DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The applicant’s response dated 12 August 2026 has been entered into the record and is considered fully responsive. The examiner agrees that no new matter was added in the submission of the amendments. The applicant has cancelled Claims 1, 10, 11, 16, and 18. Claims 2 and 5 are the independent claims. The applicant has amended Claims 2, 5, and 23 and added new Claims 24, and 25. Currently, Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 are pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 24 is 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.
Claim 24 recites the limitations for the particulate catalyst content and the ionomer content in terms of weight percent. The claim lacks clarity because the limitations do not specify if the cited ranges are relative to each other, relative to the total weight of the compositions, or normalized to some other quantity. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al.
Haas et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0379058 A1 – previously presented) is directed towards an electrocatalyst composition (title). Klose-Schubert et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0322631 A1) is directed toward a composite catalyst capable of being used in catalyst coated membranes (abstract).
Claims 2 and 5 are the independent claims.
Regarding Claim 2, Haas et al. discloses a particulate catalyst (i.e.: tin oxide particles which are at least partially coated by a noble metal oxide layer) comprising a support material (i.e.: undoped or doped tin oxide in ¶22-27) and an iridium coating (¶28-36). Haas et al. further indicates in ¶78 the iridium is deposited as the oxyhydroxide and present as the oxide upon final processing (¶108). In Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b, Haas et al. shows SEM image/EDX elemental maps of the catalyst composition (¶14) from Ex. 1. Fig. 1a shows the presence of Sn which is primarily concentrated in the center (i.e.: core) with a diameter ranging from 20 nm to 100 nm and Fig. 1b shows the presence of the Ir which is concentrated on the exterior (i.e.: shell) with thickness ranging from ~1 nm to 10 nm (mostly less than 5 nm). Haas et al. teaches an Ir content loading of 10 wt.% to 38 wt.% based on the total content of the catalyst composition with the all of the Ir being oxidized (¶28). Haas et al. discloses in inventive Ex. 1 a composite catalyst with an Ir content of 25 wt.% (¶109-112).
Further regarding Claim 2, the inventive examples in Haas et al. (i.e.: Ex. 1-5) all indicate the iridium present in the particulate catalyst is in the form of Ir(IV). However, Haas et al. does teach that the iridium present in the catalyst layer can be Ir3+ and/or Ir4+ (¶33) and that the oxidation state of Ir can be determined by X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) as per ¶28. Haas et al. further indicates that the catalyst layer comprises a ratio of at least 80 at.% Ir(IV) to 20 at.% Ir(III) as per ¶34. When that ratio is normalized as per the ratio of amended Claim 2, the resultant ratio is 4.0/1.0.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
However, Haas et al. does not disclose the use of titanium dioxide as the support material in the examples. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect different metal oxide supports to have very similar properties (i.e.: catalytic activity) when coated with an iridium oxide catalyst layer. Support for this expectation is found in Klose-Schubert et al.
Klose-Schubert discloses a particulate catalyst comprising a support material (i.e.: inorganic oxide) and an iridium coating which is provided on the support material and which contains iridium oxide as per the abstract which describes a composite catalyst materials of iridium oxide (IrO2) in combination with an inorganic oxide. Klose-Schubert further discloses the support material (i.e.: metal oxide/inorganic oxide) should be powdery, inert, and have a low solubility in aqueous electrolytes (¶26 of Klose-Schubert et al). These properties facilitate a long lifetime and high endurance when used in a PEM electrolyzer unit (¶26). Klose-Schubert et al. further indicates that suitable high surface area inorganic oxides are TiO2, SiO2, Al2,O3, Nb2O5, SnO2, F-doped tin oxide (SnO2/F), zirconia (ZrO2), ceria doped zirconia (CeO2/ZrO2) and mixtures and combinations thereof (¶27). Given that Klose-Schubert discloses the use of SnO2 as a support material for an Ir-based OER catalyst like Haas et al., these two references are considered analogous art.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that substituting the SnO2 support in the composite iridium oxide catalyst of Haas et al. with one of the other supports (e.g.: TiO2, Nb2O5, ZrO2, SiO2, or Al2O3) as taught by Klose-Schubert et al. will result in a particulate catalyst with similar properties (e.g.: catalytic activity) since metal oxides/inorganic oxides that are powdery, inert, and have a low solubility in aqueous electrolytes, such as SnO2 and TiO2 (or Nb2O5, or ZrO2, or SiO2, or Al2O3) are known equivalents with the same purpose (Klose-Schubert et al. in ¶26-27). See MPEP 2144.06(II) - SUBSTITUTING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE
Regarding Claim 3, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the particulate catalyst according to Claim 2 wherein the iridium content of the catalyst is at most 40 wt.% as evidenced by inventive Example 1 where the Ir content is 25 wt.% (¶109-112). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when an example disclosed by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 4, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the particulate catalyst according to Claim 2, wherein the BET surface area of the support material is 2 m2/g to 40 m2/g as supported by inventive Ex. 1 which has a BET surface area of 21 m2/g and an Ir content of 25 wt.% (¶109-112). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when an example disclosed by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 5, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses a particulate catalyst, comprising: a support material (i.e.: undoped or doped tin oxide in ¶22-27) having a BET surface area ranging from 2 m2/g to <10 m2/g as supported by ¶41 where a preferred embodiment has a BET surface area from 5 m2/g to 35 m2/g. Haas et al. further discloses an iridium coating on the support material is deposited as the oxyhydroxide (¶78) and present as the oxide upon final processing (¶108) wherein the Ir content ranges from 10 wt.% to 38 wt.% based on the total content of the catalyst composition with the all of the Ir being oxidized (¶28) which meets the limitation of Claim 5 of the iridium content ranging from 5-20 wt.%. The oxidized iridium is present in the catalyst layer as Ir3+ and/or Ir4+ (Haas et al. in ¶33) and that the oxidation state of Ir can be determined by X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) as per Haas et al. in ¶28. Haas et al. further indicates that the catalyst layer comprises a ratio of at least 80 at.% Ir(IV) to 20 at.% Ir(III) as per ¶34. When that ratio is normalized as per the ratio of amended Claim 5, the resultant ratio is 4.0/1.0. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
However, Haas et al. does not disclose the use of titanium dioxide as the support material in the examples as required by the amended limitations of Claim 5. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect different metal oxide supports to have very similar properties (i.e.: catalytic activity) when coated with an iridium oxide catalyst layer. Support for this expectation is found in Klose-Schubert et al.
Klose-Schubert discloses a particulate catalyst comprising a support material (i.e.: inorganic oxide) and an iridium coating which is provided on the support material and which contains iridium oxide as per the abstract which describes a composite catalyst materials of iridium oxide (IrO2) in combination with an inorganic oxide. Klose-Schubert further discloses the support material (i.e.: metal oxide/inorganic oxide) should be powdery, inert, and have a low solubility in aqueous electrolytes (¶26 of Klose-Schubert et al). These properties facilitate a long lifetime and high endurance when used in a PEM electrolyzer unit (¶26). Klose-Schubert et al. further indicates that suitable high surface area inorganic oxides are TiO2, SiO2, Al2,O3, Nb2O5, SnO2, F-doped tin oxide (SnO2/F), zirconia (ZrO2), ceria doped zirconia (CeO2/ZrO2) and mixtures and combinations thereof (¶27). Given that Klose-Schubert discloses the use of SnO2 as a support material for an Ir-based OER catalyst like Haas et al., these two references are considered analogous art.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that substituting the SnO2 support in the composite iridium oxide catalyst of Haas et al. with one of the other supports (e.g.: TiO2, Nb2O5, ZrO2, SiO2, or Al2O3) as taught by Klose-Schubert et al. will result in a particulate catalyst with similar properties (e.g.: catalytic activity) since metal oxides/inorganic oxides that are powdery, inert, and have a low solubility in aqueous electrolytes, such as SnO2 and TiO2 (or Nb2O5, or ZrO2, or SiO2, or Al2O3) are known equivalents with the same purpose (Klose-Schubert et al. in ¶26-27). See MPEP 2144.06(II) - SUBSTITUTING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE
Regarding Claim 6, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the particulate catalyst according to Claim 2, wherein the Ir content of the catalyst falls within the range defined by the formula in Claim 6. Inventive Ex. 1 of Haas et al. discloses a BET surface area of 21 m2/g and an Ir content of 25 wt.%. When the BET surface area is input into the formula in Claim 6, the minimum value is 25 inclusive and the maximum value is 40 inclusive. Since the catalyst content of inventive Ex. 1 is 25 wt.%, the example in Haas satisfies the requirement for Ir-G of Claim 6. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 7, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the particulate catalyst per Claim 2, wherein the average layer thickness of the iridium-containing coating is 1.5 nm to 4.0 nm as supported by In Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b. In Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b, Haas et al. shows SEM image/EDX elemental maps of the catalyst composition (¶14) from Ex. 1. Specifically, Fig. 1a shows the presence of Sn primarily concentrated in the center (i.e.: core) with a diameter ranging from 20 nm to 100 nm and Fig. 1b shows the presence of Ir concentrated on the exterior (i.e.: shell) with thickness ranging from ~1 nm to 10 nm (with most thicknesses less than 5 nm). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 8, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the particles of the particulate catalyst according to Claim 2, wherein the catalyst particles comprise a core-shell structure in which the support material is the core and the iridium-containing coating forms the shell (¶27) as illustrated by Fig. 1a which shows that Sn is primarily concentrated in the center (i.e.: core) of the particles and Fig. 1b which shows the presence of the Ir is concentrated on the exterior (i.e.: shell) or the particles (¶114).
Regarding Claim 9, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the particulate catalyst according to Claim 2, wherein the iridium is present in the catalyst layer as Ir3+ and/or Ir4+ (¶33). Haas et al. also indicates that one preferred embodiment of the catalyst layer comprises a ratio of at least 80 at.% Ir(IV) to 20 at.% Ir(III) according to ¶34. All of the inventive examples (i.e.: Ex. 1-5 in ¶113, 120, 126, 131, and 136) have iridium present in the IV oxidation state. As per ¶32 of Haas et al, no metallic iridium is present in the final catalyst nor involved in the preparation process. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 12, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the particulate catalyst according to Claim 2, wherein the catalyst has been subjected to a thermal treatment at a temperature of more than 250 degrees Celsius as indicated in ¶79 where the broadest temperature range is 300 to 800 degrees C and a narrower range of 500 to 700 degrees C in ¶82 and Claim 32. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 13, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses a method for producing a particulate catalyst according to Claim 2, wherein the method comprising depositing an iridium containing coating containing iridium oxide is deposited onto a support material as indicates in ¶78 that the iridium is deposited as the oxyhydroxide and present as the oxide upon final processing (¶108).
Regarding Claim 14, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the method according to Claim 13, wherein the coated support material is subjected to a thermal treatment at a temperature of more than 250 degrees Celsius as indicated in ¶79 where the broadest temperature range is 300 to 800 degrees C and a narrower range of 500 to 700 degrees C in ¶82 and Claim 32. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 15, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses a composition containing the particulate catalyst according to Claim 2 and an ionomer (i.e.: a binder). In ¶142, Haas et al. explicitly discloses the formation of the composition comprising both the particulate catalyst according to Claim 2 and an ionomer, Nafion, as used in the preparation of electrodes for use in a PEM. Moreover, Nafion is a sulfonic acid-group containing ionomer.
Regarding Claim 17, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the particulate catalyst according to Claim 2, wherein the Ir-content is at most 40 wt.% as evidenced by inventive example 1 where the Ir content is 25 wt.% (¶109-112). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 19, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the particulate catalyst according to Claim 2, wherein the Ir-content is at most 35 wt.% as evidenced by Inventive example 1 where the Ir content is 25 wt.% (¶109-112). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 20, Haas et al. discloses the particulate catalyst of Claim 2, where in the BET surface area of the support material is from 2 m2/g to <10 m2/g as supported by ¶41 where a preferred embodiment has a BET surface area from 5 m2/g to 35 m2/g when the support is non-doped tin oxide. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 21, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the particulate catalyst according to Claim 2, wherein the average layer thickness of the iridium-containing coating is from 1.7 nm to 3.5 nm as evidenced by Fig. 1a which shows the presence of Sn which is primarily concentrated in the center (i.e.: core) with a diameter ranging from 20 nm to 100 nm and Fig. 1b shows the presence of the Ir which is concentrated on the exterior (i.e.: shell) with thickness ranging from ~1 nm to 10 nm (mostly less than 5 nm). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 22, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the particulate catalyst according to Claim 2, wherein the catalyst has been subjected to a thermal treatment at a temperature of more than 250 degrees Celsius to 550 degrees Celsius as indicated in ¶79 where the broadest temperature range is 300 to 800 degrees C and a narrower range of 500 to 700 degrees C in ¶82 and Claim 32. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 23, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the composition of Claim 15, wherein the ionomer is a sulfonic acid group-containing ionomer. In ¶142, Haas et al. explicitly discloses the formation of the composition comprising both the particulate catalyst according to Claim 2 and an ionomer, Nafion, as used in the preparation of electrodes for use in a PEM. Moreover, Nafion is a sulfonic acid-group containing ionomer.
Regarding Claim 25, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the particulate catalyst according to Claim 2, wherein the iridium-containing coating contains an iridium hydroxide oxide as supported by Haas et al. in ¶78 where the iridium is deposited as the oxyhydroxide (analogous to iridium hydroxide oxide).
9. Claims 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. and Khandavalli et al.
Haas et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0379058 A1 – previously presented) is directed towards an electrocatalyst composition (title). Klose-Schubert et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0322631 A1) is directed toward a composite catalyst capable of being used in catalyst coated membranes (abstract). Khandavalli et al. (“Investigation of the Microstructure and Rheology of Iridium Oxide Catalyst Inks for Low-Temperature Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Water Electrolyzers,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 45068-79) is directed toward Ir-based OER catalysts (pg. 45068: abstract).
Regarding Claim 24, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the composition according to Claim 15, wherein the composition is in the form of an ink comprising a liquid medium, the particulate catalyst, and an ionomer (e.g.: Nafion) as per ¶142-148 of Haas et al. but does not explicitly describe the weight% of both the particulate catalyst and the ionomer. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to other OER catalyst studies on the appropriate ratios of catalyst and ionomers to ensure an active catalytic layer.
Khandavalli et al. is directed toward understanding the impact of Nafion concentration on the properties of an IrOx-based catalyst ink (pg. 45068: abstract). Khandavalli et al. further indicates that the wet ink composition comprises iridium oxide, Nafion (i.e.: “an ionomer”) and a liquid medium (i.e.: a mixture of water and propanol) as per the abstract making it analogous art to Haas/Klose-Schubert. According to the introduction of Khandavalli et al, the ionomer in the catalyst ink has the dual role of facilitating proton transport as well as acting as a binder to maintain the catalyst layer structure which contributes to the overall electrochemical performance. Khandavalli et al. also indicates that the ionomer content must be sufficient to form a contiguous network for efficient proton conductivity but not too high so that it diminishes catalyst porosity (pg. 45068: introduction). Low porosity reduces gas/water transport and electrically isolates the catalyst particles (Khandavalli et al. in the introduction). Khandavalli et al. found that the presence of Nafion in the ink reduced the agglomeration of catalyst particles even at every low loading of 2.4 wt.% and evaluated levels up to 23 wt.% Nafion while holding the catalyst content at 35 wt.%. Higher catalyst levels would improve OER catalysis. The addition of ionomer further improves the electrosteric and electrostatic stabilization of the ink (pg. 45074). Based on the rheological studies discussed in detail on pg. 45073-6 in Khandavalli et al. in the Particle Dispersions with the Ionomer section, the use of 2.4 wt.% to 16.6 wt.% Nafion with 35 wt.% IrO2 results in enhanced catalyst ink stability without the risk of flocculation that excess ionomer concentration is known to cause (Khandavalli et al. on pg.45075-6).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the particulate catalyst composition of Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. by using the IrO2 and Nafion weight ratios suggested by Khandavalli et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming a catalyst ink that is stable and would result in the homogenous deposition of catalyst particles within the catalyst layer. Such a microstructure would improve catalytic activity and ensure consistent electrical conductivity within the catalyst layer.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range in the prior art (i.e.: the particulate catalyst concentration of 35 wt.% and ionomer concentration of 2.4-16.6 wt.%) overlaps with the claimed range (i.e.: 10-50 wt.% particulate catalyst and 10-30 wt.% ionomer). See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 12 August 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to Haas et al. teaching that the support is titanium dioxide (TiO2) or the other metal oxides listed. Upon further consideration, new grounds for the rejection in view of Haas et al. and Klose-Schubert et al. have been formulated. The specific reasons for updated rejection are detailed above.
11. The applicant has argued in their response on pg. 5-6 that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Haas et al. and Klose-Schubert as the former reference discloses the use SnO2 or doped-SnO2 materials coated with a catalytic iridium shell with the tin-based material as the core. The latter reference (Klose-Schubert) explicitly discloses a particulate catalyst comprising a support material (i.e.: inorganic oxide) and an iridium coating which is provided on the support material and which contains iridium oxide as per the abstract which describes a composite catalyst materials of iridium oxide (IrO2) in combination with an inorganic oxide making it analogous art to Haas et al. In particular, Klose-Schubert further discloses the support material (i.e.: metal oxide/inorganic oxide) should be powdery, inert, and have a low solubility in aqueous electrolytes (¶26 of Klose-Schubert et al). These properties facilitate a long lifetime and high endurance when used in a PEM electrolyzer unit (¶26). Klose-Schubert et al. further indicates that suitable high surface area inorganic oxides are TiO2, SiO2, Al2,O3, Nb2O5, SnO2, F-doped tin oxide (SnO2/F), zirconia (ZrO2), ceria doped zirconia (CeO2/ZrO2) and mixtures and combinations thereof (¶27). Given that Klose-Schubert discloses the use of SnO2 as a support material like Haas et al. with an OER iridium oxide catalyst shell, the combination of the teachings of these two references would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is 703-756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 PM EST.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571)272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
13. 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.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights