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 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) 1-6, 8-12, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (JP Publication 2010-113949).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 17, Okada discloses a process of forming a catalyst layer with improved heat dissipation comprising: forming a solution of a carbon support carrying a platinum catalyst, a carbon support not carrying a catalyst (heat dissipation material), pure water (dispersion medium) and a Nafion solution (ionomer); forming a catalyst ink by ball milling the solution, applying the ink on a substrate, and drying the ink to form a catalyst layer (Page 3, Advantageous effects and Page 8). It would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art that drying removes the water. As to claim 3, Okada teaches that the carbon support can be Ketjen black, graphite, carbon fiber, carbon nanotube, nanohorn or fullerene (Page 6, paragraph 2 and Page 8, preparation of catalyst ink). Regarding claim 9, Okada states that the catalyst layers can have a thickness of 7 µm (Page 8, Production of MEA). As to claims 10 and 11, Okada discloses that the catalyst layers described above are pressed onto the sides of an electrolyte membrane to act as an anode and cathode in the formation of a membrane electrode assembly, and that the MEA is used in a fuel cell (Page 5 and Page 8, production of MEA).
Okada fails to specifically state how the heat dissipation is disposed with respect to the catalyst and carrier materials, that the heat dissipation material has a smaller size than the catalyst carrier, that the heat dissipation can be ceramic nanoparticles having a size of 10 to 500 nm, that the amount of the heat dissipation material is 0.1 to 15 wt% with respect to the total weight of the electrode solution, and that a weight ratio of the catalyst and the heat dissipation material is 5:1 to 20:1.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Okada discloses that the content ratio of the unsupported carbon support based on the total weight of the unsupported carbon support and the carbon support of the catalyst material is 5-60% (Page 4, paragraph 6). As to claims 4, 6 and 8, Okada teaches that the unsupported carrier can be ceramics or metal oxides, and that the size of the carrier is 10 to 1000 nm (Page 3, 2nd paragraph and Page 6, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the amount of catalyst would be in the same range as that of the carbon support since it is supported on the carbon support. Therefore, when the catalyst is added into the ratio of the unsupported carbon to the total catalyst material, the catalyst ratio would be greater, but could still fall in the range of 5:1 to 20:1 if the amount of unsupported carbon was closer to 5% of the total of unsupported carbon and carbon support. Regarding claims 2 and 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the heat dissipation material would be randomly distributed and adjacent the catalyst in the layer as well as disposed on the carrier surface because the heat dissipation material is mixed with the carrier and catalyst and ball milled, which creates this type of end product. As to claims 6 and 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the ceramic or metal oxide used for the unsupported carrier could be a nanoparticle having a size between 10 and 500 nm because Okada teaches that the carrier has a size in this range and the unsupported carrier would be included in this as a type of carrier. Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the unsupported carrier could have a smaller size than the catalyst carrier because Okada gives a wide range for the sizes of the carriers and thus the unsupported carrier could be chosen to have a smaller size in order to aid in improved heat dissipation of the overall material.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (JP Publication 2010-113949) in view of Kawahara (JP Publication 2008-251549).
The teachings of Okada have been discussed in paragraph 3 above.
Okada fails to disclose that the ceramic nanoparticles are one or more of boron nitride, aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide, silicon carbide, and beryllium oxide, and that a weight ratio of the catalyst and ionomer is 10:1 to 2:3.
Kawahara discloses a membrane-electrode catalyst structure for a fuel cell comprising an anode-side catalyst layer having a catalyst material, a cathode-side catalyst layer having a catalyst material, and a proton-conductive electrolyte membrane sandwiched between the anode-side catalyst layer and the cathode-side catalyst layer, wherein at least one of the anode-side catalyst layer and the cathode-side catalyst layer has a first layer arranged closer to the electrolyte membrane and a second layer arranged farther from the electrolyte membrane than the first layer, the first layer having a first support and a first catalyst material supported on the first support, and the second layer having a second support and a second catalyst material supported on the second support, and the first support of the first layer has an inorganic material as a base material (Paragraph 0008). Regarding claim 7, Kawahara teaches that the first support material can be ceramics, such as silicon carbide, aluminum nitride, alumina, etc. (Paragraph 0026). As to claim 16, Kawahara teaches ratios of ionomer to carrier, such as 0.3 to 1.2 or 0.4 to 2.0 for the catalyst layers (Paragraph 0028-0030). Since the carrier has the catalyst on it, the catalyst and carrier amounts would be in a similar range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the ceramic material of Okada could be one of the ceramics used in Kawahara because Kawahara teaches that these are common ceramic materials used as carrier type materials in a catalyst layer for a fuel cell. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the ratio of the catalyst to ionomer could be in the range of 10:1 to 2:3 because Kawahara teaches that this ratio can be adjusted so that heat does not build up in the layers.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (JP Publication 2010-113949) in view of Kim (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0245232).
The teachings of Okada have been discussed in paragraph 3 above.
Okada fails to disclose that the dispersion medium is added in an amount of 80-95% by weight with respect to the total weight of the catalyst solution.
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses an electrode composition for a fuel cell comprising: a catalyst, an ionomer, and a solvent, wherein the solvent is added in an amount of 80 to 95 wt% (Paragraphs 0079, 0083).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the dispersion medium of Okada could be added to the mixture in an amount of 80-95 wt% because Kim teaches that this amount allows for the catalyst ink to be spread evenly on the substrate prior to drying.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/3/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the previously cited prior art references.
Applicants argue that Okada fails to disclose that the weight ratio of the catalyst to the heat dissipation material is 5:1 to 20:1 because Okada teaches a proportion of unsupported carbon to a total weight of unsupported carbon and the carbon carrier without the catalyst included instead of a proportion of the unsupported carbon to the total catalyst. Since the carbon support of Okada carries a catalyst, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of catalyst would be in a similar range to that of the carbon support. Thus, adding the weight amount of the catalyst to the carbon support amount in the ratio would result in a higher catalyst to unsupported carbon ratio. However, if the unsupported carbon is chosen to be at the lower end of the 5-60% by weight of the two carbons, then the ratio would still fall in the wide range of 5:1 to 20:1 of catalyst to unsupported carbon.
Applicants also argue that Kawahara and Kim fail to cure the deficiencies of Okada. As discussed above, Okada teaches the weight ratio of the catalyst to the heat dissipation material.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/3/2026, with respect to the obviousness double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-6545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am-6 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
BRITTANY L. RAYMOND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1722
/BRITTANY L RAYMOND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722