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 7/30/26. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found persuasive. Claims 1-26 are pending and remain rejected. This Action is Non-FINAL
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/30/26 has been entered.
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 1-26 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 limitation "the number of catalyst particles" in each of line 18 and 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes the claim previously recites “a plurality of catalyst particles”, “first catalyst particles” and “second catalyst particles”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “not in contact with nanopores having a pore diameter of 1 nm or more” in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what structural element contains the “nanopores having a pore diameter of 1 nm or more”. Examiner notes claim 1 previously recites the conductive porous carbon support has “nanopores of a pore size of 1 to 20 nm”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation catalyst particles “not in contact with the conductive porous support itself and exists outside the conductive porous carbon support” in lines 21-22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what structural location is encompassed by “not in contact with the conductive porous carbon support itself and exists outside the conductive porous carbon support”. Furthermore, it is unclear if the cited limitations in intending to further limit the plurality of catalyst particles, the first catalyst particles and/or the second catalyst particles. It is unclear where “the number of catalyst particles” are structurally located in the claimed electrode catalyst if the number of catalyst particles are not supported on the conductive porous carbon support. For example, see Figure 2 of the present specification wherein nanopores P22 and catalyst particles 23 are shown. Examiner notes Figure 2 depicts a catalyst “layer”.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the electrode catalyst satisfies the following equation (S1), as determined from a particle size distribution of the plurality of catalyst particles analyzed using a three-dimensional reconstructed image obtained by an electrode beam tomography measurement using an STEM”, which is indefinite. It is unclear what “using a three-dimensional reconstructed image” encompasses. It is unclear how the “image” is “reconstructed”. Furthermore, it is unclear how a particle size distribution is analyzed using the “three-dimensional reconstructed image”
Claim 1 recites “can be confirmed”, which is indefinite. It is unclear if what follows “can be” is part of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the number of catalyst particles" in the second to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “wherein in the three-dimensional reconstructed image, a catalyst aggregate composed of the plurality of catalyst particles and the conductive porous carbon support, has a size that can be accommodated in a rectangular prism space with one side of 60 to 300 nm and a stereoscopic image of a cube with one side of 20 to 50 nm extracted from an inside region of the catalyst aggregate includes six square cross sections”, which is indefinite. It is unclear what Applicant is attempting to claim. It does not appear a catalyst aggregate is “in” the three-dimensional reconstructed image. Examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite structural limitations of the claimed electrode catalyst, not an “image” that has been rejected as indefinite. The claims are not directed toward a “three-dimensional reconstructed image” and limitations regarding the claimed “image” have not been given patentable weight.
See also lines 8-14 of claim 2 which are also indefinite as it is unclear what Applicant is intending to claim and how these limitations limit the claimed electrode catalyst. Note claim terms such as “rectangular prism space”, “cube”, “six square cross sections” and “without blocking” are limitations of the “image” that are not present in the claimed electrode catalyst. It is unclear how a stereoscopic image if “extracted from an inside region of the catalyst aggregate” and how an opening of the nanopore is “in contact with” a side of a cross section of the image. Furthermore, it is unclear what “without blocking” encompasses and/or what is supposedly being blocked. It is unclear what Applicant is intending to claim .
Claim 2 recites the limitation "at least one nanopore" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "at least one cross section" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “has a shape of an intercommunicating pore”, which is indefinite. It is unclear what encompasses a shape of an intercommunicating pore of the claimed electrode catalyst.
Claim 6 recites at least one of the nanopores “has another opening”. It is unclear what encompasses “another opening” of a nanopore.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "at least one of the nanopores formed in said at least one of the six square cross sections has another opening" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what encompasses “another opening” of a nanopore.
Claim 8 recites a porosity of the electrode catalyst “as determined from the three-dimensional reconstructed image”. Again, the term “three-dimensional reconstructed image” has been rejected as indefinite.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “micropores” in claim 10 is used by the claim to mean “pore diameter of less than 1 nm,” while the accepted meaning is “nanopores.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 14 recites “N30 is the number of particles of the second catalyst particles”, which is indefinite. It is unclear what N10 and /or N30 encompasses as the second catalyst particles may be considered to be encompassed by N10 and N30.
Claims 15-16 each recite “an inlet of the nanopores” which is indefinite. It is unclear how an inlet of a nanopore is defined. For Example, see at least Figure 2 of the present specification.
Claim 19 recites “a mass ratio”, “a mass” and “a mass” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Note claim 19 depends for claim 18.
To the extent the claims are understood in view of the 35 USC 112 rejections above, note the following prior art rejections.
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) 1-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiko et al., WO 2017/208742 A1.
Maiko teaches an electrode catalyst comprising carbon for supporting catalyst. Carbon for supporting catalysts thereon which combines the excellent property of dispersedly supporting catalyst-metal particles with excellent resistance to oxidative degradation (abstract). The catalyst-supporting carbon has pores including mesopores wherein the mesopores have a pore diameter of 2 nm or more and 50 nm or less (under “Condition c”). Examples of the catalyst metal particles supported on the catalyst supporting carbon include platinum or an alloy with platinum. The supporting rate of the catalyst metal particles is not particularly limited, and can be, for example, 20 to 50% by mass based on the total mass of the catalyst-supporting carbon in which the catalyst-supporting carbon is supported on the catalyst-supporting carbon (under “Condition d”). The catalyst is absorbed on the carbon surface (includes surface of the pores of the carbon and surface of the carbon outside the pores) (under “Catalyst loading method”).
Maiko does not explicitly teach the electrode catalyst satisfies equation (S1) of at least claim 1 and/or equation (S2) of at least claim 14. However, the claims have been rejected as indefinite. See the numerous 35 USC 112 rejections above. The claims have been rejected to the extent they are understood in view of the indefinite rejections above.
The catalyst-supporting carbon is a powder composed of aggregates (secondary particles) composed of a chain of primary particles. The aggregate diameter (mode diameter) of the catalyst-supporting carbon is preferably 1.0 to 35.0 μm, and more preferably 5.0 to 30.0 μm. If the aggregate diameter of the catalyst-supporting carbon is equal to or greater than the lower limit value, the metal particles are easily supported uniformly when preparing the catalyst ink. In addition, the conductivity of the catalyst-supporting carbon is excellent. If the aggregate diameter of the catalyst-supporting carbon is not more than the upper limit value, the dispersibility of the catalyst-supporting carbon in the solvent during preparation of the catalyst ink is excellent. The electrode catalyst may be used for fuel cell applications (under “Condition d”).
BET specific surface area of the catalyst-supporting carbon of the present invention is preferably 130 ~ 700 m2/g, more preferably 200 ~ 600 m2/g. If the BET specific surface area of the catalyst supporting carbon is not less than the lower limit value, the catalyst is excellent in dispersion supporting property and sufficient catalytic activity can be obtained. If the BET specific surface area of the catalyst-supporting carbon is not more than the upper limit value, the oxidative decomposition resistance of the catalyst-supporting carbon is maintained even if the treatment is performed in the subsequent surface oxidation step.
Production of the MEA includes: Weigh 2.0 g of platinum-supporting carbon (platinum support ratio: 50 mass%), 20 mass% as ionomer, 2.0 g of Nafion (registered trademark) DE2021 dispersion (manufactured by DuPont), and 16.0 g of aqueous alcohol solution, and use a bead mill. And mixed to prepare a catalyst ink. This catalyst ink was applied to a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sheet, dried, and cut into a rectangular shape of 5 cm2 to produce a cathode electrode. Next, the electrolyte membrane was sandwiched between the cathode electrode and the anode electrode, and hot pressing was performed to produce an MEA (see under “Production of membrane electrode assembly (MEA)” heading).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
112
Regarding the 35 USC 112 rejection of at least claim 1, Applicant argues the claim has been amended to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections of record. Examiner disagrees. Furthermore, the amendments to the claim introduce new issues under 35 USC 112. See above indefinite rejections of claim 1-26. In addition, the Examiner notes the structural location of “the number of catalyst particles” (not the same as “second catalyst particles”) is not clearly recited by the claims and the limitation “a three-dimensional reconstructed image” remains rejected as indefinite.
Regarding the 35 USC 112 rejection of at least claim 2, Applicant argues the claim has been amended to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections of record. Examiner disagrees. Furthermore, the amendments to the claim introduce new issues under 35 USC 112. See above indefinite rejections of claim 1-26. In addition, the Examiner notes he claim is not directed toward a “three-dimensional reconstructed image” and limitations regarding the claimed “image” have not been given patentable weight. Examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite structural limitations of the claimed electrode catalyst, not an “image” that has been rejected as indefinite. Note claim terms such as “rectangular prism space”, “cube”, “six square cross sections” and “without blocking” are limitations of the “image” that are not present in the claimed electrode catalyst. It is unclear how a stereoscopic image if “extracted from an inside region of the catalyst aggregate” and how an opening of the nanopore is “in contact with” a side of a cross section of the image. Furthermore, it is unclear what “without blocking” encompasses and/or what is supposedly being blocked. It is unclear what Applicant is intending to claim .
Applicant has not presented arguments against the Examiner’s position that “intercommunicating pore” and/or “another opening” are indefinite. Regarding claim 8, as the term “reconstructed image” is indefinite, it is unclear if the recited porosity is a definite characteristic of the claimed electrode catalyst. Section [0134] of the present specification does not describe how a porosity of the electrode catalyst is determined from a “three-dimensional reconstructed image”. Regarding claim 10, one of skill in the art would not have defined nanopores as having a pore size larger than a pore size of micropores.
The Applicant has not provided persuasive support or evidence that the measurements from a three-dimensional reconstructed image impart any specific structure to the claimed electrode catalyst.
103
Claims 1-26 remain rejected as indefinite under 35 USC 112. At least equation (S1) of claim 1 and equation (S2) of claim 14 do not distinctly claim the invention as it is unclear how the equations limit the structure of the claimed electrode catalyst. Furthermore, the claims are not directed towards an “image”. In addition, the structural locations of the plurality of catalyst particles recited by at least claim 1 are not definitively claimed. See the 35 USC 112 rejections above. Applicant’s argument that Maiko does not teach equation (S1) and/or equation (S2) is therefore not found persuasive.
Furthermore, Applicant has not addressed the teachings of Maiko. Maiko teaches an electrode catalyst comprising carbon for supporting catalyst. Carbon for supporting catalysts thereon which combines the excellent property of dispersedly supporting catalyst-metal particles with excellent resistance to oxidative degradation (abstract). The catalyst-supporting carbon has pores including mesopores wherein the mesopores have a pore diameter of 2 nm or more and 50 nm or less (under “Condition c”). Examples of the catalyst metal particles supported on the catalyst supporting carbon include platinum or an alloy with platinum. The supporting rate of the catalyst metal particles is not particularly limited, and can be, for example, 20 to 50% by mass based on the total mass of the catalyst-supporting carbon in which the catalyst-supporting carbon is supported on the catalyst-supporting carbon (under “Condition d”). The catalyst is absorbed on the carbon surface (includes surface of the pores of the carbon and surface of the carbon outside the pores) (under “Catalyst loading method”).
Maiko further teaches The catalyst-supporting carbon is a powder composed of aggregates (secondary particles) composed of a chain of primary particles. The aggregate diameter (mode diameter) of the catalyst-supporting carbon is preferably 1.0 to 35.0 μm, and more preferably 5.0 to 30.0 μm. If the aggregate diameter of the catalyst-supporting carbon is equal to or greater than the lower limit value, the metal particles are easily supported uniformly when preparing the catalyst ink. In addition, the conductivity of the catalyst-supporting carbon is excellent. If the aggregate diameter of the catalyst-supporting carbon is not more than the upper limit value, the dispersibility of the catalyst-supporting carbon in the solvent during preparation of the catalyst ink is excellent. The electrode catalyst may be used for fuel cell applications (under “Condition d”). BET specific surface area of the catalyst-supporting carbon of the present invention is preferably 130 ~ 700 m2/g, more preferably 200 ~ 600 m2/g. If the BET specific surface area of the catalyst supporting carbon is not less than the lower limit value, the catalyst is excellent in dispersion supporting property and sufficient catalytic activity can be obtained. If the BET specific surface area of the catalyst-supporting carbon is not more than the upper limit value, the oxidative decomposition resistance of the catalyst-supporting carbon is maintained even if the treatment is performed in the subsequent surface oxidation step. Production of the MEA includes: Weigh 2.0 g of platinum-supporting carbon (platinum support ratio: 50 mass%), 20 mass% as ionomer, 2.0 g of Nafion (registered trademark) DE2021 dispersion (manufactured by DuPont), and 16.0 g of aqueous alcohol solution, and use a bead mill. And mixed to prepare a catalyst ink. This catalyst ink was applied to a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sheet, dried, and cut into a rectangular shape of 5 cm2 to produce a cathode electrode. Next, the electrolyte membrane was sandwiched between the cathode electrode and the anode electrode, and hot pressing was performed to produce an MEA (see under “Production of membrane electrode assembly (MEA)” heading).
Conclusion
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
