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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I invention (claim 1-10) in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 11 is thus withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/25/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In this case, claim 1-2 respectively recite “commercial platinum catalyst”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what is the exact scope of such claimed “commercial platinum catalyst”, instant specification does not give a clear explanation what is “commercial platinum catalyst” either. Does such recited term referring to a platinum catalyst with some other specific material, or any platinum containing material readily available somewhere? Hence, such limitation renders confusion and all claim 1’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In this case, claim 2 recites “mixing 10 to 60 parts by weight of the commercial platinum catalyst and 2.5 to 15 parts by weight of the transition metal precursor with the solvent”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain such recited 10 to 60 parts by weight of commercial platinum catalyst and 2.5 to 15 parts by weight of the transition metal precursor is based on what material, such as the total dispersion, or the solvent, or just being used to refer weight ratio between the commercial platinum catalyst and transition metal precursor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of such claimed limitation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In this case, claim 4 recites “the stirred solution”, claim 4 also recites “stirring the ultrasonic process-completed dispersion with ethanol and distilled water”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain how stirring a suspension into solvent of ethanol and water forming a solution because solution means all the solute is dissolved and uniformly distributed within the solvent, but dispersion has solids suspended in the solvent. Therefore, such limitations render claim indefiniteness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In this case, claim 5 recites “the catalyst…… is subdivided into a boat”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain the exact meaning of the catalyst being subdivided into a boat, does it mean part of the catalyst being put into a boat? Therefore, such limitation renders claim indefiniteness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In this case, claim 7 recites “in the fifth step….. perform the primary heat treatment”, but its parent claim 1 requires in the fifth step performing a secondary heat treatment, therefore, such recited “in the fifth step….. perform the primary heat treatment” does not seem have sufficient antecedent basis.
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.
Claim 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR2019/0063292) in view of Guo (CN114597431) and Lee (KR2020/0053431) (For applicant’s convenience, Machine translations of these foreign patents have been used for citations).
Park et al teaches a process of making platinum shell and transition core catalyst (claims) comprising: preparing a dispersion by mixing platinum acetylacetonate (Aldrich) solution, i.e. a commercial platinum precursor, transition metal precursor, and carbon support in a solvent-e.g. ethylene glycol (page 3 4th para.-page 4 5th para., example 1-2, 4-6), putting an ultrasonic tip into the dispersion and performing ultrasonic process wherein such ultrasonic irradiation generates reaction temperature ( i.e. heating) of 70 to 220 °C to produce a solid product, purifying and washing the solid product with ethanol, vacuum drying the washed solid product, heating treating the vacuum dried solid product under a nitrogen atmosphere (e.g. NH3) to obtain the catalyst (example 4-6). As for the claimed “using an oxide coating”, which is enabled by ultrasonic wave (see the instant specification in the published application US2023/0402619 para. [0055]), Park et al. already teaches same or substantially the same ultrasonic wave application onto same or substantially the same transition metal, therefore, same or substantially the same “using an oxide coating” is expected.
Since Park et al. already teaches platinum acetylacetonate being obtained from Aldrich- a commercial company, therefore, a commercial Pt precursor is envisioned.
Regarding 1, Park et al. does not expressly teach the platinum catalyst being a platinum alloy catalyst, or platinum precursor being platinum catalyst, or instantly claimed acid treatment step or secondary heating.
Guo teaches using platinum carbon catalyst together with cobalt salt in a solvent to form a suspension to produce a platinum-cobalt alloy catalyst (abstract, page 3 lines 9-10, embodiment 1 etc.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known platinum carbon catalyst as shown by Guo to modify the platinum precursor of Park et al. because adopting such well-known technique of platinum carbon catalyst as precursor to modify a well-known process of forming Pt and cobalt containing catalyst for improvement would yield predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to purchase a commercial platinum carbon catalyst because it is readily available and convenient to obtain.
Lee teaches a process forming a gold doped platinum-based alloy catalyst (claims, page 4 2nd para.) comprising mixing platinum precursor, cobalt precursor in a solvent and adding carbon to the solution, reducing under H2/N2 (a reducing atmosphere), first annealing forming a platinum-cobalt alloy catalyst, then acid treating the annealed alloy catalyst to remove the cobalt oxide layer on the catalyst surface, second annealing to form a gold doped platinum-cobalt alloy catalyst(claims page 4 9th para., page 5 4th-9th para., page 8 manufacturing example).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such acid treatment as shown by Lee to modify the process of Park et al. because by doing so can help obtaining a Pt-cobalt alloy catalyst with improved activity and durability as suggested by Lee (claims, page 3 7-8 para.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt second annealing and the gold doped alloy catalyst as shown by Lee to modify the Pt-transition metal catalyst producing process of Park et al because by doing so can help provide a gold doped alloy catalyst with improved activity and durability as suggested by Lee (page 3 first para. -2nd para., last para., page 8 manufacturing example, experimental example 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, Park et al does not expressly teach “mixing 10 to 60 parts by weight of the commercial platinum catalyst and 2.5 to 15 parts by weight of the transition metal precursor with the solvent”.
Guo further teaches the mass ratio of platinum carbon catalyst being 1 g while transition metal salt being 0.2 g being mixed in solvent.
Lee further teaches concentration of platinum precursor (platinum acetylacetone) can be from 0.5 to 2.10 mmol, while transition metal, e.g. cobalt acetylacetone can be from 0.25 to 1.05 mmol, such amount suggests the platinum precursor weight to transition metal precursor weight overlapping with that of instantly claimed commercial platinum weight parts as compared to the transition metal weight parts. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a same “mixing 10 to 60 parts by weight of the commercial platinum catalyst and 2.5 to 15 parts by weight of the transition metal precursor with the solvent” as that of instantly claimed via routine experimentation (see MPEP §2144. 05 II) for help obtaining a desired platinum and transition metal alloy catalyst as suggested by Lee.
Regarding claim 3, Park et al. further teaches the ultrasonic process being performed under 150 °C for 3 hours (example 1-3, example 4-6) obtaining a solid product, which is then purified and washed with ethanol and dried in a vacuum atmosphere, i.e. a post-treatment process is performed after completing the ultrasonic process.
Regarding claim 4, Park et al does not expressly teach stirring the ultrasonic process completed dispersion with ethanol and distilled water, respectively, washing the solution using a filter, drying for 50 to 70 °C for 20 to 28 hours. However, since Park et al. already teaches vacuum drying, apparently using a vacuum drying device. Lee also teaches acid washing can use stirring, washing step can use deionized water and drying step can be performed under temperature 40 to 80 °C (page 5 6th last - 2nd last para., page 6 1st para.). It is noted that deionized water is a high purified water like distilled water. Guo also teaches filtering to separate solution and catalyst precursor (page 6 embodiment 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine well-known deionized water as washing agent according to known method of obtaining desired platinum alloy catalyst would yield predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to commercially available distilled water to practice the washing agent because it is readily available and commonly used as washing/cleaning agent. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use well-known stirring as shown by Lee to mix ethanol and distilled water respectively into the ultrasonic process completed dispersion of Park et al. and washing such obtained stirred dispersion with a well-known filter as shown by Guo to separate the solution and catalyst precursor in the stirred dispersion because adopting such well-known techniques to improve a well-known process of forming Pt-transition metal catalyst for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt the drying temperature as shown by Lee to modify the drying temperature of Park et al with same time as that of instantly claimed via routine experimentation (see MPEP §2144. 05 II) for help obtaining a dried product with no moisture left.
As for claim 4 recited “sequentially stirring……”, selection of any order of adding ingredients or prior art process steps is prima facie obvious (See §MPEP 2144.04). Applied reference already teaches stirring ethanol and water into the solution as discussed above.
Regarding claim 5, Park et al. further teaches the primary heating being performed under 510 °C and Lee further teaches the reducing step under H2/N2 (a reducing atmosphere) can be performed under 300-600 °C for 1 to 5 hours. As for a boat made of aluminum, Guo teaches heating can be performed in a ceramic boat (page 6 embodiment 1 3rd para.). Since alumina is well-known ceramic material, therefore, adopting a ceramic boat made of aluminum is an obvious choice for one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a well-known ceramic boat made of from well-known aluminum for performing needed heat treatment as suggested by Guo. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such reducing heating time as shown by Lee to modify the reducing heat treatment onto the solid product of Park et al because adopting such known technique of reducing heat treatment time to improve a well-known method of forming a Pt-transition metal catalyst would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 7, Lee further teaches after acid treatment, second annealing may be performed in 100 to 500 °C for 1 to 5 hours (claims, page 6 4th-5th para.).
Regarding claim 8-10, Park et al. already teaches such limitations.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR2019/0063292) in view of Guo (CN114597431) and Lee (KR2020/0053431) as applied above, and further in view of Hua (CN113540481) (For applicant’s convenience, Machine translations of these foreign patents have been used for citations).
Park et al in view of Guo and Lee has been described as above. Park et al. already teaches stirring the solution for acid treatment (page 5 10-11 and 13 para.).
Park in view of Guo and Lee does not expressly teach the acid being perchloric acid, or acid treatment temperature being 70 to 95 °C for 1 to 2 hours.
Hua teaches using ethanol, perchloric acid, water solution of acetone or mixed solution of the above substances under temperature of 35-70 °C to treat the coarse platinum-cobalt alloy catalyst (claim 1, 7-8).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known mixed solution containing perchloric acid and ethanol as shown by Hua to modify the acid treatment in the catalyst producing process of Park et al in view of Guo and Lee because adopting such known technique of post treatment solution, temperature and time to improve a well-known method of forming a Pt-cobalt alloy catalyst would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
As for the claimed heating mantle, it is a well-known heating device for desired heating preferably used in laboratory, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known heating mantle apparatus for help providing desired heating for the acid treatment process.
As for the claimed sequentially stirred with ethanol and distilled water, respectively, stirred solution being subjected to a washing process using a filter, then washed solution is vacuum-dried at 50 to 70 °C for 20 to 28 hours, please see similar remarks at claim 4. As for the claimed acid treatment process and post-treatment process are repeated performed twice, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to repeating such well-known acid treatment process twice to remove as much as cobalt oxide and washing and cleaning the platinum-cobalt alloy catalyst therefore help obtaining a desired platinum-cobalt alloy catalyst with minimized impurities. Furthermore, repeating such well-known steps twice for modifying such well-known process of forming platinum cobalt alloy catalyst for improvement would have predicable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732