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 .
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 11 and 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 11 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what, if any, carbon substantially is intended to define. For the purpose of examination, carbon will be considered to be substantially included if it is a majority element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-6 and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adzic et al (KR20080007622). The citations below are in reference to the English language translation obtained via Google Patents, a copy of which is included herein.
Regarding claim 1, Adzic teaches an oxygen reducing cathode comprising platinum metal oxide composite particles comprising a metal oxide core and an atomically thin layer encapsulating the entire surface of the metal oxide core and composed of zero valent platinum atoms. The platinum metal oxide composite particles act as a catalyst. An ion-conducting electrolyte is taught to be in contact with an anode and the oxygen reducing cathode (claim 22, paragraphs 0002; pgs 3-5).
Regarding claim 2, Adzic teaches the metal oxide to be niobium oxide (pg 3, paragraphs 3-6; claim 23).
Regarding claim 3, Adzic teaches an atomically thin layer encapsulating the entire surface of the metal oxide core and composed of zero valent platinum atoms. (claim 22; pg 3).
Regarding claim 4, Adzic teaches the metal oxide core to have a size in the range of 10-50nm (pg 3, paragraph 7; claim 32).
Regarding claim 5, Adzic teaches the metal oxide to be niobium oxide (pg 3, paragraphs 3-6; claim 23). The instant specification teaches niobium oxide to have a maximum absorption wavelength at 250-550 nm (applicant’s own Fig 1A and paragraph 0050 of the submitted specification).
Regarding claim 6, Adzic teaches the composite particle as discussed above.
In the event any differences can be shown for the product of the product-by-process claim 6, as opposed to the product taught by the reference Adzic, such differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a routine modification of the product in the absence of a showing of unexpected results; see also In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985).
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or 103 of the statute is appropriate. As a practical matter, the Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith. A lesser burden of proof is required to make out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their particular nature than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1063, 173 USPQ 685 (1972); In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 8, Adzic teaches an oxygen reducing cathode comprising platinum metal oxide composite particles comprising a metal oxide core and an atomically thin layer encapsulating the entire surface of the metal oxide core and composed of zero valent platinum atoms. The platinum metal oxide composite particles act as a catalyst. An ion-conducting electrolyte is taught to be in contact with an anode and the oxygen reducing cathode (claim 22, paragraphs 0002, 0033, and 0048).
Regarding claim 9, Adzic teaches an oxygen reducing cathode comprising platinum metal oxide composite particles comprising a metal oxide core and an atomically thin layer encapsulating the entire surface of the metal oxide core and composed of zero valent platinum atoms. The platinum metal oxide composite particles act as a catalyst. An ion-conducting electrolyte is taught to be in contact with an anode and the oxygen reducing cathode (claim 22, paragraphs 0002; pgs 3-5).
Regarding claim 10, Adzic teaches the platinum metal oxide particles to be aggregated (pg 11, paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 11, Adzic teaches the particle, as discussed above. There is no teaching of carbon being substantially included and therefore, the particle of Adzic is considered to meet the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Adzic teaches an oxygen reducing cathode comprising platinum metal oxide composite particles comprising a metal oxide core and an atomically thin layer encapsulating the entire surface of the metal oxide core and composed of zero valent platinum atoms. The platinum metal oxide composite particles act as a catalyst. An ion-conducting electrolyte is taught to be in contact with an anode and the oxygen reducing cathode (claim 22, paragraphs 0002; pgs 3-5).
Regarding claim 13, Adzic teaches an oxygen reducing cathode comprising platinum metal oxide composite particles comprising a metal oxide core and an atomically thin layer encapsulating the entire surface of the metal oxide core and composed of zero valent platinum atoms. The platinum metal oxide composite particles act as a catalyst. An ion-conducting electrolyte is taught to be in contact with an anode and the oxygen reducing cathode (claim 22, paragraphs 0002; pgs 3-5). The cathode is taught to be used in a fuel cell (pg 1, paragraph 2) which is considered to be a device as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Adzic teaches an oxygen reducing cathode comprising platinum metal oxide composite particles comprising a metal oxide core and an atomically thin layer encapsulating the entire surface of the metal oxide core and composed of zero valent platinum atoms. The platinum metal oxide composite particles act as a catalyst. An ion-conducting electrolyte is taught to be in contact with an anode and the oxygen reducing cathode (claim 22, paragraphs 0002; pgs 3-5). The cathode is taught to be used in a fuel cell (pg 1, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 15, Adzic teaches the particle, as discussed above. There is no teaching of carbon being substantially included and therefore, the particle of Adzic is considered to meet the instant claim.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adzic et al (KR20080007622).
Regarding claim 7, Adzic teaches the composite particle, as discussed above.
Adzic does not explicitly teach the shell thickness, as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to obtain an optimal thickness, such as the claimed range, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR10-2146291).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6 and 16, Kim teaches a method for uniformly dispersing and applying platinum to a metal oxide, comprising the steps of: preparing a solution in which 10 wt% tungsten oxide powder is dispersed in 90 wt% of water; preparing a slurry solution by mixing the dispersion solution of tungsten oxide powders with a supporting raw material, which is a 10 wt% aqueous solution of chloroplatinic acid (H2PtCl6); and injecting the slurry solution into a photoreactor; and irradiating the slurry solution with light (abstract and 0111-0113). Thus forming composite particle of core-shell structure of metal oxide core and platinum shell.
Kim does not explicitly teach dispersing the metal oxide particles in an alcohol solution.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize an alcohol for the dispersion as an alcohol is well known for use in a solution, and such a substitution would have been well within the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Kim teaches powder of average particle diameter of 0.8 um (800 nm) and platinum coating of a few nanometers, thus obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide primary particle diameter of 3 to 1000 nm and shell thickness of 3 to 50 nm.
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches a method for uniformly dispersing and applying platinum to a metal oxide, comprising the steps of: preparing a solution in which 10 wt% tungsten oxide powder is dispersed in 90 wt% of water; preparing a slurry solution by mixing the dispersion solution of tungsten oxide powders with a supporting raw material, which is a 10 wt% aqueous solution of chloroplatinic acid (H2PtCl6); and injecting the slurry solution into a photoreactor; and irradiating the slurry solution with light (abstract and 0111-0113).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches tungsten oxide powder which has a band gap as claimed.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR102146291) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Zhou, et al (Preparation and characterization of porous Nb2O5 nanoparticles; Materials research bulletin, 2008, vol 43, no.6, pgs 1363-1368).
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches the method as discussed above.
Kim does not explicitly teach preparation method for the metal oxide particles, as claimed.
Zhou teaches a niobium oxide preparation method including the steps of: preparing an Nb-fluorocomplex solution by dissolving metal oxide, Nb2O5, particles in hydrofluoric acid; diluting the Nb-fluorocomplex solution with distilled water and tuning the pH of the solution by adding aqueous ammonia, thereby obtaining white precipitate; and calcining the white precipitate (abstract; section 2, Experimental).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize the metal oxide preparation method of Zhou as a method for making the metal oxide particles of Kim as such is a known method of making a metal oxide and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized using a known method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/SARAH A. SLIFKA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759 December 8, 2025