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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith US20050233183A1 in view of Popov US20080113859A1 and Suzue US20190336956A1 and further in view of Cheon US20060093920A1 and TNIM3 (published 2017; retrieved from https://graphit.de).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses an electrode slurry for a fuel cell (Smith, [0221], ink), comprising:
an electrocatalyst particles include a catalytically active species of at least a first metal phase dispersed on a carbon support (Smith, [0100], [0105]), wherein the slurry contains one or more carbon support and/or electrocatalysts (Smith, [0100], [0221]) and wherein the electrocatalyst can also include two or more metals dispersed on the support(s) as separate active species phases (Smith, [0105], “The metal-carbon electrocatalyst powders can also include two or more metals dispersed on the support phase as separate active species phases.”), which the skilled artisan would understand satisfies the claim limitation of a first catalyst comprising a first support on which a first metal is supported, a second catalyst comprising a second support on which a second metal is supported,
an ionomer (Smith, [0140]) and
a solvent (Smith, [0188]). Smith discloses different first and second supports (Smith. [0039], crystalline or amorphous carbon such as graphite, carbon black, activated carbon, carbon fiber, bulk carbon, carbon cloth, carbon nanotubes, carbon paper, carbon flakes and the like, [0096]) but does not disclose wherein the first support and the second support have different mesopore fractions and densities, and wherein a tap density ratio of the second support to the first support is in a range of 1:0.6 to 1:0.8.
Popov teaches wherein a support comprising carbon black, including Ketjen Black, Vulcan XC 72 and Black Pearl 2000, comprise mesopores (having different mesopore fractions) of 680, 100 and 540 m2/g, respectively (Popov, Table 2, mesopores) and having different areas (densities ∝ 1/areas ) (Popov, Table 2, area). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Smith wherein the carbon black support comprises mesopores from 100 to 680 m2/g and areas from 254 to 1500 m2/g, as taught by Popov, thereby increasing in the dispersion of the catalyst (Popov, [0044]), as it is within the ambit of the skilled artisan to make modifications and adaptations to those embodiments which will occur to those skilled in the art (Smith, [0291]). Smith as modified by Popov does not teach the other support having different mesopore fractions and densities, and wherein a tap density ratio of the second support to the first support is in a range of 1:0.6 to 1:0.8.
Suzue teaches a support comprising a support such as carbon nanotubes (Suzue, [0061]) comprising mesopores and a sufficient area (density), 600 to 3,000 m2/g (Suzue, [0075]), and mesopore volume (fraction), 0.6 to 1.5 cc/g (Suzue, [0076]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught Smith as modified by Popov wherein the first support and the second support have different mesopore fractions and densities, thereby to support the catalyst (Suzue, [0061]), as it is within the ambit of the skilled artisan to make modifications and adaptations to those embodiments which will occur to those skilled in the art (Smith, [0291]). Smith as modified by Popov and Suzue does not teach wherein a tap density ratio of the second support to the first support is in a range of 1:0.6 to 1:0.8.
Cheon teaches wherein carbon black used in an electrode slurry comprises a tap density of 0.06 g/cc (Cheon, [0070]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Smith as modified by Popov and Suzue, such that the tap density of the carbon black is 0.06 g/cc, as taught by Cheon thereby balancing the carbon black tap density such that sufficient fluid reaches the electrode during operation (Cheon, [0033]). Smith as modified by Popov, Suzue and Cheon does not teach wherein a tap density ratio of the second support to the first support is in a range of 1:0.6 to 1:0.8.
TNIM3 teaches wherein it is well known in the art that support such as carbon nanotubes can possess a tap density around 0.082 g/cm3 (TNIM3, p. 45, Industrial MWCNTs, tap density). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product taught by Smith as modified by Popov, Suzue and Cheon, wherein the carbon nanotube support comprises a tap density around 0.082 g/cm3 as it is known in the art to posses such a property, satisfying the claim limitation wherein a tap density ratio of the second support to the first support is in a range of 1:0.73. The Courts have ruled "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." See MPEP § 2144.06. The examiner notes selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, Smith as modified by Popov, Suzue, Cheon and TNIM3 further teaches wherein a mesopore fraction of the second support (Suzue, [0076], 60%<) is greater than a mesopore fraction of the first support (Popov, Table 2, 36%<).
Regarding claim 3, Smith as modified by Popov, Suzue, Cheon and TNIM3 also teaches wherein the first support has a mesopore fraction of 36% or greater (Popov, Table 2, 36%<), lying inside the claimed range of 60% or less based on a total pore volume, and the second support has a mesopore fraction of 60% or more (Suzue, [0076], 60%<), over lapping with the claimed range of 80% or more based on the total pore volume. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4¸ Smith as modified by Popov, Suzue, Cheon and TNIM3 additionally teaches wherein the particle sizes of the support are at least about 0.1 µm to about 1 µm (Smith, [0061]), overlapping with the claimed ranges and satisfying the limitation wherein the first support has a particle size in a range of 0.05 µm to 0.2 µm, and the second support has a particle size in a range of 0.2 µm to 3 µm. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Smith as modified by Popov, Suzue, Cheon and TNIM3 further teaches wherein the first support comprises carbon black, acetylene black, Ketjen black, activated carbon, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, or combinations thereof (Smith. [0039], [0096], examples A1-7), and the second support comprises carbon black, Ketjen black, activated carbon, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, or combinations thereof (Smith. [0039], [0096], examples A1-7).
Regarding claim 7, Smith as modified by Popov, Suzue, Cheon and TNIM3 also teaches wherein the first metal comprises platinum, iridium, palladium, ruthenium, alloy, or combinations thereof (Smith, [0105-0106]), and the second metal comprises platinum, iridium, palladium, ruthenium, alloy, or combinations thereof (Smith, [0105-0106]).
Regarding claim 8, Smith as modified by Popov, Suzue, Cheon and TNIM3 additionally teaches wherein the electrocatalyst can also include two or more metals dispersed on the support(s) as separate active species phases (Smith, [0105]) and wherein the support and metal catalyst comprising 0.5 wt % to about 60 wt % of the metal catalyst (Smith, [0171]), overlapping with and rendering obvious the claimed ranges of the first catalyst comprises 30 wt% to 50 wt% of the first metal, and the second catalyst comprises 30 wt% to 50 wt% of the second metal. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Smith discloses a multilayer electrode structure (Smith, [0243]), comprising:
an electrocatalyst particles include a catalytically active species of at least a first metal phase dispersed on a carbon support (Smith, [0100], [0105]), wherein the slurry contains one or more carbon support and/or electrocatalysts (Smith, [0100], [0221]) and wherein the electrocatalyst can also include two or more metals dispersed on the support(s) as separate active species phases (Smith, [0105], “The metal-carbon electrocatalyst powders can also include two or more metals dispersed on the support phase as separate active species phases.”), which the skilled artisan would understand satisfies the claim limitation of a first catalyst comprising a first support on which a first metal is supported, a second catalyst comprising a second support on which a second metal is supported,.
Smith discloses different first and second supports (Smith. [0039], crystalline or amorphous carbon such as graphite, carbon black, activated carbon, carbon fiber, bulk carbon, carbon cloth, carbon nanotubes, carbon paper, carbon flakes and the like, [0096]) but does not disclose a second support having a mesopore fraction and density different from a mesopore fraction and density of the first support wherein a tap density ratio of the second support to the first support is in a range of 1:0.6 to 1:0.8.
Popov teaches wherein a support comprising carbon black, including Ketjen Black, Vulcan XC 72 and Black Pearl 2000, comprise mesopores (having different mesopore fractions) of 680, 100 and 540 m2/g, respectively (Popov, Table 2, mesopores) and having different areas (densities ∝ 1/areas ) (Popov, Table 2, area). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Smith wherein the carbon black support comprises mesopores from 100 to 680 m2/g and areas from 254 to 1500 m2/g, as taught by Popov, thereby increasing in the dispersion of the catalyst (Popov, [0044]), as it is within the ambit of the skilled artisan to make modifications and adaptations to those embodiments which will occur to those skilled in the art (Smith, [0291]). Smith as modified by Popov does not teach the other support having different mesopore fractions and densities, wherein a tap density ratio of the second support to the first support is in a range of 1:0.6 to 1:0.8.
Suzue teaches a support comprising a support such as carbon nanotubes (Suzue, [0061]) comprising mesopores and a sufficient area (density), 600 to 3,000 m2/g (Suzue, [0075]), and mesopore volume (fraction), 0.6 to 1.5 cc/g (Suzue, [0076]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught Smith as modified by Popov wherein the first support and the second support have different mesopore fractions and densities, thereby to support the catalyst (Suzue, [0061]), as it is within the ambit of the skilled artisan to make modifications and adaptations to those embodiments which will occur to those skilled in the art (Smith, [0291]). Smith as modified by Popov and Suzue does not teach wherein a tap density ratio of the second support to the first support is in a range of 1:0.6 to 1:0.8.
Cheon teaches wherein carbon black used in an electrode slurry comprises a tap density of 0.06 g/cc (Cheon, [0070]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Smith as modified by Popov and Suzue, such that the tap density of the carbon black is 0.06 g/cc, as taught by Cheon thereby balancing the carbon black tap density such that sufficient fluid reaches the electrode during operation (Cheon, [0033]). Smith as modified by Popov, Suzue and Cheon does not teach wherein a tap density ratio of the second support to the first support is in a range of 1:0.6 to 1:0.8.
TNIM3 teaches wherein it is well known in the art that support such as carbon nanotubes can possess a tap density around 0.082 g/cm3 (TNIM3, p. 45, Industrial MWCNTs, tap density). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product taught by Smith as modified by Popov, Suzue and Cheon, wherein the carbon nanotube support comprises a tap density around 0.082 g/cm3 as it is known in the art to possess such a property, satisfying the claim limitation wherein a tap density ratio of the second support to the first support is in a range of 1:0.73. The Courts have ruled "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." See MPEP § 2144.06. The examiner notes selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, Smith as modified by Popov, Suzue, Cheon and TNIM3 also teaches wherein the first support has a mesopore fraction of 36% or greater (Popov, Table 2, 36%<), lying inside the claimed range of 60% or less based on a total pore volume, and the second support has a mesopore fraction of 60% or more (Suzue, [0076], 60%<), over lapping with the claimed range of 80% or more based on the total pore volume. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11¸ Smith as modified by Popov, Suzue, Cheon and TNIM3 additionally teaches wherein the particle sizes of the support are at least about 0.1 µm to about 1 µm (Smith, [0061]), overlapping with the claimed ranges and satisfying the limitation wherein the first support has a particle size in a range of 0.05 µm to 0.2 µm, and the second support has a particle size in a range of 0.2 µm to 3 µm. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith US20050233183A1 in view of Popov US20080113859A1, Suzue US20190336956A1, Cheon US20060093920A1 and TNIM3 (published 2017; retrieved from https://graphit.de) and further in view of Garsany US20210391589A1.
Regarding claim 13, Smith as modified by Popov, Suzue, Cheon and TNIM3 does not teach wherein a density of the first electrode layer is different from a density of the second electrode layer.
Garsany teaches wherein a porosity (density) of the first electrode layer is different from a porosity (density) of the second electrode layer (Garsany, [0029]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product as taught by Smith as modified by Popov, Suzue, Cheon and TNIM3 wherein the porosity (density) of the electrode layers are different, as taught by Garsany, thereby outperforming single-layered electrodes (Garsany, [0052]).
Regarding claim 14, Smith as modified by Popov, Suzue, Cheon and TNIM3 does not teach wherein a density of the first electrode layer is greater than a density of the second electrode layer.
Garsany teaches wherein a porosity (density) of the first electrode layer is greater from a porosity (density) of the second electrode layer (Garsany, [0029]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product as taught by Smith as modified by Popov, Suzue, Cheon and TNIM3 wherein the porosity (density) of the first electrode layer is greater, as taught by Garsany, thereby outperforming single-layered electrodes (Garsany, [0052]).
Regarding claim 15, Smith as modified by Popov, Suzue, Cheon and TNIM3 does not teach wherein the multilayer electrode structure does not have an interface between the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer.
Garsany teaches wherein the multilayer electrode structure does not have an interface between the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer (Garsany, Fig. 3, layers 4 and 5). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product as taught by Smith as modified by Popov, Suzue, Cheon and TNIM3 wherein the multilayer electrode structure does not have an interface, as taught by Garsany, thereby outperforming single-layered electrodes (Garsany, [0052]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 9 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inasumi JP2005203332A (discloses a fuel cell structure comprising mesoporous CNT support),
Yoo US20140154609A1 (discloses a carbon support fuel cell electrode catalyst),
Schueth US20150050583A1 (discloses a carbon support fuel cell electrode catalyst).
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 JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
