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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-6 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).
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
428
486
media_image1.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. )]
PNG
media_image3.png
684
686
media_image3.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. )]
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.
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe in view of Seo teach the supported metal catalyst of claim 1.
Watanabe 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 (i.e. 10^3)) overlaps with the claimed range (10^3 S/cm or lower). Therefore, the range in Watanabe renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe in view of Seo 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. 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 (1 to 50 wt% platinum in the catalyst) overlaps with the claimed range (20 to 70% mass% metal fine particles to support power and metal fine particles). Therefore, the range in Watanabe renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe in view of Seo 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 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 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 further in view of Min et al. (App. Sur. Sci. 2018, 448, 435-443).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe in view of Seo 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 R 1 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kakinuma et al. (WO2019021904A1 English); 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 et al. (US20170250409A1); Kakinuma teaches an electrode catalyst comprising a support particle and metal oxide configured in a chain-like fashion (Abstract; Fig. 7A).
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