both the carbon material and the catalyst.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 9, Applicant argues that Casanova teaches a polycondensation of resorcinol and carbon black to form a porous carbon gel. The Office respectfully disagrees with this argument. As best understood, it appears as though Applicant is arguing claim limitations that are not present in the claim. Specifically, Applicant states that “The polycondensation of resorcinol and formaldehyde produces a porous polymer gel. Resorcinol is no longer present as a resorcinol monomer”. This argument is assuming that the claim expressly states that the monomer is directly calcinated, which it does not. The claim merely states that a mixture of a phenolic hydroxyl group and a conductive carbon material is carbonized. Casanova expressly states that carbon black is added directly to a resorcinol solution and sonicated/mixed (section 2.1 page 3). The formaldehyde is later added. As such, Casanova does teach a mixture of a phenolic hydroxyl group and a carbon material that is subsequently carbonized. There is no recitation in the claim about the presence, or absence, of intermediate steps prior to carbonization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights