`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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-8 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not introduced new matter and are supported in the specification in at least [0031]-[0032], [0069], and [0076] of the instant specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 5 and 8 filed 04/22/2026 with respect to claim 1 and 8, have been fully considered however are solely directed to new claim limitations introduced in the amendment filed 04/22/2026, which postdates the non-final rejection mailed 01/29/2026.
Upon further search and consideration and as necessitated by the amendment, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of 01/29/2026 is withdrawn and a new grounds of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US20120295184A1; cited IDS dated 06/06/2023) in view of Seo et al. (Materials Research Bulletin, 2006. 41, 359–366) and Kakinuma et al. (WO2019021904A1 English). Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US20120295184A1; cited IDS dated 06/06/2023) in view of Seo et al. (Materials Research Bulletin, 2006. 41, 359–366) and Kakinuma et al. (WO2019021904A1 English), and further in view of Miyashita et al. (JP2004100040A English).
Applicant's remaining arguments, Pg. 6-7 regarding claim 3, filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the newly amended ratio of metal fine particles to support particles enhances the electrical conductivity while suppressing excessive growth of the crystallite size. Applicant argues Watanabe teaches the support itself is conductive such that there is little motivation to increase the ratio of metal fine particles to form a conductive path. Applicant argues this is supported by the taught examples of Watanabe including values below 20 mass% of metal fine particles.
However, in response to applicant's argument that Watanabe does not teach forming a conductive path with the metal particles to enhance electrical conductivity while suppressing excessive growth, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Examiner further notes Watanabe further teaches the platinum particles (i.e. metal fine particles) are present in the catalyst from 1 to 50 wt.%, where the catalyst is comprised of the support particles and the platinum particles ([0062]-[0065]; [0073]). Watanabe teaches a range that fully encompasses the claimed range and accordingly arriving at the narrower range claimed would be obvious to a skilled artisan.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US20120295184A1; cited IDS dated 06/06/2023) in view of Seo et al. (Materials Research Bulletin, 2006. 41, 359–366) and Kakinuma et al. (WO2019021904A1 English).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches an oxide support for electrode catalysts where the electrode support comprises an aggregation of primary particles of an oxide of at least one kind of metal selected from metals including rare earths, where the primary oxide particles are aggregated and bound together to form dendritic or chain structures (Abstract; Fig. 1). Watanabe teaches the oxide particles of the support powder are fine particles (1) and that the support particles have platinum fine particles (2) adsorbed on the surface to produce the catalyst (Abstract; [0016]-[0020]; [0026]; [0062]-[0063]; Fig 1). Watanabe teaching fused aggregates of support fine particles bonded together to form a chain of support oxide particles, along with the depiction in Fig. 1, is equivalent to the claimed and depicted “fusion-bonded” particles forming a chain of the instant invention (See Fig. 1-4 and [0011]-[0012] in the instant specification). A comparison of Fig. 1 of Watanabe and Fig. 1 of the instant invention are provided below:
PNG
media_image1.png
684
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1. Reproduced Fig. 1 from Watanabe depicting the chain-like structure of the support particles (1) with the metal fine particles (2) adsorbed thereon. )]
PNG
media_image3.png
428
486
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2. Reproduced Fig. 1 from the instant invention depicting support particles (grey spheres) with metal catalyst particles (black spheres) supported thereon. )]
Watanabe further teaches the catalyst has an electric conductivity is from 0.1 S/cm to 1000 S/cm ([0070]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Watanabe (S/cm from 0.1 to 1000) overlaps with the claimed range (10^-4 S/cm or higher). Therefore, the range in Watanabe renders obvious the claimed range.
The claim further requires “the metal oxide contains cerium” to which Watanabe teaches the metal oxide can be selected from a rare earth metal. Cerium is a rare earth metal, however Watanabe does not explicitly motivate selection of cerium from all of the rare earth metals.
Seo teaches a Ce1-xGdxO2-x/2 particle material comprising ultrafine particles that are aggregated together as bonded crystallites (Abstract; Pg. 363-363, 3. Results and Discussion; Fig. 1).
Advantageously, ceria-doped electrodes display high ionic conductivity and large lattice sizes, enabling further substitution of the oxide with other metals (Pg. 360, Introduction).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select cerium as the rare earth oxide in the catalyst of Watanabe in order to provide high ionic conductivity and large lattice sizes that enable further metal substitution with the oxide, as taught by Seo.
The claim further requires the “electrical conductivity of the support powder is 10^-15 S/cm or higher and less than 10-1 S/cm,” to which Watanabe teaches the carrier has an electrical conductivity of 1 S/cm or more (Pg. 3, par. 1) and to which Seo is silent..
Kakinuma teaches a carrier powder with a supported metal catalyst that is a product of carrier fine particles forming a chain-like portion configured by fusion bonding a plurality of crystallites (Claims; Abstract). Kakinuma teaches the carrier powder has an electron conductivity of 0.001 S/cm or more (Pg. 3, par. 11-14). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Kakinuma (0.001 S/cm or more (i.e. 10^-3)) overlaps with the claimed range (10^-15 S/cm or higher and less than 10^-1 S/cm). Therefore, the range in Kakinuma renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, providing a carrier powder with an electrical conductivity taught by Kakinuma provides a thermodynamically stable carrier powder that is able to impart conductivity to the catalyst (Pg. 2, par. 7-8).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a carrier with an electrical conductivity of 10^-3 S/cm or more in the catalyst of Watanabe in order to provide a carrier that is thermodynamically stable that can impart conductivity to the catalyst, as taught by Kakinuma.
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe in view of Seo and Kakinuma teach the supported metal catalyst of claim 1.
Watanabe further teaches the platinum particles (i.e. metal fine particles) are present in the catalyst from 1 to 50 wt.%, where the catalyst is comprised of the support particles and the platinum particles ([0062]-[0065]; [0073]). Mass% and weight % are equivalent measures. Watanabe further teaches the catalyst has an electric conductivity is from 0.1 S/cm to 1000 S/cm ([0070]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Watanabe (1 to 50 wt.% platinum in the catalyst; S/cm from 0.1 to 1000) overlap with the claimed ranges (35 to 45% mass% metal fine particles to support power and metal fine particles; 10^-4 to 5 S/cm ). Therefore, the ranges in Watanabe render obvious the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe in view of Seo and Kakinuma teach the supported metal catalyst of claim 1.
The claim further requires “an atomic ratio of cerium to whole metal contained in the metal oxide is 0.3 to 1.” The term “whole metal contained in the metal oxide” is interpreted as being the total metal amount in the metal oxide relative to cerium, not including the metal fine particles of platinum. This interpretation is taken from at least [0022] in the instant specification.
Watanabe is silent regarding the atomic ratio of cerium to whole metal in the oxide.
Seo teaches a Ce1-xGdxO2-x/2 particle material comprising ultrafine particles where the value of x can range from 0 to 0.40 (Abstract; Pg. 363-363, 3. Results and Discussion; Fig. 1). The range of x taught by Seo is equivalent to a cerium to remaining metal atomic ratio of 1 to 1.5 (1:0= 1; 0.6:0.4 = 1.5). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Seo (Ce to other metals in the oxide ratio of 1 to 1.5) overlaps with the claimed range (0.3 to 1). Therefore, the range in Seo renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, higher cerium content is associated with increased ionic conductivity (Pg. 360; Fig. 5).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide cerium in the support oxide in a ratio of 1 to 1.5 of cerium to other metals in the catalyst of Watanabe in order to provide an oxide with higher ionic conductivity, as taught by Seo.
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe in view of Seo and Kakinuma teach the supported metal catalyst of claim 1.
Watanabe further teaches the metal particles supported by the oxide are platinum and/or platinum alloy particles ([0037]; [0063]). Watanabe further teaches examples where platinum particles are deposited on the oxide support ([0075]; [0107]). Accordingly, in the case where the particles are platinum, Watanabe effectively teaches the amount of platinum in the metal fine particles is about 100% since the particles are described as platinum metal. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Watanabe (about 100% platinum in particles made of platinum) overlaps with the claimed range (ratio of platinum in the metal fine particles is 80 atomic% or higher). Therefore, the range in Watanabe renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe in view of Seo and Kakinuma teach the supported metal catalyst of claim 1.
Watanabe further teaches the support oxide particles can contain at least one kind of element selected from rare earths, alkaline earths, transition metals, niobium, bismuth, tin, antimony, zirconium, molybdenum, indium, tantalum, and tungsten ([0064]). The instant specification describes rare earth elements as “trivalent” and therefore the teaching of Watanabe including at least one rare earth metals meet the limitation of “the another element is a trivalent metal.”
The claim further requires “the metal oxide contains cerium, and another element other than cerium” to which Watanabe teaches the metal oxide can be selected from a rare earth metal(s). Cerium is a rare earth metal, however Watanabe does not explicitly motivate selection of cerium from all of the rare earth metals and that another element other than cerium is included.
Seo teaches a Ce1-xGdxO2-x/2 particle material comprising ultrafine particles that are aggregated together as bonded crystallites (Abstract; Pg. 363-363, 3. Results and Discussion; Fig. 1). Gd is gadolinium, which is a rare earth metal.
Advantageously, ceria-doped with gadolinium displays high ionic conductivity (Pg. 360, Introduction).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select cerium as the rare earth oxide with gadolinium as the other element in the catalyst of Watanabe in order to provide high ionic conductivity, as taught by Seo.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US20120295184A1; cited IDS dated 06/06/2023) in view of Seo et al. (Materials Research Bulletin, 2006. 41, 359–366) and Kakinuma et al. (WO2019021904A1 English), and further in view of Min et al. (App. Sur. Sci. 2018, 448, 435-443).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe in view of Seo and Kakinuma teach the supported metal catalyst of claim 1.
The claim further requires “wherein: the metal oxide contains cerium, and another element other than cerium; and R2/R 1 is 0.99 or less, where R1 represents an ionic radius of a tetravalent cation of cerium, and R2 represents an ionic radius of a cation with the same valence as the number of valence electrons of the another element.” Watanabe teaches the metal oxide can be selected from a rare earth metal(s), where cerium is a rare earth metal. However Watanabe does not explicitly motivate selection of cerium from all of the rare earth metals and that another element other than cerium is included, nor does Watanabe or Seo explicitly state a R2/R1 ratio.
Min teaches a CeO2 doped catalyst material displaying improved oxygen storage capacity where the dopants include Hf+4 and Sn4+ ions (Abstract; Pg. 435 Introduction). Min teaches the cerium oxide component comprises Ce+4 ions with a ionic radius of 0.097 nm and the dopants include Hf+4 and Sn4+ ions with ionic radius of 0.083 nm and 0.081 nm, respectively (Pg. 437 right col.). Put in terms of the instant invention, Min effectively teaches a R2/R1 ratio of 0.86 for the Ce+4/Hf+4 material and 0.84 for the Ce+4/Sn+4 material. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Min (R2/R1 ratio of 0.86 for the Ce+4/Hf+4 material and 0.84 for the Ce+4/Sn+4) overlaps with the claimed range (R2/R1 0.99 or less). Therefore, the range in Min renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, doping cerium oxide with smaller ionic radius dopants provides more oxygen vacancies in the material that translates to improved catalysts (Pg. 442, Conclusions).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a dopant with a smaller ionic radius than cerium to arrive at a R2/R1 ratio of 0.86 or 0.84 in the catalyst of Watanabe in order to provide more oxygen vacancies to improve catalysis, as taught by Min.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US20120295184A1; cited IDS dated 06/06/2023) in view of Seo et al. (Materials Research Bulletin, 2006. 41, 359–366) and Kakinuma et al. (WO2019021904A1 English), and further in view of Miyashita et al. (JP2004100040A English).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe in view of Seo and Kakinuma teach the supported metal catalyst of claim 1 and 3.
The claim further requires the catalyst comprises “a continuum formed by the adjacent metal fine particles on the support fine particles being fusion-bonded to each other.” Watanabe, Seo, and Kakinuma are silent regarding the metal fine particles being fusion-bonded to form a continuum.
Examiner notes that the term “a continuum” is interpreted from at least [0031] and Fig. 9 of the instant specification as being fusion-bonded metal particles that are bonded to adjacent metal fine particles. Further, the continuum of metal fine particles are interpreted as distinct fusion-bonded particles from the support particles, comprising cerium oxide, that are claimed in claim 1. As noted above, the term “fusion-bonded” is not given an explicit special definition and accordingly particles that are fused, connected, bonded, attached, etc. are considered “fusion-bonded.”
Miyashita teaches a method of providing a support with colloidal particles fixed on the surface where metal atoms particles are aggregated into clusters that are attached the surface of the support (Title; Abstract; [0017]). The metal particles taught by Miyashita are separate from the support and are equivalent to the claimed “metal fine particles.” Further, the metal particles of Miyashita are aggregated (i.e. being fused together), which is equivalent to them being joined together with neighboring metal particles and is considered equivalent to forming “a continuum” where metal particles are “fusion-bonded” and attached to support particles.
Advantageously, providing the aggregated, supported metal particles taught by Miyashita provides smaller and uniform particles that show improved catalytic activity while providing supported catalysts with high catalytic activity and durability ([0034]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide aggregated metal clusters supported on support particles in the catalyst of Watanabe in order to provide a catalyst with high catalytic activity and durability as taught by Miyashita.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights