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 1/30/26. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found persuasive. Claims 1-26 are pending and remain rejected. This Action is FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims are withdrawn. The claims have been amended as suggested by the Examiner.
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 catalyst particles" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites “a plurality of catalyst particles”, “first catalyst particles”, “second catalyst particles” and “third catalyst particles”.
Claim 1 recites “third catalyst particles not supported on the conductive porous carbon support”, which is indefinite. It is unclear where the third catalyst particles are structurally located in the claimed electrode catalyst if the third 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 a particle size distribution of the catalyst particles by means of a three-dimensional reconstructed image obtained by an electrode beam tomography measurement using an STEM”, which is indefinite. It is unclear what “by means of a three-dimensional reconstructed image” encompasses. It is unclear how the “image” is “reconstructed”. Furthermore, it is unclear how a particle size distribution “by means” of the “three-dimensional reconstructed image” is obtained from a “measurement”.
Claim 1 recites “and the number of noble metal particles (n102) that are not in contact with the porous carbon support itself and exist outside of the porous carbon support”, which is indefinite. The claim should be amended to clearly recite “second catalyst particles” and “third catalyst particles”. The second catalyst particles may also be considered third catalyst particles. Examiner suggests the claim be amended to clearly recite the second catalyst particles are supported on the conductive porous carbon support outside of the nanopores. It is unclear what structural location is encompassed by “not in contact with the porous carbon support itself and exist outside the porous carbon support” encompasses.
Claim 1 recites “N10…which is the sum of the number of the second catalyst particles (n101) of noble metal particles that are not in contact with pores having a diameter of 1 nm or more…and the number of noble metal particles (n102) that are not in contact with the porous carbon support itself and exist outside the porous carbon support”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for multiple limitations in the claim. It is unclear which particles are the “noble metal particles” and the claims previous recites “noble metal particles of Pt”. Furthermore, the claim requires the plurality of catalyst particles to be supported on the support so it is unclear how noble metal particles are not in contact with the support. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the number of non-contact particles”, “the number of particles (n101) of noble metal particles”, “pores having a diameter of 1 nm or more” (note the nanopores of the support have a pore size of 1-20 nm), in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear if the “pores having a diameter of 1 nm or more” are claimed “nanopores” recited at line 2 of the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the catalyst particles" in the second to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites “a plurality of catalyst particles”, “first catalyst particles”, “second catalyst particles” and “third catalyst particles”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the catalyst particles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites “a plurality of catalyst particles”, “first catalyst particles”, “second catalyst particles” and “third catalyst particles”.
Claim 2 further recites “in a catalyst aggregate composed of the catalyst particles and the support, in a rectangular prism space with one side of 60 to 300 nm obtained in the three-dimensional reconstructed image of the STEM, when a stereoscopic image of six square cross sections of a cube with one side of 20 to 50 nm is extracted from an inside region of the catalyst aggregate”, which is indefinite. It is unclear what Applicant is attempting to claim. Examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite structural limitations of the claimed electrode catalyst. See also lines 7-11 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. Note claim terms such as “rectangular prism space”, “cube”, “six square cross sections” and “without blocking”. It is unclear what “is extracted from an inside region of the catalyst aggregate” and how an opening of the nanopore of the electrode catalyst is “in contact with” a side of a cross section of an image. It is unclear what Applicant is intending to claim . See also claims 3-7 that ultimately depend from claim 2.
Claim 8 recites a porosity is “measured by using”, which is indefinite. It is unclear how the porosity of the image is measured and how the porosity relates to the claimed electrode catalyst.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a pore size of the nanopore" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “the porous carbon support further comprises a micropore having a pore size of less than 1 nm”, which is confusing and unclear. Claim 1 recites “a nanopore of a pore size of 1 to 20 nm”. Nanopores are defined as pores smaller than micropores.
Each of claims 11-13 recite the limitation "the catalyst particles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites “a plurality of catalyst particles”, “first catalyst particles”, “second catalyst particles” and “third catalyst particles”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a core-shell catalyst particles…comprising a core particles, and a shell layer of the Pt (0 valence””, which is indefinite. Claim 1 recites the plurality of catalyst particles being noble metal particles of Pt (0 valence).
Claims 1 and 14-18 recite “when an analysis…is performed”, which does not particularly point out the invention. It is unclear how the “analysis” further limits the claimed electrode catalyst.
In claim 14, Examiner suggests deleting “when” from the claim as the claim only recites equation (S1). .
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the supported position of the catalyst particles” that lacks proper antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear how “an inlet of the nanopore is determined. For Example see at least Figure 2 of the present specification.
Claims 15 and 16 recite the limitation "the first catalysis particles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests “the first catalyst particles”.
Claim 16 recites “exist within a range that a distance”, which is indefinite. It is unclear what encompasses existing “within a range that a distance”. Furthermore, it is unclear how “an inlet of the nanopore is determined. For Example see at least Figure 2 of the present specification. In addition, it is unclear how the claim encompasses the value 0 if the first catalyst particles are “supported inside the nanopores”, as required by claim 1.
Claim 18 recites “a ratio”, which is indefinite because the claim does not recite a ratio. See also claim 19 the recites “a ratio”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the Pt (0 valence)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “noble metal particles of Pt (0 valence).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 recites “the catalyst particles are made of Pt (0 valence)”. Claim 1 recites “catalyst particles being noble metal particles of Pt (0 valence)”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The prior objections to the claims have been withdrawn (see above).
Regarding the prior 35 USC 112 rejections, Applicant argues at (3-3) the indefinite phrase of claim 1 cited by the Examiner has been deleted to overcome the rejection. Examiner disagrees, see above. Furthermore, the amendments to the claims introduced new issues under 35 USC 112. See above indefinite rejections of claim 1-26.
Regarding the prior 35 USC 112 rejections, Applicant argues at (3-4) the indefinite phrases of claim 2 cited by the Examiner have been amended to overcome the rejection. Examiner disagrees, see above. Furthermore, the amendments to the claims introduced new issues under 35 USC 112. See above indefinite rejections of claim 1-26.
Regarding the prior 35 USC 112 rejections, Applicant argues at (3-6) the indefinite phrase of claim 8 cited by the Examiner is described in the present specification at [0134]. However, this section does not describe how a porosity of the electrode catalyst is determined from a “three-dimensional reconstructed image”. Furthermore, the amendments to the claims introduced new issues under 35 USC 112. See above indefinite rejections of claim 1-26.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argues at (3-8) that micropores are smaller than nanopores. This is not the accepted definite of nanopores and micropores. See rejection above.
Regarding claims 11-13, argued at (3-9), each of claims 11-13 recite the limitation "the catalyst particles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites “a plurality of catalyst particles”, “first catalyst particles”, “second catalyst particles” and “third catalyst particles”.
Regarding the prior 35 USC 112 rejections, Applicant argues at (3-11 through 3-14) the indefinite phrases of claims cited by the Examiner have been amended to overcome the rejection. Examiner disagrees, see above. Furthermore, the amendments to the claims introduced new issues under 35 USC 112. See above indefinite rejections of claim 1-26.
Applicant argues at (3-15) that the ratio of claims 18 and 19 is regarding the weight between the catalyst particles and the support. However, the claims do not recite a weight of the catalyst particles to a weight of the support.
To the extent the claims are understood in view of the 35 USC 112 rejections of record, the indication of allowable subject matter has been withdrawn. The amendments to the claims have introduced new indefinite issues while also maintaining some of the prior 35 USC 112 rejections of record. The Applicant has not provided persuasive support or evidence that the measurements from a three-dimensional reconstructed image impart a definite structure to the claimed electrode catalyst.
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
Prosecution Insights