PtNiN FUEL CELL ELECTRODE CATALYSTS AND FUEL CELLS WITH PTNIN ELECTRODE CATALYSTS
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 12/31/2025 and 2/3/2026:
Claims 1, 3, 13, and 16-19 have been amended; no new matter has been entered.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 103 have been upheld.
Drawings
Applicant has stated Fig. 3A of the drawings has been amended to recite the average diameter of PtNiN nanoparticles in Sample 1 as 2.6 nm. However, no drawing has been filed.
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: “In the Final Office Action, the Examiner argues that motivation to amend Mei and Pak with the limitation shown in Gadkaree is to increase catalyst activity with reduced particle content (Final Office Action of Nov. 3, 2025, p. 6, § 19.
However, Applicant submits that modifying the catalyst support of Pak et al. to include about 20 volume percent of micropores having a diameter of less than 1.0 nm disclosed in Gadkaree et al. would not "increase catalyst activity with reduced particle content" for the PtNiN nanoparticles having an average diameter between about 2.6 nm and about 7.2 nm as recited in claims 1 and 16. That is, PtNiN nanoparticles recited in claims 1 and 16 are too large to be disposed within the 15-20% micropores with an average pore diameter less than about 2.0 nm. In addition, FIG. 4 of the present application illustrates that Sample 3 with PtNiN nanoparticles having an average diameter of 7.2 nm exhibited a higher mass activity than Sample 2 with PtNiN nanoparticles having an average diameter of 1.7 nm. Accordingly, the present Application provides objective evidence that "larger" PtNiN nanoparticles, when combined with the mesoporous carbon recited in claims 1 and 16, provide enhanced mass activity, and thereby questioning, at the very least, why one skilled in the art would have motivation to modify a mesoporous carbon support to include 15-20% micropores with an average pore diameter less than about 2.0 nm.
In addition, the Examiner cites Mei et al. for disclosing PtNiN nanoparticles having an average diameter between about 1.0 nm and about 7.0 nm. Particularly, claim 3 of Mei et al. discloses catalysts particles with an average diameter of 0.5 to 50 nm.
However, Applicant submits that the average diameter range of the PtNiN nanoparticles being between about 2.6 nm and about 7.2 nm results in unexpected results as illustrated by FIG. 4, i.e., Sample 3 with a PtNiN nanoparticle average diameter of 7.2 nm outperformed samples with PtNiN nanoparticles having an average diameter of less than 2.6 nm and greater than 7.2 nm. And such an increase in mass activity for PtNiN nanoparticles within an average diameter between about 2.6 nm and about 7.2 nm results is unexpected and objective proof of nonobviousness,”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. The specification does not show enough data to support the argument of unexpected results. MPEP 716.02(d) II: To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Applicant is disclosing one data point within the claimed range. Further, Sample 2 (an average diameter of 1.7 nm) shows a mass activity which is not substantially less than Sample 3.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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, 3, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei et al. (US 2004/012123019 A1) and further in view of Pak et al. (US 2009/0098442 A1) and further in view of Gadkaree et al. (US 6,228,803 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 13, and 16, Mei et al. teach a fuel cell (Abstract) comprising:
an anode, a cathode, and a polymer electrolyte membrane disposed between the anode and the cathode, and an ionomer in contact with the cathode (Paragraph 0010 discloses an anode, cathode, and polymer electrolyte arranged in between the anode and cathode. Further, paragraph 0108 discloses the polymer electrolyte comprises Nafion 117, which is an ionomer material.);
a cathode catalyst disposed on the cathode, the cathode catalyst comprising nitrogen doped platinum nickel (PtNiN) nanoparticles (Abstract; claim 6 discloses the cathode catalyst comprises a formula ATxNu wherein A=Pt, T=Ni, x=u=1.) loaded on carbon (Paragraph 0050 discloses carbon black as a carrier for the catalyst material.), the PtNiN nanoparticles having an average diameter between about 2.4 nm and about 7.2 nm (Claim 3 discloses the average diameter of the catalyst particles is 0.5-50 nm. Further, paragraph 0048 discloses an average diameter of 1 to 10 nm.).
However, Mei et al. do not teach nanoparticles loaded on mesoporous carbon and the mesoporous carbon comprising a BET surface area between about 1,000 m2/g and 2,000 m2/g, a pore size distribution of 15-20% micropores with an average pore diameter less than about 2.0 nm, more than 75% mesopores with an average pore diameter between about 2.0 nm and about 8.0 nm, and greater than or equal to 5% and less than 7.5% macropores with an average pore diameter greater than about 8.0 nm.
Pak et al. teach using mesoporous carbon as a catalyst support (Abstract) having a BET surface area of 1300-1500 m2/g (Paragraph 0041). Furthermore, the mesoporous carbon comprises a more than 75% mesopores with an average pore diameter between about 2.0 nm and about 8.0 nm (Abstract discloses greater than 65% of the total volume of pores in the mesoporous carbon have an average diameter greater than 2 nm and no greater than 50 nm.), and greater than or equal to 5% and less than 7.5% macropores with an average pore diameter greater than about 8.0 nm. (Abstract discloses volume of mesopores with a average diameter greater than 20 nm and no greater than 50 nm is 3% or greater of the total volume of the pores.) and at least a portion of the catalyst disposed within the majority percentage of the plurality of pores having an average diameter less than about 8.0 nm (Paragraph 0065 discloses the support catalyst includes a heteroatom-containing mesoporous carbon and a metal catalyst particle supported and dispersed within the heteroatom-containing mesoporous carbon. The metal catalyst particle is dispersed on the surface of the mesoporous carbon and within the pores.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Mei with Pak in order to increase catalyst activity with reduced catalyst particle content.
However, they do not teach wherein the plurality of pores of the mesoporous carbon comprises between about 10% and about 25% or 15-20% micropores with an average diameter less than about 2.0 nm.
Gadkaree et al. teach depositing metal catalysts such as Pt and Ni onto carbon matrices that can comprise mesoporous carbon (Col. 3, lines 1-50). Further, the mesoporous carbon can have micropores having a diameter of less than 10 Å or 1 nm (Example 6). Finally, only about 20% of the volume is in the micropore range (Example 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mei and Pak with Gadkaree in order to reduce the amount of catalyst needed.
Claims 14-15, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei et al. (US 2004/012123019 A1), Pak et al. (US 2009/0098442 A1) and Gadkaree et al. (US 6,228,803 B1) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Hori et al. (US 2016/0093892 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Mei, Pak, and Gadkaree et al. teach the fuel cell according to claim 13. Pak et al. further disclose a plurality of PtNiN nanoparticles disposed within the pores of the mesoporous carbon (Paragraph 0065 discloses the support catalyst includes a heteroatom-containing mesoporous carbon and a metal catalyst particle supported and dispersed within the heteroatom-containing mesoporous carbon. The metal catalyst particle is dispersed on the surface of the mesoporous carbon and within the pores.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Mei with Pak in order to increase catalyst activity with reduced catalyst particle content.
However, neither Mei, Park, nor Gadkaree et al. teach water disposed in the pores and in direct contact with the plurality of the PtNiN nanoparticles; and an ionomer in direct contact with the water such that the water is between the PtNiN nanoparticles and the ionomer.
Hori et al. an electrode for a fuel cell comprising a support having catalyst particles at least inside the support and wherein the support comprises mesoporous carbon (Abstract). Further, the pore diameter is the mesoporous carbon pores are 2-10 nm (Paragraph 0053). The catalyst particles and water are contained inside the mesoporous carbon with the ionomer in contact with the water (Fig. 2). Further, the water is between the nanoparticles and ionomer being that water is surrounding the catalyst which is surrounded by water (Also Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mei, Park, and Gadkaree with Hori so that if ionomer or water is present on the surface of the catalyst particles, they serve as a path of protons (H+) and so protons (H+) on the catalyst particles will be adsorbed and poisoning of the catalyst particles is suppressed.
Regarding claim 15 the combination of Mei and Pak et al. teach the fuel cell according to claim 1. Further, Pak et al. teach a plurality of the PtNiN nanoparticles are disposed within the pores of the mesoporous carbon (Paragraph 0065 discloses the support catalyst includes a heteroatom-containing mesoporous carbon and a metal catalyst particle supported and dispersed within the heteroatom-containing mesoporous carbon. The metal catalyst particle is dispersed on the surface of the mesoporous carbon and within the pores.).
However, neither Mei, Park, nor Gadkaree et al. teach water disposed in the pores and in direct contact with the plurality of the PtNiN nanoparticles; and an ionomer in direct contact with the water.
Hori et al. an electrode for a fuel cell comprising a support having catalyst particles at least inside the support and wherein the support comprises mesoporous carbon (Abstract). Further, the pore diameter is the mesoporous carbon pores are 2-10 nm (Paragraph 0053). The catalyst particles and water are contained inside the mesoporous carbon with the ionomer in contact with the water (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mei, Park, and Gadkaree with Hori so that if ionomer or water is present on the surface of the catalyst particles, they serve as a path of protons (H+) and so protons (H+) on the catalyst particles will be adsorbed and poisoning of the catalyst particles is suppressed.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Mei and Pak et al. teach the fuel cell according to claim 16. However, they do not teach wherein water is disposed between within the more of the mesoporous carbon between PtNiN nanoparticles and the ionomer the at least a portion of the PtNiN nanoparticles disposed within pores of mesoporous carbon and the ionomer.
Hori et al. an electrode for a fuel cell comprising a support having catalyst particles at least inside the support and wherein the support comprises mesoporous carbon (Abstract). Further, the pore diameter is the mesoporous carbon pores are 2-10 nm (Paragraph 0053). The catalyst particles and water are contained inside the mesoporous carbon with the ionomer in contact with the water (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mei, Park, and Gadkaree with Hori so that if ionomer or water is present on the surface of the catalyst particles, they serve as a path of protons (H+) and so protons (H+) on the catalyst particles will be adsorbed and poisoning of the catalyst particles is suppressed.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Mei, Pak, and Hori et al. teach the fuel cell according to claim 17. Further, Mei et al. teach the PtNiN nanoparticles have an average diameter between about 2.4 nm to 7.0 nm (Claim 3 discloses the average diameter of the catalyst particles is 0.5-50 nm. Further, paragraph 0048 discloses an average diameter is preferably 1-10 nm.).
Regarding claim 19, Mei et al. teach a fuel cell (Abstract) comprising:
an anode, a cathode, and a polymer electrolyte membrane disposed between the anode and the cathode (Paragraph 0010 discloses an anode, cathode, and polymer electrolyte arranged in between the anode and cathode. Further, paragraph 0108 discloses the polymer electrolyte comprises Nafion 117, which is an ionomer material.);
a cathode catalyst disposed on the cathode, the cathode catalyst comprising nitrogen doped platinum nickel (PtNiN) nanoparticles (Abstract; claim 6 discloses the cathode catalyst comprises a formula ATxNu wherein A=Pt, T=Ni, x=u=1.) loaded on carbon (Paragraph 0050 discloses carbon black as a carrier for the catalyst material.), the PtNiN nanoparticles having an average diameter between about 2.6 nm and about 7.2 nm (Claim 3 discloses the average diameter of the catalyst particles is 0.5-50 nm. Further, paragraph 0048 discloses an average diameter is preferably 1-10 nm.).
However, Mei et al. do not teach nanoparticles loaded on mesoporous carbon and the mesoporous carbon comprising a BET surface area between about 1,000 m2/g and 2,000 m2/g, a pore size distribution of 15-20% micropores with an average pore diameter less than about 2.0 nm, more than 75% mesopores with an average pore diameter between about 2.0 nm and about 8.0 nm, and greater than or equal to 5% and less than 7.5% macropores with an average pore diameter greater than about 8.0 nm.
Pak et al. teach using mesoporous carbon as a catalyst support (Abstract) having a BET surface area of 1300-1500 m2/g (Paragraph 0041). Furthermore, the mesoporous carbon comprises a more than 75% mesopores with an average pore diameter between about 2.0 nm and about 8.0 nm (Abstract discloses greater than 65% of the total volume of pores in the mesoporous carbon have an average diameter greater than 2 nm and no greater than 50 nm.), and greater than or equal to 5% and less than 7.5% macropores with an average pore diameter greater than about 8.0 nm. (Abstract discloses volume of mesopores with a average diameter greater than 20 nm and no greater than 50 nm is 3% or greater of the total volume of the pores.) and at least a portion of the catalyst disposed within the majority percentage of the plurality of pores having an average diameter less than about 8.0 nm (Paragraph 0065 discloses the support catalyst includes a heteroatom-containing mesoporous carbon and a metal catalyst particle supported and dispersed within the heteroatom-containing mesoporous carbon. The metal catalyst particle is dispersed on the surface of the mesoporous carbon and within the pores.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Mei with Pak in order to increase catalyst activity with reduced catalyst particle content.
However, they do not teach wherein the plurality of pores of the mesoporous carbon comprises between about 10% and about 25% or 15-20% micropores with an average diameter less than about 2.0 nm.
Gadkaree et al. teach depositing metal catalysts such as Pt and Ni onto carbon matrices that can comprise mesoporous carbon (Col. 3, lines 1-50). Further, the mesoporous carbon can have micropores having a diameter of less than 10 Å or 1 nm (Example 6). Finally, only about 20% of the volume is in the micropore range (Example 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mei and Pak with Gadkaree in order to reduce the amount of catalyst needed.
However, they do not teach wherein water is disposed between within the more of the mesoporous carbon between PtNiN nanoparticles and the ionomer the at least a portion of the PtNiN nanoparticles disposed within pores of mesoporous carbon and the ionomer.
Hori et al. an electrode for a fuel cell comprising a support having catalyst particles at least inside the support and wherein the support comprises mesoporous carbon (Abstract). Further, the pore diameter is the mesoporous carbon pores are 2-10 nm (Paragraph 0053). The catalyst particles and water are contained inside the mesoporous carbon with the ionomer in contact with the water (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mei, Park, and Gadkaree with Hori so that if ionomer or water is present on the surface of the catalyst particles, they serve as a path of protons (H+) and so protons (H+) on the catalyst particles will be adsorbed and poisoning of the catalyst particles is suppressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 March 13th, 2026