DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/204,134 application filed 31 May 2023, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-14 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: intert in line 1 should be inert. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 8 recites the broad recitation inert gas, and the claims also recite nitrogen, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Applicant is reminded that “[u]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327. Evidence that inert gases include nitrogen may be found in, for example, Odeh et al (WO 2017/074667) [see paragraph 0057].
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
With respect to claim 8 (as well as claims 9 and 10), there does not appear to be any difference between steps (B-1) and (B-2). Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined. For purposes of continued examination, (B-1) and (B-2) are considered the same, which is in keeping with a broadest reasonable interpretation. Additionally, if (B-1) and (B-2) are the same, there appears to be no difference between them and step (B) in instant claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. See prior discussion with respect to (B-1), (B-2), and (B) above. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karuppannan et al in Energy and Environmental Science (2019, vol 12, pp 2820-2829).
With respect to claims 1 and 8, Karuppannan et al discloses “carbon encapsulation of nanosized Pt cathode catalysts for ultra-low Pt loading proton exchange membrane fuel cells is an effective approach to enhance their stability and catalytic activity for the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR)” [abstract] and “[h]erein, a Pt catalyst encapsulated in a thin, uniform N-containing carbon layer was synthesized on a carbon nanofiber (CNF) support in a simple manner. The catalyst was synthesized through the simple thermal reduction of Pt–aniline complex-coated CNFs. Pt ions (Pt4+) and aniline form a complex at a fixed ratio, and the use of the Pt–aniline complex as the source of the Pt and carbon shell allowed the maintenance of the ratio of carbon to Pt. The simple thermal reduction of the precisely-controlled Pt–aniline complex yielded uniform Pt nanoparticles that were individually coated with a N-containing carbon layer at the subnanometer scale” [2nd paragraph on right hand side of page 2821] and “[t]he Pt–aniline complex was synthesized by dissolving 0.12 g of H2PtCl66H2O (Sigma Aldrich, USA) in 35 mL of distilled aniline (Sigma-Aldrich, USA). The solution was stirred for 5 hours at room temperature. The excess aniline that had not reacted with the Pt precursor was then washed out using 0.2 M HCl. Through this process, a dark purple Pt–aniline complex powder was obtained. The Pt–aniline complex powder was filtered and dried in a vacuum oven at 80 1C. CNFs (diameter: 100 nm, length: 20–200 mm, Sigma Aldrich, USA) were then coated with the dried Pt–aniline complex powder by mixing 60 mg of the powder and 50 mg of the CNFs in 30 mL of ethanol under ultrasonication. After evaporating the ethanol at 60 oC, CNFs that were uniformly coated with the Pt–aniline complex were obtained. The Pt–aniline complex-coated CNFs were then heat treated in a tube furnace at 600, 700 and 900 oC under a N2 atmosphere for an hour, which produced CNFs with nanoparticles encapsulated in N-containing carbon layers (Pt@CS/CNF). The synthesized materials were denoted as Pt@CS/CNF600, Pt@CS/CNF700 and Pt@CS/CNF900 based on the heat treatment temperature” [see first paragraph under the heading “Experimental” and “Catalyst Synthesis” on page 2821]. The aforementioned CNFs that were uniformly coated with the Pt–aniline complex corresponds to step (A) of instant claim 1. The heat treatment in the tube furnace corresponds to step (B). The Pt corresponds to the active metal supported on the CNF (carbon nanofiber) support.
With respect to 11, Karuppannan et al discloses “[h]eat-treating the coated CNFs produced 3–4 nm-sized Pt nanoparticles that were uniformly coated with a layer of carbon on the CNF surface (Pt@CS/CNF)” [abstract].
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al (KR 20210067176).
Note: in the discussion that follows, reference will be made to the accompanying English-language machine translation provided by the WIPO.
With respect to claims 1 and 8, Jung et al discloses “a method of preparing a platinum-based catalyst for a hydrogen oxidation reaction, the method including: (A) preparing platinum-based nanoparticles by pyrolyzing a platinum precursor solution including an organic ligand; and (B) heat-treating the platinum-based nanoparticles prepared in the above step in a hydrogen atmosphere, wherein the platinum-based nanoparticles are surrounded by a porous carbon shell having selectivity to hydrogen” [see 1st paragraph under the heading “Problem to be Solved”]. Jung et al further teaches “[i]n the platinum precursor including the organic ligand, the organic ligand may be, for example, β-diketone such as acetylacetonate (acac), but is not limited thereto, [compare to the teaching in paragraph 0043 of the instant specification—Examiner’s insertion] and any material that may include a carbon source and may be reduced to platinum by pyrolysis may be used. The metal other than platinum may be, for example, Ru, Pd, Co, Fe, Cu, or Ni as a metal capable of improving a hydrogen oxidation reaction of platinum with an alloy with platinum, but is not limited thereto…The metal precursor, which may be reduced to a platinum-based alloy by pyrolysis in the presence of a platinum precursor as a complex with an organic ligand, may include Ru(acac) , Fe(acac), Co(acac), Ni(acac), Cu(acac), Pd(acac), Co(OAc),… including β-diketone, carbonyl, or a carboxyl ligand, but is not limited to the ligand, and any platinum-based alloy may be reduced by pyrolysis…The pyrolysis in step (A) may be any condition in which a platinum precursor including an organic ligand is platinum nanoparticles, and when another metal precursor is included, the thermal decomposition may be any condition capable of reducing platinum and the alloy nanoparticles of the metal…The step (A) may further include a carbon support in the solution. In this case, the platinum-based nanoparticles are formed in a state of being supported on a carbon support. As the carbon support, carbon black, carbon nanotubes, graphene, reduced materials of graphene oxide, amorphous carbon, and the like may be used…since carbon has a predetermined solubility with respect to platinum (and metal) constituting platinum-based nanoparticles, carbon derived from an organic ligand exists in the platinum-based nanoparticles. Carbon present in the nanoparticles is separated by the heat treatment in step (B) to be rearranged into a carbon shell surrounding the nanoparticles. In this case, when heat treatment is performed in a hydrogen atmosphere, pores are formed in the carbon shell by H-termination and etching of the carbon shell by hydrogen. In the present disclosure, the hydrogen atmosphere refers to an inert gas atmosphere including hydrogen. The heat treatment temperature was preferably 600 to 1200° C [compare to, for example, paragraph 0050 of the instant application: “[w]hen heat-treated in the mixed gas atmosphere, the component may be heated-up to a temperature in the range of 700oC to 1200oC for 1 hour to 2 hours, and then may be heat-treated at a temperature in the range of 700oC to 1200oC for 30 minutes to 2 hours”—Examiner’s insertion]. As the heat treatment temperature increases, the crystallinity of the carbon shell increases to form a perfect carbon bond, and thus the pores are smaller and dense, and as the hydrogen concentration increases, defects increase, and thus the size or porosity of the pores increases. Therefore, it is obvious that the size and porosity of the pores of the carbon shell surrounding the nanoparticles can be controlled by appropriately changing the heat treatment conditions such as temperature or hydrogen concentration” [last paragraph on page 4 and 1st paragraph on page 5 of translation]. The reference further discloses “[i]n the samples heat-treated in an Ar atmosphere, which is an inert gas, as the heat treatment temperature increases, the crystallinity of the carbon shell increases, and thus a perfect carbon bond is formed, and thus pores are very small and a dense carbon shell is coated on the metal surface, and as a result, the exposed metal surface area is greatly reduced. When the heat treatment is performed in a hydrogen atmosphere, the surface area of the exposed metal is very wide compared to the Ar atmosphere, which means that the porosity of the carbon shell is high. This may be described as being caused by H-termination and etching effects in the process of forming the carbon shell. From this, it was confirmed that the porosity of the carbon shell can be adjusted by adjusting the heat treatment temperature and the hydrogen concentration” [last paragraph on page 7 of translation]. Step (A) of Jung et al corresponds to step (A) of instant claim 1. Step (B) of the former corresponds to step (B) of the latter. The carbon shell corresponds to the carbon layer coated on a surface of the active metal.
With respect to claim 14, see, e.g., figure 4b:
PNG
media_image1.png
538
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (KR 20210067176).
With respect to claim 3, nitrogen is clearly an inert gas as discussed above. Recall, also, the reference discloses a “hydrogen atmosphere refers to an inert gas atmosphere including hydrogen.” Consequently, a mixed gas comprising hydrogen and nitrogen would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 4, note that the concentration (or volume ratio) of hydrogen is a result-effective variable; that is, a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the result is the porosity of the carbon shell as discussed above. Applicant is reminded that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. See MPEP 2144.05. The preceding applies to instant claim 10 as well.
With respect to claim 11, Jung et al discloses “[a]s shown in FIG. 2 showing the size of the particles through TEM image analysis in each sample, the size of the particles in all samples was almost similar to about 2.5 to 3 nm” [see 1st paragraph on page 7 of translation].
With respect to claims 12-14, since the method of preparing the platinum-based catalyst for a hydrogen oxidation reaction is the same or similar to the method of manufacture of the instant application (see discussion above), it is expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that said platinum-based catalyst has the required EMSA, catalyst activity in an oxygen reduction reaction, and mass activity in a hydrogen oxidation reaction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not appear to anticipate or render obvious a gas atmosphere comprising carbon monoxide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
21 November 2025