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 without traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 12 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of manufacturing a multilayer electrode structure, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 February 2026.
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.
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) 1-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swathirajan US6277513B1.
Regarding claim 1, Swathirajan discloses an electrode slurry (Swathirajan, col. 9 lines 6-8) for a fuel cell (Swathirajan, col. 3 lines 1-4), comprising:
a first catalyst (Swathirajan, col. 6 lines 32-34, Fig. 2, layer 70) comprising a first support (Swathirajan, col. 6 line 23, Fig. 2, first group of carbon particles 60) on which a first metal is supported (Swathirajan, col. 6 lines 32-34, Figs. 2-3, catalyst 62),
a second catalyst (Swathirajan, col. 6 lines 36-38, Fig. 2, layer 72) comprising a second support (Swathirajan, col. 6 lines 24, Fig. 2, second group of carbon particles 60) on which a second metal is supported (Swathirajan, col. 6 lines 32-34, Figs. 2-3, catalyst 62),
an ionomer (Swathirajan, col. 8 lines 14-26 and 19-20)
and a solvent (Swathirajan, col. 9 lines 24-26),
and while Swathirajan does not explicitly teach in the embodiment of Figs. 2-4 wherein the first support and the second support have different mesopore fractions and densities, however in a different embodiment Swathirajan teaches wherein the first support and the second support have different mesopore fractions (Swathirajan, Table 2). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first support and the second support such that one is Vulcan XC-72R (Vu) and the other is acetylene black (AB) (Swathirajan, Table 2) because Swathirajan teaches that the carbon particles can be different (Swathirajan, col. 6 lines 26-30), that both Vu and AB are recognized in the art are suitable carbon types (see Swathirajan, Table 2) and or enhancing the rate of oxygen transport (Swathirajan, col. 13 lines 49-50). The examiner notes that there being different carbon types, one being AB the other Vu, they are known in the art to have different densities and satisfy the limitation having different mesopore fractions and densities.
Regarding claim 2, Swathirajan further teaches wherein a mesopore fraction of the second support (Swathirajan, Table 2, AB 93,75%) is greater than a mesopore fraction of the first support (Swathirajan, Table 2, Vu 46.75%).
Regarding claim 3, Swathirajan also teaches wherein the first support has a mesopore fraction of 60% or less based on a total pore volume (Swathirajan, Table 2, Vu 46.75%), and the second support has a mesopore fraction of 80% or more based on the total pore volume (Swathirajan, Table 2, AB 93,75%).
Regarding claim 6, Swathirajan further teaches wherein: the first support comprises carbon black (Swathirajan, col. 11 lines 55-58 and 66-67, Table 2, Fig. 9, Vu), and the second support comprises acetylene black (Swathirajan, col. 11 lines 55-58 and 66-67, Table 2, Fig. 9, AB).
Regarding claim 7, Swathirajan also teaches wherein: the first metal comprises platinum, palladium, ruthenium, alloy, or combinations thereof (Swathirajan, col. 6 lines 62-66), and the second metal comprises platinum, palladium, ruthenium, alloy, or combinations thereof (Swathirajan, col. 6 lines 62-66).
Regarding claim 9. Swathirajan discloses a multilayer electrode structure (Swathirajan, col. 7 lines 1-2), comprising:
a first electrode layer (Swathirajan, col. 6 lines 32-34, Fig. 2, layer 70) comprising a first catalyst in which a first metal (Swathirajan, col. 6 lines 32-34, Figs. 2-3, catalyst 62) is supported on a first support (Swathirajan, col. 6 line 23, Fig. 2, first group of carbon particles 60)
and a second electrode layer (Swathirajan, col. 6 lines 36-38, Fig. 2, layer 72) comprising a second catalyst in which a second metal (Swathirajan, col. 6 lines 32-34, Figs. 2-3, catalyst 62) is supported on a second support (Swathirajan, col. 6 lines 24, Fig. 2, second group of carbon particles 60)
and while Swathirajan does not explicitly teach in the embodiment of Figs. 2-4 wherein the first support and the second support have different mesopore fractions and densities, however in a different embodiment Swathirajan teaches wherein the first support and the second support have different mesopore fractions (Swathirajan, Table 2). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first support and the second support such that one is Vulcan XC-72R (Vu) and the other is acetylene black (AB) (Swathirajan, Table 2), thereby enhancing the rate of oxygen transport (Swathirajan, col. 13 lines 49-50). The examiner notes that there being different carbon types, one being AB the other Vu, they are known in the art to have different densities and satisfy the limitation having different mesopore fractions and densities.
Regarding claim 10, Swathirajan also teaches wherein the first support has a mesopore fraction of 60% or less based on a total pore volume (Swathirajan, Table 2, Vu 46.75%), and the second support has a mesopore fraction of 80% or more based on the total pore volume (Swathirajan, Table 2, AB 93,75%).
Regarding claim 13, Swathirajan also teaches wherein a density of the first electrode layer (Swathirajan, Table 2, Vu) is different from a density of the second electrode layer (Swathirajan, col. 11 lines 52-58, Table 2, AB).
Regarding claim 15, Swathirajan further teaches wherein the multilayer electrode structure does not have an interface between the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer (Swathirajan, col. 7, lines 6-10).
Claim(s) 4, 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swathirajan US6277513B1 in view of Yang KR20200068998A (using machine English translation provided).
Regarding claim 4, Swathirajan teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not teach 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.
Yang teaches wherein the first support has a particle size in a range of 0.05 µm to 0.2 µm (Yang, [0020], 0.1 to 2 µm), and the second support has a particle size in a range of 0.2 µm to 3 µm (Yang, [0020], 3 to 20 µm). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first support particle size of Swathirajan in a range of 0.05 µm to 0.2 µm and the second support particle size of Swathirajan in a range of 0.2 µm to 3 µm, because Yang teaches it’s known in the art to have particles having these dimensions and thereby improving oxygen reactivity (Yang, [0045]).
Regarding claim 8, Swathirajan does not teach wherein: 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.
Yang teaches wherein: the first catalyst comprises 30 wt% to 50 wt% of the first metal (Yang, [0023], 40 to 70 wt%), and the second catalyst comprises 30 wt% to 50 wt% of the second metal (Yang, [0022], 30 to 50 wt%). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the second catalyst wt% of the second metal of Swathirajan with that of Yang, thereby improving oxygen reactivity (Yang, [0045]), and to modify the first catalyst wt% of the first metal of Swathirajan comprises 30 wt% to 50 wt% because Yang teaches it’s known in the art to have wt% in this range, thereby improving oxygen reactivity (Yang, [0045]).
Regarding claim 11, Swathirajan does not teach 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.
Yang teaches wherein the first support has a particle size in a range of 0.05 µm to 0.2 µm (Yang, [0020], 0.1 to 2 µm), and the second support has a particle size in a range of 0.2 µm to 3 µm (Yang, [0020], 3 to 20 µm). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first support particle size of Swathirajan in a range of 0.05 µm to 0.2 µm and the second support particle size of Swathirajan in a range of 0.2 µm to 3 µm, because Yang teaches it’s known in the art to have particles having these dimensions and thereby improving oxygen reactivity (Yang, [0045]).
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swathirajan US6277513B1 as evidenced by Soltex AB (provided) and Carbon Black MSDS (provided).
Regarding claim 5, Swathirajan, as set forth above, has mapping such that the first support is Vulcan XC-72R (Vu) and the second support is acetylene black (AB) (see claim 1 above). Soltex AB evidences wherein acetylene black has a bulk density ranging from 0.05 to 0.129 g/cm3 (Soltex AB, Properties, Bulk Density) and Carbon Black MSDS evidences wherein carbon black, including Vulcan XC-72R, has a bulk density of 0.02 to 0.55 g/cm3 (Carbon Black MSDS, section 9, Bulk Density), giving range a range of (AB:VXC72) 1:0.16 to 1:13.6, and thus having these carbon types evidences the material is within the claimed range, satisfying the limitation wherein a density ratio of the second support to the first support is in a range of 1:0.6 to 1:0.8.
Regarding claim 12, Swathirajan, as set forth above, has mapping such that the first support is Vulcan XC-72R (Vu) and the second support is acetylene black (AB) (see claim 1 above). Soltex AB evidences wherein acetylene black has a bulk density ranging from 0.05 to 0.129 g/cm3 (Soltex AB, Properties, Bulk Density) and Carbon Black MSDS evidences wherein carbon black, including Vulcan XC-72R, has a bulk density of 0.02 to 0.55 g/cm3 (Carbon Black MSDS, section 9, Bulk Density), giving range a range of (AB:VXC72) 1:0.16 to 1:13.6, and thus having these carbon types evidences the material is within the claimed range, satisfying the limitation wherein a density ratio of the second support to the first support is in a range of 1:0.6 to 1:0.8
Regarding claim 14, Swathirajan, as set forth above, has mapping such that the first support is Vulcan XC-72R (Vu) and the second support is acetylene black (AB) (see claim 1 above). Soltex AB evidences wherein acetylene black has a bulk density ranging from 0.05 to 0.129 g/cm3 (Soltex AB, Properties, Bulk Density) and Carbon Black MSDS evidences wherein carbon black, including Vulcan XC-72R, has a bulk density of 0.02 to 0.55 g/cm3 (Carbon Black MSDS, section 9, Bulk Density), thus having these carbon types evidences the material has the claimed properties, satisfying the limitation wherein a density of the first electrode layer is greater than a density of the second electrode layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Garsany US20210391589A1 (discloses a multilayer mesoporous catalyst support comprising different carbons having different porosities),
Bashyam US20220181645A1 (discloses a multilayer mesoporous catalyst support comprising different carbons having different surface areas).
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