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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 12/3/25. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found persuasive. Claims 1-15 are pending and remain rejected. This Action is FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Claims Analysis
Claim 1 recites “wherein, at a relative pressure of a nitrogen adsorption isotherm of the metal-supported catalyst within a range of 0.4 or more and 0.6 or less, a maximum value of a ratio of a nitrogen adsorption amount of a desorption-side isotherm to a nitrogen adsorption amount of an adsorption-side isotherm is 1.05 or less”, which is a method of measuring a property/structure of the claimed metal-supported catalyst. A nitrogen absorption isotherm describes (i.e., by plotting on a graph) the relationship between the amount of nitrogen gas adsorbed on a solid surface and the relative pressure at a constant temperature, typically 77 K. The present specification discloses “in the nitrogen adsorption isotherm obtained by the nitrogen adsorption method (more specifically, BET method)” [0085]. Claim 7 recites a BET specific surface area of the carbon carrier. Thus, a carbon carrier having the BET specific surface area of claim 7 would read upon the BET method of measuring using a nitrogen adsorption isotherm plot of claim 1. See also claim 8 that describes methods of measuring adsorption.
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 1-15 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 1 recites “the average pore diameter being measured by a nitrogen adsorption method of the metal-supported catalyst”, which is indefinite. It is unclear how an average pore diameter of the carbon carrier is measured by a nitrogen adsorption method of the metal-supported catalyst. The metal-supported catalyst includes both a carbon carrier and catalyst metal particles supported on the carbon carrier.
Claim 7 recites “the carbon carrier has a BET specific surface area, measured by a nitrogen adsorption method of the metal-supported catalyst”, which is indefinite. It is unclear how a BET specific surface area of the carbon carrier is measured by a nitrogen adsorption method of the metal-supported catalyst. The metal-supported catalyst includes both a carbon carrier and catalyst metal particles supported on the carbon carrier.
Claim 8 recites “the carbon carrier has a ratio of a BET specific surface area…measured by a water vapor adsorption method of the metal-supported catalyst”, which is indefinite. It is unclear how a BET specific surface area of the carbon carrier is measured by a water vapor adsorption method of the metal-supported catalyst. The metal-supported catalyst includes both a carbon carrier and catalyst metal particles supported on the carbon carrier.
Claim 9 recites “the carbon carrier has a median diameter”, which is indefinite. The claim does not clearly recite if the median diameter is, for example, a median pore diameter or a median particle diameter. Furthermore, claim 1 recites “an average pore diameter of the carbon carrier”. It is unclear if the “median diameter” and “average pore diameter” are reciting the same claim limitation.
Claim 10 recites “the volume being measured by a nitrogen adsorption method of the metal-supported catalyst”, which is indefinite. It is unclear how a pore volume of the carbon carrier is measured by a nitrogen adsorption method of the metal-supported catalyst. The metal-supported catalyst includes both a carbon carrier and catalyst metal particles supported on the carbon carrier. See also claim 11 that recites “the volume being measured by a nitrogen adsorption method of the metal-supported catalyst”, which is indefinite.
Claim 12 recites “the total number of catalyst metal particles supported on the carbon carrier are supported at a position….form the outer surface of the carbon carrier”, which is indefinite. Claim 1 recites “the catalyst metal particles that are partially buried in a pore inner surface of the carbon carrier”. It is unclear how particles are both at a depth of 20 nm while being partially buried in a pore inner surface. Examiner notes the claim does not recite “at least partially”. Furthermore, if 33% or less of the catalyst metal particles are supported on an outer surface of the carbon carrier, it is unclear how 11% or more are supported at a position having a depth of 20 nm or more from the outer surface of the carbon carrier.
To the extent the claims are understood in view of the 35 USC 112 rejections above and the claims analysis section, note the following prior art rejections.
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 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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/103 as being anticipated by, and alternatively unpatentable over, Suzue et al., US 2014/0287344 A1.
Suzue teaches an electrode catalyst layer for a fuel cell comprising a catalyst, a porous carrier for supporting the catalyst, and a polymer electrolyte, in which a mode diameter of the pore distribution of the porous carrier is 4 to 20 nm, and the catalyst is supported in a pore with a pore diameter of 4 to 20 nm of the porous carrier (abstract). A mode diameter of the pore distribution of the primary pores of the porous carrier is controlled to 4 to 20 nm. That is to say, the primary pores 32b of the porous carrier 32 are formed more widely and shallowly than a conventional porous carrier [0049]. The material for the porous carrier is not particularly limited as long as the primary pores with the above-mentioned mode diameter can be formed in the carrier and the material has sufficient specific surface area and sufficient electron conductivity for supporting the catalyst component in a desired distributed state. The main component is preferably carbon. More specifically, examples thereof include carbon particles made of carbon black (such as Ketjen black, oil furnace black, channel black, lamp black, thermal black and acetylene black), and activated carbon [0053]. The catalyst may be catalyst metal particles such as catalyst platinum particles having an average particle diameter of 1-10 nm [0064-0066]. See at least Figure 4 of Suzue.
PNG
media_image1.png
273
329
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The crystallinity of the carbon carrier is preferably controlled for the purpose of improving corrosion resistance of the catalyst layer. C band peak intensity and D band peak intensity calculated by Raman scattering spectral analysis may be used for the crystallinity and the crystalline composition of the carbon material [0055]. When the carbon material is analyzed by Raman spectroscopy, a peak ordinarily occurs in the vicinity of 1340 cm-1 and in the vicinity of 1580 cm-1. These peaks are ordinarily called "D band" and "G band" respectively. Incidentally, the peak of diamond is strictly 1333 cm-1 and is distinguished from the above-mentioned D band [0056]. The porous carrier may be carbon black such that the half-value width of D band, which appears at 1340 cm-1 in Raman spectrum, is 100 cm-1 or less. The porous carrier may be such that the half-value width of G band, which appears at 1580 cm-1 in Raman spectrum, is 60 cm-1 or less. In these cases, corrosion resistance of the catalyst layer is improved by the graphitization of the carbon carrier; thus, the catalyst layer, in which the initial performance is high and the performance may be maintained over a long term, may be provided [0057]. The lower limit values of the half-value width of D band and the half-value width of G band are not particularly limited. However, the primary pores are closed simultaneously with the progress of the graphitization of the carrier, so that it is preferable that the half-value width of D band is 50 cm-1 or more and the half-value width of G band is 40 cm-1 or more from the viewpoint of making the graphitization of the carrier compatible with the securing of the desired primary pore region [0058]. See also [0059-0063] of Suzue.
FIG. 5 of Suzue is a graph showing a result of measuring pore distribution of a porous carrier used in examples and comparative examples by a nitrogen adsorption method. See [0051-0052]. The support amount of the catalyst in the porous carrier is preferably 10 to 80% by mass, more preferably 30 to 70% by mass with respect to the whole amount of the catalyst carrier. The support amount is preferable by reason of allowing sufficient dispersity of the catalyst components on the carrier, the improvement of power generation performance, the economic advantages, and the catalyst activity per unit mass [0070]. See also Figure 4. The BET specific surface area of the porous carrier may be a specific surface area sufficient to support the catalyst component in a highly distributed state, but is preferably within the range of 20 to 1600 m2/g, or more preferably 80 to 1200 m2/g. When the specific surface area of the catalyst carrier is a value within such a range, the balance between the dispersibility of the catalyst component on the catalyst carrier and the effective utilization rate of the catalyst component may be appropriately controlled [0062]. The average particle diameter of the porous carrier is preferably 20 to 100 nm [0063].
Thus, the claims are anticipated. The claims are alternatively unpatentable. The claims are indefinite and have been rejected under 35 USC 112. The claims do not clearly recite the specific elements of the claimed metal-supported catalyst.
Regarding the “nitrogen adsorption isotherm” limitation of at least claim 1, see the claims analysis section above. Suzue teaches the BET specific surface area of the porous carrier may be a specific surface area sufficient to support the catalyst component in a highly distributed state, but is preferably within the range of 20 to 1600 m2/g, or more preferably 80 to 1200 m2/g.
Suzue discloses "the catalyst is supported in the pore" signifies that the center of gravity of the catalyst particle is located inside the pore (the opposite side to the surface; the deep side in the depth direction of the pore) from a line which connects both end points of the pore opening on the catalyst layer surface in a cross section of the catalyst layer (the porous carrier) [0026].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While claims 1, 7, 8 and 10-12 have been amended, the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 112 under new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues Suzue does not teach or suggest a metal-supported catalyst according to amended claim 1. However, no support or evidence is provided in support of the argument. Applicant further argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected that a metal-supported catalyst according to the amended claims would have superior catalytic activity and durability compared to other metal-supported catalysts known in the art. Applicant states the subject application demonstrates metal-supported catalysts according to the amended claims (Examples 1-4) have improved catalytic activity and durability compared to Examples C1-C9. Applicant notes Figure 7. However, any evidence of unexpected results must distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art of record. Examples 1-4 of the present specification are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. At least amended claim 1 is significantly broader than Examples 1-4 of the present specification. Furthermore, Examples C1-C9 are not representative of the teachings of Suzue. Examiner emphasizes Suzue teaches activity per catalyst weight is improved and the catalyst layer exhibits excellent power generation performance [0026]. See also [0049], [0050], [0052], [0068] and [0070] of Suzue that clearly teaches the electrode catalyst has improved catalytic activity. No evidence of unexpected results has been provided that distinguishes the claimed invention over the teachings of Suzue. Suzue further teaches a durability test was performed, the results are disclosed at Table 2, Figure 9 and [0147-0148].
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 TRACY DOVE whose telephone number is (571)272-1285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-3:00.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/TRACY M DOVE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725