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 Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/08/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamai (JP 2019029304 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Kunishima (JP 2005220116 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Kamai discloses an electrocatalyst (title) that can be used in a metal-air battery ([0071]) comprising a polymer material (2) that is a covalent organic framework ([0014]) and is coordinated with metal ([0018]; [0039]-[0040]), wherein the metal can be nanoparticles of platinum ([0088]-[0089]; [0003]; see Fig. 1). Kamai further discloses that the covalent organic framework is formed by repeated condensation reactions of 2,6-dicyanopyridine (a heterocycle) having a halogen substituent in order to form multiple triazine rings within the framework ([0023]; [0036]-[0038]; [0016]). Kamai fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the covalent organic framework is formed by a reaction of a first compound containing an amine group and a second compound containing a heterocycle substituted with a halogen group.
However, it is known in the art to configure covalent triazine frameworks in this manner. For instance, Kunishima teaches a similar cyclophane-type compound containing a triazine ring and coordinated with metal ([0001]; [0044]; [0079]; [0082]). Kunishima further teaches that this cyclophane-type compound is formed by a condensation reaction of a diamine compound (corresponding to the claimed first compound) represented by the general formula (9) R2-NH-A-NHR3 (R2 and R3 being hydrogen or an organic group; A being a hexagonal heterocyclic group) and a 1,3,5-triazine derivative (corresponding to the claimed second compound) represented by general formula (7)
PNG
media_image1.png
152
166
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(R1 being hydrogen or an organic group; R6 being a halogen group) ([0065]-[0068]; [0071]-[0072]; [0090]-[0093]). As can be seen in the condensation reaction, the hydrogen of the amine group of the diamine compound (first compound) reacts with the halogen group of the 1,3,5-triazine derivative (second compound) ([0065]-[0068]; [0071]-[0072]; [0090]-[0093]), which corresponds to the claimed reaction (see [0055]-[0057] of the instant specification). Kunishima further teaches that this cyclophane-type compound has use as a redox catalyst ([0080]; [0082]) and has an improved coordination effect to metal ([0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the catalyst taught by Kunishima to the metal-air battery disclosed by Kumai because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to an improved coordination effect to metal.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kumai discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kunishima further teaches that the condensation reaction is a reaction of the hydrogen of the amine group of the diamine compound (first compound) and the halogen group of the 1,3,5-triazine derivative (second compound) (Kunishima: [0065]-[0068]; [0071]-[0072]; [0090]-[0093]), leading to a product of formula (13)
PNG
media_image2.png
252
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein the diamine compound (first compound) and the 1,3,5-triazine derivative (second compound) are repeated. Thus, since modified Kumai includes the teachings from Kunishima regarding the covalent triazine framework, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Kumai to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kumai discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, modified Kumai discloses that the coordinated metal nanoparticles can be platinum (Kumai: [0088]-[0089]; [0003]; see Fig. 1). However, modified Kumai also discloses that the coordinated metal can be iron (Kumai: [0018]; [0078]; [0080]; [0082]; [0084]; [0095]), suggesting the claimed group of metals. Furthermore, modified Kumai discloses that using iron as the coordinated metal leads to excellent durability and lower cost compared to platinum (Kumai: [0095]; [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the platinum nanoparticles in the organic framework disclosed by modified Kumai with iron nanoparticles because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to excellent durability and lower cost.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kumai discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kunishima teaches that the diamine compound (first compound) can be represented by 2,6-diaminopyridine (Kunishima: [0091]), suggesting the claimed group of compounds. Therefore, since modified Kumai includes the teachings from Kunishima regarding the covalent triazine framework, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Kumai to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kumai discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kunishima further teaches that the halogen group (R6) can be chlorine (Kunishima: [0087]), suggesting the claimed group of elements. Therefore, since modified Kumai includes the teachings from Kunishima regarding the covalent triazine framework, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Kumai to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, modified Kumai discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kunishima further discloses that the heterocycle is a triazine derivative (Kunishima: [0065]-[0068]). Therefore, since modified Kumai includes the teachings from Kunishima regarding the covalent triazine framework, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Kumai to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kumai discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Kumai further discloses that the framework can have a triangular form (Kumai: see Fig. 1; Kunishima: see also formula 14 in [0075]), wherein the framework has pores of 1 nm to 50 nm (Kumai: [0017]), overlapping the claimed range of 0.5 to 20 nm. Modified Kumai further discloses that the surface area of the carbon (Kumai: 3) which is coated with the framework is 500 m2/g or more (Kumai: [0041]), overlapping the claimed range of 100 to 500 m2/g. Since the framework is coated on the carbon (Kumai: 3) (Kumai: see Fig. 1; [0013]; [0041]; [0044]-[0045]), the surface area of the framework is considered to be the same as the surface area of the carbon (Kumai: 3). In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the pore size of the framework and the surface area of the framework disclosed by modified Kumai to satisfy the claimed ranges based on the overlapping ranges disclosed by Kumai.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kumai discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kunishima further teaches that the framework has catalytic activity for oxygen reduction reactions and oxygen evolution reactions (Kunishima: [0080]; [0082]; [0108]; Kumai: see also ). Therefore, since modified Kumai includes the teachings from Kunishima regarding the covalent triazine framework, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Kumai to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 10.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamai (JP 2019029304 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Kunishima (JP 2005220116 with English Machine Translation) (of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo (CN 108117651 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kumai discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Kumai fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the 1,3,5-triazine derivative (second compound) is cyanuric chloride.
However, cyanuric chloride is a common triazine derivative in the art. For instance, Guo teaches a similar organic framework with a triazine structure (title), wherein the organic framework is formed by a reaction of cyanuric chloride (a 1,3,5-triazine derivative) and phenylenediamine (a diamine compound) ([0009]; [0026]). Guo further teaches that using cyanuric chloride as a raw material for the formation of the organic framework leads to lower cost while still achieving a product with effective use as a catalyst ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the organic framework disclosed by modified Kumai such that the 1,3,5-triazine derivative is cyanuric chloride, as taught by Guo, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to lower costs while still achieving an effective electrocatalyst.
Regarding claim 9, modified Kumai discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kunishima further teaches that the framework can have a structure according to formula (14)
PNG
media_image3.png
300
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein the diamine compound (first compound) and the 1,3,5-triazine derivative (second compound) are repeated three times (Kunishima: [0074]-[0075]). Kunishima further teaches that in the formula, R2, R3, R4, and R5 can each represent a hydrogen atom (Kunishima: [0064]), and A can represent a 2,6-pyridinylene group (Kunishima: [0091]). Thus, the only difference between the disclosed formula (14) and the claimed Formula 1 is that the 1,3,5-triazine derivative is not cyanuric chloride.
However, as set forth above, it is known in the art to use cyanuric chloride as a triazine derivative. For instance, Guo teaches a similar organic framework with a triazine structure (title), wherein the organic framework is formed by a reaction of cyanuric chloride (a 1,3,5-triazine derivative) and phenylenediamine (a diamine compound) ([0009]; [0026]). Guo further teaches that using cyanuric chloride as a raw material for the formation of the organic framework leads to lower cost while still achieving a product with effective use as a catalyst ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the organic framework disclosed by modified Kumai such that the 1,3,5-triazine derivative is cyanuric chloride, as taught by Guo, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to lower costs while still achieving an effective electrocatalyst.
Thus, with this modification, formula (14) in modified Kumai would suggest the claimed Formula 1.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamai (JP 2019029304 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Kunishima (JP 2005220116 with English Machine Translation) (of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamazaki (JP 2018086640 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kumai discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, modified Kumai discloses that the electrocatalyst can be used in a metal-air battery (Kumai: [0071]). Modified Kumai fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the metal-air battery is a zinc-air battery.
However, zinc-air batteries are common examples of metal-air batteries. For instance, Yamazaki teaches a similar electrocatalyst (title) comprising a cyclic compound coordinated with metal ([0009]-[0011]; [0032]-[0034]). Yamazaki further teaches that this electrocatalyst can be used in the air electrode of a metal-air battery, specifically a zinc-air battery ([0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the electrocatalyst disclosed by modified Kumai in a zinc-air battery, as suggested by Yamazaki, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would be an effective application of the electrocatalyst.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749