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.
Status of the Claims
Amendments were filed 11/25/25. Claims 1-9 and 11-18 are pending, wherein claims 13-18 remain withdrawn.
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 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2018/0166698, hereinafter Kim’698, previously cited) in view of Adzic et al (US 2013/0178357, previously cited), Arihara et al (US 2018/0248200, previously cited), and Kunz (US 4,028,274, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Kim’698 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 (fig 1, Pt/C, paragraph [0011], platinum supported on a carbon support), with an organic polymer (paragraph [0011], coating a Pt/C catalyst with an organic polymer, fig 1, organic polymer coating on the Pt/C to form a Pt/C-polymer composite);
a second step of preparing a second composite by mixing the first composite and a transition metal precursor (paragraph [0011], depositing a transition metal precursor on the organic polymer-coated Pt/C catalyst, fig 1, Ni precursor deposition to form a Ni-deposited Pt/C-polymer, paragraph [0049]);
a third step of performing a heat treatment on the second composite (paragraph [0011], heat treating under a hydrogen-deficient atmosphere, fig 1, 0~5% H2 heat treatment at 900°C); and
a fourth step of performing an ozone treatment on the heat-treated second composite (paragraph [0011], treating with ozone, fig 1, Ozone treatment, paragraph [0043], enables carbonized carbon layer to be easily removed).
Kim’698 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.
Adzic et al teaches a method of synthesizing activated electrocatalyst (abstract) to be incorporated into electrodes of a fuel cell (paragraph [0004]). Adzic et al teaches a method based on safely and efficiently removing surfactants and capping agents from the surface of the metal electrocatalytic structure (paragraph [0013]), by displacing surfactants/capping agents on the surface with carbon monoxide and subsequent stripping of the carbon monoxide by electrochemical oxidation (paragraph [0014]). Adzic et al teaches the synthesized metal structures can be acid washed or ozone treated first to weaken the interaction of the surfactant and capping agents to the surface of the metal structure (paragraph [0014]). Adzic et al teaches that while it is possible to eliminate surfactants and capping agents by heat treatment, acid wash, or time-controlled UV-ozone exposure, such protocols may not completely remove a residual organic layer (paragraph [0054]). Adzic et al teaches that the exposure to acid or ozone partially oxidizes the carbon chains and the terminal amine functional groups, thereby weakening the interaction of the surfactant with the surface, while enhancing the adsorption of CO to the surface (paragraph [0068]).
Arihara et al teaches catalyst particles that can exhibit high activity (abstract), formed from platinum atoms and non-platinum metal atoms (abstract), supported on an electroconductive carrier having carbon as its main component (paragraph [0091]). Arihara et al teaches that the carbon carrier can be treated with an acidic solution, a heat treatment, a steam activation treatment, a vapor phase oxidation treatment that includes ozone, liquid phase oxidation treatment that includes ozonated water, or the like (paragraph [0100]).
In view of the teachings of Adzic et al and Arihara et all, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ozone treatment of Kim’698 so as to be an aqueous ozone treatment, as Adzic et al teaches that the ozone treatment partially oxidizes the carbon chains and the functional groups to weaken the interaction of the capping layer (Adzic, paragraph [0068]), and that Arihara et al teaches that a liquid phase oxidation treatment that includes ozonated water is an obvious alternative to a vapor phase oxidation treatment including ozone (Arihara, paragraph [0100]).
The combination teaches adding ozonated water to the heat-treated second composite after the heat-treatment, but is quiet to adding to a reactor, such as a vertical 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 liquid phase oxidation treatment including ozonated water occurs 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.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches wherein the carbon support is crystalline carbon (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, polyaniline, and polydopamine (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 (Kim’698, paragraph [0039], at least one selected from the group, including 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 (Kim’698, paragraph [0042], heat treatment at 700°C to 1200°C in an inert gas with up to 5% hydrogen, 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)).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches adding ozonated water to the heat-treated second composite after the heat-treatment (see rejection of claim 1 above), but is quiet to adding to a reactor, such as a vertical 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 liquid phase oxidation treatment including ozonated water occurs 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim’698 as modified by Adzic et al, Arihara et al, and Kunz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al (KR 10-2021-0012676 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches wherein the fourth step is a step of performing the aqueous ozone treatment (see rejection of claim 1 above), but is quiet to after an acid treatment of the heat-treated second composite.
Lee et al teaches manufacturing an alloy catalyst including adsorbing a metal-aniline complex and a transition metal precursor onto a carbon carrier and heat treating the adsorbed complex and precursor (paragraph [0014]). The process may further include a subsequent acid treatment after the heat treatment, and a step of performing a subsequent heat treatment after the subsequent acid treatment (paragraph [0037]). The subsequent acid treatment and heat treatment steps are for removing a foreign metal from the surface of the platinum-transition metal alloy catalyst including the carbon shell (paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Kim’698 so as to include a subsequent acid treatment and subsequent heat treatment, after the heat treatment step and before the ozone treatment step, so as to remove foreign metals from the surface of the platinum-transition metal alloy catalyst (Lee, paragraph [0055]).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim’698 as modified by Adzic et al, Arihara et al, and Kunz 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes that although Kim discloses the first, second, and third steps of the present invention, Kim does not disclose performing an aqueous ozone treatment on the heat-treated second composite. Applicant argues that after the heat treatment, the carbon layer is removed by a gas-phase ozone treatment method, not an aqueous ozone treatment. Applicant notes that gas phase ozone treatment is discussed in the comparative examples, and that applicant’s method using aqueous ozone treatment increases contact between ozone gas and the catalyst, thereby enhancing the efficiency of carbon layer removal, and facilitating mass production.
Applicant argues that Adzic does not disclose the aqueous ozone treatment as the purpose of its ozone treatment is different, as Adzic relates to removing surfactants and capping agents that are strongly adsorbed onto metals, by substituting the residual organic layer with CO. Applicant argues that Arihara relates to catalysts particles and fuel cell catalysts and discloses an aqueous ozone treatment as a liquid-phase oxidation treatment, however, applicant argues that Arihara’s oxidation process provides functional groups on the carbon support prior to supporting the catalyst, thus not for treating a composite comprising carbon and a transition metal as in amended claim 1.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Note that the rejection is based on the combination of Kim, Adzic, and Arihara, where Kim already discloses the purpose of an ozone treatment, for removing a carbonized layer on the highly active platinum alloy catalyst. Kim thus differs from the claimed invention in that Kim’s ozone treatment is not described as being an aqueous process. Adzic teaches removing an organic layer from an electrocatalyst (such as platinum or palladium) is traditionally done by washing and/or heating processes (paragraph [0011]), but a residual organic layer remains, which can be removed by further performing an oxidation treatment, by acid washing or UV generated ozone treatment, however, recognizing doing so may require several hours of exposure (paragraph [0011]). Adzic’s acid wash or ozone treatment partially oxidizes the carbon chains to thus weaken the interaction of the surfactant with the surface, and allow for an adsorption of CO to the surface of the particle, which can later be desorbed (paragraph [0068]). Arihara is cited showing a carbon carrier, for catalyst particles, treated in an acidic solution, and then further heat treating (acid treating), steam treating, vapor phase oxidation treatment (ozone, fluorine gas, or the like), or liquid phase oxidation treatment (ozonated water), to provide to the carbon carrier a particular functional group.
The combination thus suggests performing an ozone treatment for removing an organic layer from the electrocatalyst by oxidation of the particle surface (see Kim, Adzic) where either vapor phase or liquid phase oxidation treatments using ozone or ozonated water are known alternatives.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The "hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art." Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). See MPEP 2141.03(I).
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 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