DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 and 3 have been amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1 and 3 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application is a National Phase Application of International Application Serial No. PCT/JP2021/041057, filed November 8, 2021, which claims the priority to Japan Patent Application No. 2020-200076 filed December 2, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements, filed on 05/31/2023, and 01/08/2025, have been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copies of the PTO-1449 submitted herewith.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 3 are under examination on the merits.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2008/0206562 (“the `562 publication”) to Stucky et al. in view of Guerrero et al., Acta Materialia, (2007), v.55, 1723-1730, and Brust et al., J. Chem. Soc. Chem. Commun., (1994).
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a gold-supported carbon catalyst, comprising: carbon black; and gold fine particles supported on the carbon black, wherein the gold fine particles are coordinated by a dodecanethiol or hexadecanethiol at a coverage of from 10% to 70%, and wherein the gold fine particles have an average particle diameter of from 1.0 nm to 1.5 nm.
Applicant’s claim 3 is drawn to a method of producing the gold-supported carbon catalyst of claim 1, the method comprising: a gold fine particle formation step, which includes: mixing a chloroauric acid aqueous solution and an organic solvent solution containing a phase transfer agent to obtain a liquid mixture, separating an organic solvent solution phase from the liquid mixture, mixing a dodecanethiol or hexadecanethiol into the organic solvent solution phase to obtain a mixed solution, and mixing an aqueous solution containing a reducing agent into the mixed solution to provide gold fine particles coordinated by the dodecanethiol or hexadecanethiol; a gold fine particle treatment step that repeats a series of operations two or more times, including: dispersing the gold fine particles coordinated by the dodecanethiol or hexadecanethiol in hexane, adding a polar organic solvent thereto and mixing the resultant to obtain a mixture, and centrifuging the mixture to obtain the gold fine particles coordinated by the dodecanethiol or hexadecanethiol; and a gold fine particle supporting step, which includes: dispersing the gold fine particles, coordinated by the dodecanethiol or hexadecanethiol and obtained through the gold fine particle treatment step, in hexane to prepare a solution, dispersing carbon black in hexane to prepare another solution, and mixing the prepared solutions to cause the gold fine particles coordinated by the dodecanethiol or hexadecanethiol to be supported on the carbon black.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
The `562 publication (claim 1) discloses a method of manufacturing a supported nanocatalyst, comprising: (a) providing a support material; (b) contacting the support material with a capped nanoparticle in an aprotic solvent; (c) calcining the support material comprising the capped nanoparticle to generate a supported nanocatalyst anchored to the support material. The `562 publication (claim 5) discloses the capped nanoparticle comprises Au. The `562 publication (claim 13) discloses the capped nanoparticle is generated by mixing a noble metal substrate with an organic solvent and an alkyl-thiol and adding a borane-complexed reducing agent wherein the alkyl-thiol comprises dodecanethiol. The `562 publication (claim 7) discloses alkyl chain of the alkylthiol comprises from about 1 to 30 carbon atoms. The `562 publication (claim 3) discloses the support material comprises carbon black, and activated carbon. In addition, the `562 publication [0134] teaches size control by varying temperature: To study the temperature effect on the size of gold nanoparticles, the two stock solutions were prepared: (A) 20 mL benzene containing 0.25 mmol ClAuPPh3 and 125 µL dodecanethiol; (B) 20 mL benzene containing 2.50 mmol tert-butylamine-borane complex. To a thick-wall glass vial were mixed 2 mL of solution A and 2 mL of solution B. The sealed glass vial was then stirred in a silicon oil bath which controlled the reaction temperature. At the temperatures of 55, 85 and 100 °C, the mixtures were stirred for 1 hour before the mixtures were cooled. For the reaction at room temperature, the mixture was stirred for 4 hours to ensure the completion of reaction. The `562 publication [0135] teaches preparation of dodecanethiol-capped 3.5-nm Au nanoparticles: 0.25 mmol ClAuPPh3 was mixed together with 0.125 ml of dodecanethiol in 10 ml of CHCl3 to form a clear solution to which 2.5 mmol of tert-butylamine-borane complex were added in the form of powder. The mixture was then heated with stirring at 65 °C for 5 hours before it was cooled down. The `562 publication [0136] teaches preparation of dodecanethiol-capped 2.1-nm Au nanoparticles: 1.000 g of ClAuPPh3 and 1.000 g of dodecanethiol were mixed in 50 mL of CHCl3 to form a clear solution. Another solution, containing 1.689 g of tert-butylamine-borane, 50 mL CHCl3 and 20 mL ethanol, was then added to the gold precursor solution. The mixture was kept stirring at room temperature for one day to complete the reaction. Therefore, various sizes of gold-supported carbon nanoparticles can be prepared based on the disclosure by the `562 publication.
Guerrero et al. discloses a method of preparing the alkanethiolate-capped gold nanoparticles (NPs) following the Brust method wherein two different sized Au-thio gold NPs AU-SR1 and AU-SR1 were prepared (see “2.1. Sample preparation” at p.1724), wherein the alkanethiol is dodecanethiol. Guerrero et al. (Table 1) teaches the average particle size of AU-SR1 is 2.2 nm, and the average particle size of AU-SR2 is 2.0 nm (Table 1), and the TEM micrography and particle size distribution histogram of the AU-SR1 and AU-SR2 are disclosed in Fig. 2 at p.1726. Brust method (at page 802 right column) shows the elemental analysis of the product composition contains 75% gold and 25% dodecanethiol., and having average gold hydrosols of 1.5 nm average particle diameter.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between Applicant’s claims 1 and 3 and the `562 publication is that the prior art is silent on the limitation “the gold fine particles are coordinated by a dodecanethiol or hexadecanethiol at a coverage of from 10% to 70%”, and does not teach the limitation “the gold fine particles have an average particle diameter of from 1.0 nm to 1.5 nm”. Instead, the `562 publication teaches a substantially identical method of preparing the gold-supported carbon catalyst as defined by Applicant’s claim 3.
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, for one skilled in the art, Applicants’ claims 1 and 3 would have been obvious over the `562 publication because the `562 publication teaches a substantially identical method of preparing the gold-supported carbon catalyst as defined by Applicant’s claim 3. In addition, the `562 publication [0134] teaches size control by varying temperature. Furthermore, Guerrero et al. teaches a method of preparing different sized alkanethiolate-capped gold nanoparticles very closed to average particle diameter of from 1.0 nm to 1.5 nm.
In terms of the limitation “the gold fine particles are coordinated by a dodecanethiol or hexadecanethiol at a coverage of from 10% to 70%”, and “the gold fine particles have an average particle diameter of from 1.0 nm to 1.5 nm”, both the `562 publication and Guerrero et al. teaches preparing various sizes of the gold fine particles by controlling parameters such as temperature, and reducing reagent, and reaction time according to the Brust method, wherein Brust et al (at page 802 right column) discloses the elemental analysis of the product composition contains 75% gold and 25% dodecanethiol., and having average gold hydrosols of 1.5 nm average particle diameter. Guerrero et al. (Table 1) teaches the average particle size of AU-SR1 is 2.2 nm, and the average particle size of AU-SR2 is 2.0 nm (Table 1), and the TEM micrography and particle size distribution histogram of the AU-SR1 and AU-SR2 are disclosed in Fig. 2 at p.1726, which are very closed to the claimed average particle diameters of from 1.0nm to 1.5 nm with substantially identical preparation procedures. When the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, the `562 publication in view of Guerrero et al. would have rendered claims 1 and 3 obvious.
Conclusions
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731