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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome all of the rejection grounds presented in the prior Office action. However, further search was conducted in view of the newly presented claim limitations, resulting in at least some of the claims being subject to new rejection grounds over the prior art as set forth below.
Priority
New claims 31-34 do not find support in U.S. Provisional application 63/313,594. While a core-shell catalyst was discussed therein on page 8, lines 23-29, the only examples discussed were tin or titanium metal nanoparticles having an oxidized surface layer. The full scope of claims 31-34 does not find support in the earlier filed application. Thus, claims 31-34 are examined with an effective filing date of 22 February 2023.
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.
Claims 1, 17, 18, 22-27, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamura (JP 10-087853) in view of Goniakowski et al (“The adsorption of H2O on TiO2 and SnO2(110) studied by first-principles calculations”) and Thornton et al (“Tin Oxide Surfaces: Part I – Surface Hydroxyl Groups and the Chemisorption of Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide on Tin (IV) Oxide”).
Yamamura teaches (see English abstract and machine translation at third and sixth paragraphs on the second page and at third paragraph on the fourth page) a bipolar membrane that include an anion exchange material layer, a cation exchange material layer, and a catalyst layer disposed at the interface junction between the two exchange material layers, wherein the catalyst was a catalyst for water dissociation, and wherein the catalyst may be a “composite” including two or more types of oxide catalysts. The interface junction comprised a solitary layer.
Yamamura generally teaches that the water dissociation catalyst may include two or more catalytic oxides, but does not recite a SnO2 catalyst. Yamamura does teach (see sixth paragraph on page 3 of translation) using titanium oxide, zirconium oxide or a group IVA metal oxide.
Goniakowski et al teach (see abstract, sections 3.2, 4.1, and 4.2) that SnO2 was functionally equivalent to TiO-2 at performing dissociative adsorption of water, resulting in formation of protons and hydroxyl anions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have expressly chosen SnO2 as the water dissociation catalyst of Yamamura because Goniakowski et al show that it possessed water dissociation capabilities on par with the expressly taught TiO2 catalyst.
Goniakowski et al fail to teach the SnO2 water dissociation catalyst including surfaces having proton-containing species.
Thornton et al teach (see abstract, Materials section spanning pages 461 and 462, and Water and Hydroxyl Groups section spanning pages 468 and 469 that tin (IV) oxide (i.e. SnO2) produced by hydrolysis of tin chloride possessed surface hydroxyl groups on the SnO2 particles. The adsorption of the hydroxyl groups occurred spontaneously upon exposure of the SnO-2 particles to water.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have expected the SnO2 water dissociation catalyst of Goniakowski et al to inherently possess surface hydroxyl groups as taught by Thornton et al. Note that the claim term “proton-containing species”, when interpreted in light of the original specification, especially page 8, lines 13-15 as well as claims 22 and 23, includes water, hydroxyl-groups or “other proton-containing species”.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Yamamura teaches (see “Embodiment of the Invention” paragraph on page 5 of the machine translation) providing a bipolar membrane according to the disclosure in combination with an anode and a cathode and applying a current density. This structure is an electrochemical device.
Regarding claim 22, as described in the teachings of Thornton et al, SnO2 inherently forms surface hydroxyl groups upon exposure to water.
Regarding claim 23, during use in the electrochemical device, the catalyst at the bipolar membrane interface was exposed to water. At least some of that water would have become adsorbed onto the surface of SnO2 catalyst as shown as happening in fig 4(c) of Goniakowski et al.
Regarding claim 24, as discussed above, Yamamura et al teach the bipolar membrane comprising first and second members and an interface junction having a solitary layer comprising a composite water dissociation catalyst.
Yamamura generally teaches that the water dissociation catalyst may include two or more catalytic oxides, but does not recite a SnO2 catalyst nor surface hydroxylated groups. Yamamura does teach (see sixth paragraph on page 3 of translation) using titanium oxide, zirconium oxide or a group IVA metal oxide.
Goniakowski et al teach (see abstract, sections 3.2, 4.1, and 4.2) that SnO2 was functionally equivalent to TiO-2 at performing dissociative adsorption of water, resulting in formation of protons and hydroxyl anions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have expressly chosen SnO2 as the water dissociation catalyst of Yamamura because Goniakowski et al show that it possessed water dissociation capabilities on par with the expressly taught TiO2 catalyst.
Goniakowski et al fail to teach the SnO2 water dissociation catalyst having surface hydroxylated groups.
Thornton et al teach (see abstract, Materials section spanning pages 461 and 462, and Water and Hydroxyl Groups section spanning pages 468 and 469 that tin (IV) oxide (i.e. SnO2) produced by hydrolysis of tin chloride possessed surface hydroxyl groups on the SnO2 particles. The adsorption of the hydroxyl groups occurred spontaneously upon exposure of the SnO-2 particles to water.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have expected the SnO2 water dissociation catalyst of Goniakowski et al to inherently possess surface hydroxyl groups as taught by Thornton et al.
Regarding claim 25, Yamamura et al teach (see paragraph [0013] of original Japanese document and corresponding portion of translation) the metal oxide catalyst being in the form of nanoparticles having a size of 0.02-0.5 mm (20-500 nm).
Regarding claim 26, Yamamura teaches (see “Embodiment of the Invention” paragraph on page 5 of the machine translation) providing a bipolar membrane according to the disclosure in combination with an anode and a cathode and applying a current density. This structure is an electrochemical device.
Regarding claim 27, as noted above, Yamamura and Goniakowski et al teach the catalyst being effective to promote dissociation of water into protons and hydroxyl anions.
Regarding claim 44, the SnO2 particles suggested by Goniakowski et al possessed a bulk crystalline region (central core of particle) and a surface region comprising hydroxyl groups as taught by Thornton et al. Note that the hydroxyl groups inherently acted to provide proton donor or proton acceptor sites.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamura (JP 10-087853) in view of Goniakowski et al (“The adsorption of H2O on TiO2 and SnO2(110) studied by first-principles calculations”) and Fujihara et al (“Hydrothermal Routes to Prepare Nanocrystalline SnO2 Having High Thermal Stability”).
Yamamura teaches (see English abstract and machine translation at third and sixth paragraphs on the second page and at third paragraph on the fourth page) a bipolar membrane that include an anion exchange material layer, a cation exchange material layer, and a catalyst layer disposed at the interface junction between the two exchange material layers, wherein the catalyst was a catalyst for water dissociation, and wherein the catalyst may be a “composite” including two or more types of oxide catalysts. The interface junction comprised a solitary layer.
Yamamura generally teaches that the water dissociation catalyst may include two or more catalytic oxides, but does not recite a SnO2 catalyst. Yamamura does teach (see sixth paragraph on page 3 of translation) using titanium oxide, zirconium oxide or a group IVA metal oxide.
Goniakowski et al teach (see abstract, sections 3.2, 4.1, and 4.2) that SnO2 was functionally equivalent to TiO-2 at performing dissociative adsorption of water, resulting in formation of protons and hydroxyl anions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have expressly chosen SnO2 as the water dissociation catalyst of Yamamura because Goniakowski et al show that it possessed water dissociation capabilities on par with the expressly taught TiO2 catalyst.
Goniakowski et al fail to teach the SnO2 water dissociation catalyst was synthesized via reflux hydrolysis of SnCl4·5H2O.
Fujihara et al teach (see abstract and Experimental Methods section on page 6477) forming SnO2 nanoparticles (note in paragraph spanning columns on page 6477 that the formed particles had crystallite size of 4.0 nm) that did not require the presence of ammonia by conducting hydrolysis of SnCl4·5H2O under refluxing conditions at 95°C. The formed SnO2 nanoparticles possessed high specific surface area, resistance to particle growth at elevated temperatures and a relatively narrow size distribution (i.e. fairly uniform particle size).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the refluxed hydrolysis reaction taught by Fujihara et al to make the SnO2 catalyst of Goniakowski et al because Fujihara et al teach that the refluxed hydrolysis reaction produced uniform nanoparticles having high specific surface area without using ammonia.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim31-40 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 38-40 correspond to prior claim 7 and are allowable for the reasons as stated in the prior Office action. Claims 31-37 are allowable over the prior art because there is no suggestion of using a core-shell composite catalyst at the interface layer of a bipolar membrane nor of using a core-shell composite catalyst among the claimed materials for a water dissociation reaction. The Ti/TiO2 core-shell catalyst was known in the prior art (see Kato et al “Synthesis of core/shell Ti/TiOx photocatalyst via single-mode magnetic microwave assisted direct oxidation of TiH-2”), however the application of the Ti/TiOx core-shell catalyst to water dissociation (H2O->H++OH-) nor use of it at the interface of a bipolar membrane was suggested in the prior art. The lack of these suggestions in the prior art prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from having a reasonable expectation of successfully using the core-shell catalyst of Kato et al at the bipolar junction of Yamamura et al.
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 HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights