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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/9/26 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh (US 2012/0135137) in view of Kim et al (US 2018/0166698, hereinafter Kim’698, previously cited) and JP H05-283083 A.
Regarding claim 1, Roh teaches a method of preparing a platinum-based alloy catalyst (abstract), the method comprising:
a first step of preparing a first composite by coating a Pt/C catalyst, obtained by supporting platinum on a carbon support (abstract), with an organic polymer (abstract, coating the surface with a conductive polymer);
a second step of preparing a second composite by mixing the first composite and a transition metal precursor (abstract, supporting a transition metal salt on the coated catalyst, paragraph [0031], adding the transition metal salt together with the coated catalyst to an organic solvent and reflux, evaporating the organic solvent);
a third step of performing a heat treatment on the second composite (paragraph [0032], catalyst with transition metal salt supported is heat treated to obtain an alloy catalyst); and
a fourth step of acid treating the heat-treated second composite (paragraph [0033], if necessary, the heat-treated catalyst may be refluxed in an aqueous solution of a strong acid to remove impurities).
Roh is quiet to a step of performing an aqueous ozone treatment on the heat-treated second composite, wherein the fourth step is a step of performing the aqueous ozone treatment after an acid treatment of the heat-treated second composite, wherein in the fourth step, after the heat-treated second composite is added to a reactor with water, ozone gas is supplied.
Kim’698 teaches a method of producing a catalyst, including coating a Pt/C catalyst with an organic polymer (paragraph [0037]), including a transition metal precursor (paragraph [0038]), heat treatment to convert the organic polymer into a protective carbon layer (paragraph [0038]), and removing the protective carbon layer by an ozone treatment (paragraph [0038]), thus producing a highly active platinum alloy catalyst including platinum dispersed at a high density on the surface thereof (paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roh so as to further include an additional step of ozone treatment after the alloy catalyst was heat treated and acid treated, so as to additionally remove the protective carbon layer that would have formed during the heat treatment step of the organic polymer coated catalyst, and that Kim’698 teaches that after removing the carbon layer, the alloy catalyst is highly active and platinum can be dispersed at a high density.
The combination teaches an ozone treatment on the heat-treated second composite, but is quiet to said ozone treatment being an aqueous ozone treatment, wherein in the fourth step, after the heat-treated second composite is added to a reactor together with water, ozone gas is supplied.
JP H05-283083 A teaches a method of treating an electrode of a fuel cell (paragraph [0001]), by cleaning carbon material components (paragraph [0010]). The parts can be washed with ozone-containing water containing dissolved ozone or ozonized gas bubbles (paragraph [0012]). Organic stains can be oxidized by ozone, an oxidizing solution, or an oxidizing gas in water to generate moderate oxides that can be washed and removed using water, so that organic stains can be easily and reliably removed (paragraph [0016]). Fig 5 shows the electrode immersed in ozone-containing water and ozonized gas is injected directly into the reaction tank, thus simplifying the configuration (paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the ozone treatment of Kim’698 with an aqueous ozone treatment, as taught in JP H05-283083 A, as JP H05-283083 A teaches a simple configuration (paragraph [0043]) that can easily and reliably remove organic stains (paragraph [0016]), and can be widely applied as a general cleaning method (paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches wherein the carbon support is crystalline carbon (Roh, paragraph [0029], carbon support can be one or more selected from commonly used, including carbon nanotube, nanofiber, nanocoil, and nanocage, Kim’698, paragraph [0041], crystalline carbon).
Regarding claims 4-5, the combination teaches wherein the organic polymer is a nitrogen-containing organic polymer, wherein the nitrogen-containing organic polymer is one or two or more selected from the group consisting of: polypyrrole and polyaniline (Roh, paragraph [0009], Kim’698, paragraph [0040], polypyrrole, polyaniline, or polydopamine).
Regarding claims 6-7, the combination teaches wherein the transition metal precursor comprises a nickel precursor and a cobalt precursor (Roh, paragraph [0031], transition metal salt, where transition metal may include Nickel and Cobalt).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches wherein the heat treatment is performed at 700°C to 1200°C in a reducing atmosphere (Roh, paragraph [0032], heat treatment at 700°C to 1000°C in an argon/hydrogen mixture, paragraph [0041], 90 vol% argon, hydrogen 10 vol%, note that applicant’s disclosed reducing atmosphere is similarly an inert gas and hydrogen atmosphere as disclosed in applicant’s paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches wherein the fourth step is performed at 80°C or lower (Kim’698, paragraph [0050], ozone was applied at 25°C (could be used at a temperature of 180°C or less)).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh as modified by Kim’698 and JP H05-283083 A as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Park et al (US 2021/0020954, previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches a Ni precursor, a Co precursor, and platinum (see claim 7 above), but is quiet to wherein a molar ratio of the Ni precursor, the Co precursor, and the platinum is 1:0.7 to 1.3:3 to 6.
Park et al teaches a fuel cell catalyst (abstract) including platinum-transition metal alloy particles supported on a polydopamine-coated support (paragraph [0008]), where the transition metal may be one or a mixture of two or more selected from a group that includes nickel and cobalt (paragraph [0027]). Park et al teaches the composition ratio of platinum : transition metal may be selected from 3:1 to 1:3 (paragraph [0028], [0041]). The particles may be prepared to have various shapes by varying the composition ratio (paragraph [0028]), such that specific crystal planes can inhibit the adsorption of non-reactive species and the mass activity of the catalyst can be maximized since the activity of oxygen reduction reaction can be improved (paragraph [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to optimize the molar ratio of the transition metals (Ni and Co) to Platinum, to fall within the claimed range, as Park et al teaches varying the composition ratio varies the shape so as to maximize mass activity of the catalyst (paragraph [0028]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh as modified by Kim’698 and JP H05-283083 A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kunz (US 4,028,274, previously cited).
Regarding claim 12, the combination is quiet to a fluidized bed reactor.
Kunz teaches platinum is a well-known catalyst in electrochemical cells (col 1 lines 10-20). Kunz teaches oxidizing particles in a conventional furnace or in a fluidized bed (col 2 lines 55-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the oxidation treatment of the combination is performed in a fluidized bed reactor, as Kunz teaches that fluidized bed reactors can be used during an oxidization process during preparation of platinum catalysts for fuel cells.
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Note that Lee, Adzic, and Arihara are no longer cited in the current rejections.
Applicant argues that Kim does not disclose an aqueous ozone treatment after an acid treatment, as Kim does not perform acid treatment for removing residual transition metals after high-temperature heat treatment, but instead directly performs a step of injecting gaseous ozone. Applicant argues that Lee’s acid treatment is different in terms of its purpose, because Lee does not perform acid treatment for the purpose of subsequently removing the carbon shell, as Lee’s objective is to prepare an alloy catalyst including a carbon shell.
The rejections above look towards the combination of Roh and Kim’698. Roh teaches preparing an alloy catalyst and performs an acid treatment step after the heat treatment step (paragraph [0041]) to obtain an alloy catalyst. Roh discloses a heat treatment in an atmosphere of 90% argon and 10% hydrogen (paragraph [0041]). Although Roh is quiet to whether a protective carbon layer forms, Kim’698 recognizes that as hydrogen content decreases during heat treatment, the protective carbon layer thickness increases (paragraph [0057]), with examples at 0%, 5%, 10%, and 20%. The protective layer suppresses the increase in particle size (paragraph [0057]). Kim’698 seeks to remove the protective carbon layer using an oxide treatment, resulting in a highly active platinum alloy catalyst including platinum dispersed at a high density on the surface thereof. Although Kim’698 discloses using ozone gas to remove the carbon layer, ozone treatments, such as aqueous ozone treatments for cleaning are known in the art, and JP H05-283083 A shows various configurations of ozone treatment for fuel cell electrodes that can be widely applied as a general cleaning method for surface treatment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
