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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 03/11/2026 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/11/2026.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The foreign document KR 10-2022-0152165 (filed on 11/15/2022) has been received and placed in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/26/2023 has been made of record. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy accompanies this office action.
Status of Application
5. This application was filed on 07/26/2023.
Claims 1-20 were originally presented in this application for examination.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application for examination.
Specification
6. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file.
Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any.
The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any, should be updated in a timely manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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(s) 1-8, 11-13, & 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 2004/0101718 A1), hereinafter “Cao et al.” taken together with Stamenkovic et al. (US 2021/0094021 A1), hereinafter “Stamenkovic”.
The claimed invention relates to a method of preparing a catalyst for an electrochemical reaction, the method comprising:
(1) synthesizing a catalyst including a first active material and a second active material having a higher oxidation temperature than an oxidation temperature of the first active material;
(2) imparting fluidity to the catalyst by heat-treating the catalyst and reducing the first active material and the second active material;
(3) maintaining fluidity of the catalyst; and
(4) selectively oxidizing the first active material by performing heat treatment at a temperature lower than the oxidation temperature of the second active material (as recited in the instant claim 1).
Cao et al. discloses a method for production of an alloyed platinum-ruthenium catalyst for electrooxidation comprising the step of simultaneously decomposing a platinum complex and a ruthenium complex by a thermal treatment, followed by a reduction treatment (see p. 3, claim 1).
The thermal treatment is performed in an inert atmosphere (hydrogen) at a heating temperature of at least 260oC, between 280 and 320oC (see p. 2, [0016]; p. 3, claims 12-16).
The platinum and ruthenium complexes are absorbed on an inert support, such as conductive carbon, are rapidly heated in an inert atmosphere (argon atmosphere) until reaching a final temperature of 300 ± 20oC. Once the final temperature is reached, the reduction step may take place by blending 10-20% of hydrogen into the argon atmosphere until completion. After reaching the final temperature, the catalyst material is kept in inert atmosphere for a few hours more (2 to 4 hours). See p. 2, [0017].
Regarding claim 1, Cao et al. appears to teach the claimed method of preparing a catalyst comprising process steps (1), (2), & (3) as claimed (see p. 2, [0016] & [0017]; p. 3, claims 1 & 12-16), but does not teach step (4), which is “selectively oxidizing the first active material by performing heat treatment at a temperature lower than the oxidation temperature of the second active material”.
Stamenkovic et al., is in the field of PtRuO2 heterojunction catalyst production and teaches to anneal the platinum-ruthenium catalyst mixture at a temperature of 100-200oC in an ambient air environment to convert the element Ru to RuO2 to obtain a catalyst comprises ultrafine Pt particles atomically connected with RuO2 (see p. 2, [0029]-[0030]). Stamenkovic et al. further discloses Pt:Ru at a ratio of 1:12 to 1:6 (see p. 3, [0025]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to add the oxidation step as taught in Stamenkovic et al., considering oxidizing the catalyst mixture of Cao et al. to result in a catalyst having an oxide form because it is known in Stanmenkovic et al. to heat treating the same catalyst mixture.
Regarding claims 2 & 3, the disclosed catalyst comprises Ru (a first active material) and Pt (a second active material) (see p. 3, claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Cao et al. does not disclose the mass ratio or amounts of the first active material to the second active material as further defines in the claim. Stamenkovic et al. teaches Pt:Ru at a mass ratio of 1:12 to 1:6 (see p. 3, [0025]). Thus, it is considered a person skilled in the art (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) would have looked into Stamenkovic et al. to use Pt and Ru at the amounts suggested by Stamenkovic et al. to result in a similar catalyst having ultrafine particles (see p. 2, [0030]). The claimed mass ratio of “0.1 to 10:1” is either falling within and/or overlapping with the disclosed range.
Regarding claims 5-7, Cao et al. teaches the thermal treatment is performed in an inert atmosphere (hydrogen) at a heating temperature of at least 260oC, between 280 and 320oC (see p. 2, [0016]; p. 3, claims 12-16). The heat treating is carried out and maintained at the final temperature for 2 to 4 hours (p. 3, claim 14). Even though the disclosed heating temperature is below 350oC, it would have been obvious to optimize such heating temperature in the process of the reference to effectively heat treating the catalyst mixture, because of In re Boesch.
Regarding claim 8, the claimed limitation is further defining the gas that creates the oxidizing atmosphere in claim 7 that is used in step (3) of the method claim 1, is an alternative but not required so it is not addressed.
Regarding claims 11-13 & 15-16, Cao et al. teaches the claimed method of preparing a catalyst comprising process steps (1), (3), & (4) as claimed (see p. 2, [0016] & [0017]; p. 3, claims 1 & 12-16), but does not teach step (2), which is “heat-treating the catalyst and oxidizing the first active material and the second active material”.
The method of claim 11 appears different from the method of claim 1, by performing the oxidization in step (2) and followed by the reduction in step (4). However, considering adding the oxidation step as taught by Stamenkovic et al. to perform the oxidation of the catalyst mixture before the reduction step in the process of Cao et al. to produce a catalyst in a metallic form, since it involves only routine experimentation of a person within the level of ordinary skill in the art to do so without inventive skill required.
The instant claims are obvious over the combination of Cao et al. and Stamenkovic et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 9-10, 14, & 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art teaches the claimed method of preparing a catalyst for an electrochemical reaction comprising steps (1)- (4) as claimed, however it does not teach the claimed features as further defined in these claims.
- step (4) is performed within a range of 1 hour to 3 hours at a temperature in a range of 300 °C to 500 °C in a gas atmosphere containing 5% or more of oxygen (O₂) (as defined in claims 9 & 14).
-peaks of the catalyst are observed at 20 = 28°±1°, 35°±1°, 40°±1°, 46°±1°, 54°±1°, 68°±1°, and 81°±1° in an X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) spectrum (as defined in claims 10 & 17).
There would be no motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references together to arrive to the claimed invention.
Citations
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for platinum-ruthenium catalyst production. See PTO-892 Form prepared.
Conclusion
9. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-8, 11-13, & 15-16 are rejected. Claims 9-10, 14, & 17 are objected. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov.
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, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached at 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/CNN/
June 07, 2026
Prosecution Insights