DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 and 18-20, in the reply filed on April 30, 2026, is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 14-17 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are 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 4 recites the limitation "the space" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 depends from claim 4, and thus, is also rejected.
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.
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 1-4, 6, 9-11, 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20170088156 A (Kim ‘156 - citing to the previously attached English translation) in view of KR 20090130664 A (Kim ‘664 – citing to the previously attached English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kim ‘156 teaches a fuel cell electrode (a redox electrode for a fuel cell; [0033]) comprising:
a catalyst layer containing a non-platinum catalyst complex (a non-platinum catalyst; [0016]; and
a graphene layer made of one or more of graphene and graphene oxide (the non-platinum catalyst includes a carbon-based support doped with a transition metal and nitrogen, wherein the carbon-based support has a three-dimensional carbon nanostructured comprising reduced graphite and carbon nanotubes; [0020]; the reduced graphite oxide has a layered structure in which a plurality of reduced graphene oxides are stacked; [0020]),
wherein the catalyst layer and the graphene layer are alternately stacked (the non-platinum catalyst can improve catalytic activity by having a high specific surface area due to the morphological characteristics of the three-dimensional carbon nanostructure formed by reduced graphite oxide and carbon nanotubes, i.e., the non-platinum catalyst is stacked with the three-dimensional carbon nanostructure; [0016]), and
the non-platinum catalyst complex comprises a carbon support and a non-platinum transition metal and nitrogen which are formed on the carbon support (the non-platinum catalyst includes a carbon-based support is doped with a transition metal and nitrogen; [0020]).
Kim ‘156 does not disclose that the catalyst layer also contains a conductive polymer.
Kim ‘664 discloses a non-platinum fuel cell that is stable in an acidic state (bottom of page 2 and top of page 3 of the English translation). The fuel cell comprises an oxidation electrode containing a non-platinum active metal and an antioxidant material, a reduction electrode, and an ion exchange membrane located between the oxidation electrode and the reduction electrode (top of page 3). The non-platinum active metal may be Fe, Co, or Mn, for example (middle of page 3). The antioxidant material may be a conductive polymer (middle of page 3). The conductive polymer may be polypyrrole or polyaniline, for example (middle of page 3). The conductive polymer formed on the antioxidation layer is stable in acidic state and has redox properties, so it can prevent the loss of the non-platinum active material layer by exchanging charges generated from the non-platinum active metal (bottom of page 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the catalyst layer of the fuel cell electrode, as taught by Kim ‘156, to include a conductive polymer, as suggested by Kim ‘664, to prevent the loss of non-platinum active metal layer by exchanging charges generated from the non-platinum active metal.
Regarding claim 2, Kim ‘156 discloses the fuel cell electrode of claim 1, wherein the non-platinum catalyst complex has an active site which is formed by a coordination bond (see [0036] of the present specification where the non-platinum catalyst complex forms an active site formed by a coordination bond between a non-platinum transition metal and nitrogen) between the non-platinum transition metal and nitrogen and exists therein (the non-platinum catalyst, i.e., a carbon-based support is doped with a transition metal and nitrogen, contains a controlled number of catalytic active sites based on the doping amount of the transition metal and the doping amount of nitrogen to achieve desired catalytic performance and electrical conductivity; [0011]; [0027] – [0030] of Kim ‘156).
Regarding claim 3, Kim ‘156 discloses the fuel cell electrode of claim 1, wherein the conductive polymer is coated on the surface of the non-platinum catalyst complex (the antioxidant material can be formed on the surface of the non-platinum active metal particles using a mixture of a conductive polymer and a solvent; bottom of page 9 and top of page 10 of Kim ‘664; the conductive polymer formed on the antioxidation layer is stable in acidic state and has redox properties, so it can prevent the loss of the non-platinum active material layer by exchanging charges generated from the non-platinum active metal; bottom of page 8 of Kim ‘664).
Regarding claim 4, Kim ‘156 discloses the fuel cell electrode of claim 1, wherein a space is formed between the catalyst layer and the graphene layer that have been stacked (due to the morphological characteristics of the three-dimensional carbon nanostructure, the specific surface area of the catalyst is improved, and a space is formed inside the catalyst, which can facilitate the supply of reactants and the discharge of products during the reaction occurring at the electrode; [0023] of Kim ‘156).
Claim 6 is considered a product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 6, Kim ‘156 discloses the fuel cell electrode of claim 1, wherein the non-platinum catalyst complex is prepared by mixing the carbon support and an M-N precursor containing a non-platinum transition metal (M) and nitrogen (N) at a mass ratio of 1:1 to 1:5 (the weight ratio of the reduced graphite oxide, transition metal precursor, nitrogen-containing organic compound, and solvent may be 1:0.01-0.10:0.01-0.10:10-100, wherein the transition metal precursor to the nitrogen-containing organic compound may be 0.01-0.10:0.01-0.10, e.g., may be 0.01:0.01, which is 1:1 and falls within the claimed range; [0042] of Kim ‘156).
Further, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 9, Kim ‘156 discloses the fuel cell electrode of claim 1, wherein the non-platinum transition metal includes one or more of Fe, Co, and Mn (the transition metal may be one or more selected from Co, Fe, and Mn; [0026] of Kim ‘156).
Regarding claim 10, Kim ‘156 discloses the fuel cell electrode of claim 1, wherein the carbon support includes on or more of carbon black, graphene, graphene oxide, carbon nanofibers, and carbon nanotubes (the carbon-based support has a three-dimensional carbon nanostructured comprising reduced graphite and carbon nanotubes, wherein the reduced graphite has a layered structure in which a plurality of reduced graphene oxides are stacked; [0020] of Kim ‘156).
Regarding claim 11, Kim ‘156 discloses the fuel cell electrode of claim 1, wherein the conductive polymer includes one or more of polyacetylene, polypyrrole, polyaniline, polythiophene, and perfluorosulfonic acid (the antioxidant material/conductive polymer may be polypyrrole, polyaniline, polythiophene, or polyacetylene; top of page 4 of Kim ‘664).
Regarding claim 13, Kim ‘156 discloses the fuel cell electrode of claim 1, wherein the catalyst layer and the graphene layer have a multilayer structure of 3 to 200 layers (the non-platinum catalyst can improve catalytic activity by having a high specific surface area due to the morphological characteristics of the three-dimensional carbon nanostructure formed by reduced graphite oxide and carbon nanotubes, i.e., the non-platinum catalyst is stacked with the three-dimensional carbon nanostructure; [0016] of Kim ‘156; the reduced graphite oxide has a layered structure in which multiple graphene layers are stacked,; [0043] of Kim ‘156).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20170088156 A (Kim ‘156 - citing to the previously attached English translation) in view of KR 20090130664 A (Kim ‘664 – citing to the previously attached English translation), and further in view of Constructing a graphene-contained layer in anode to improve the performance of direct methanol fuel cells using high-concentration fuel (Xu).
Regarding claim 5, Kim ‘156 discloses the fuel cell electrode of claim 4, but does not disclose that the space has an ionomer filled in at least a part thereof.
Xu discloses that the addition of Nafion ionomer as a binder in the graphene layer of a membrane electrode (MEA-CGN) increased the proton conductivity, expanded the three-phase reaction interface of the membrane electrode, resulting in an improved cell performance (bottom of column 2 on page 571 and top of column 1 on page 572).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Nafion ionomer as a binder in the graphene layer, to improve cell performance, as suggested by Xu, in the fuel cell electrode, as taught by Kim ‘156
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20170088156 A (Kim ‘156 - citing to the previously attached English translation) in view of KR 20090130664 A (Kim ‘664 – citing to the previously attached English translation), and further in view of US 20070184332 A1 (Park ‘332).
Regarding claim 7, Kim ‘156 discloses the fuel cell electrode of claim 1, but does not specific disclose that the non-platinum catalyst complex and the conductive polymer are contained in the catalyst layer at a mass ratio of 1:20 to 5:1.
Park discloses a non-platinum based catalyst comprising a ruthenium-rhodium alloy used instead of a platinum or platinum alloy catalyst to provide a high quality and high efficiency fuel cell that shows excellent methanol resistance and oxygen reduction activity ([0017] – [0018]). The electrode catalyst may be present as a catalyst supported by a convention carrier known to one skilled in the art ([0033]). The carrier that may be used includes porous carbon, conductive polymers or metal oxides ([0035]). In the case of a supported catalyst, the carrier is used in an amount of 1 and 95 weight % based on the total weight of the catalyst ([0035]).
Thus, the carrier may be included in an amount of, for example, 50 weight % of the carrier and 50 weight % of the catalyst, which is 1:1 and falls within the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20170088156 A (Kim ‘156 - citing to the previously attached English translation) in view of KR 20090130664 A (Kim ‘664 – citing to the previously attached English translation), and further in view of US 20190131650 A1 (Stahl ‘650).
Regarding claim 8, Kim ‘156 discloses the fuel cell electrode of claim 1, but does not disclose that the non-platinum catalyst complex is formed from a precursor comprising one or mor of porphyrin, phthalocyanine, corrole, cyclam, tetraazaannulene, and derivatives thereof.
Stahl ’650 discloses that flow cathode-half-cells including a soluble redox mediator paired with a heterogenized non-Pt transition metal redox catalyst separated from the cathode electrode can be utilized in improved fuel cells ([0111]). In some embodiments the heterogeneous redox catalyst includes a non-PT transition metal-macrocylic complex such as phthalocyanine, a corrole, or a porphyrin ([0030] – [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a non-PT transition metal-macrocylic complex such as phthalocyanine, a corrole, or a porphyrin, as suggested by Stalh ‘650, in the fuel cell electrode, as taught by Xu, because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20170088156 A (Kim ‘156 - citing to the previously attached English translation) in view of KR 20090130664 A (Kim ‘664 – citing to the previously attached English translation), and further in view of US 20100021787 A1 (Wu ‘787).
Regarding claim 12, Kim ‘156 discloses the fuel cell electrode of claim 1, but does not disclose that the catalyst layer has a thickness of 1 to 200 nm.
Wu ‘787 discloses a membrane electrode assembly including a cathode catalyst layer ([0017] – [0021]). From the standpoint of catalytic performance, it is desirable that the thickness of the catalyst metal particle aggregate layers should be from 10 nm to 500 nm per layer ([0074]). The cathode catalyst layer of the membrane electrode assembly may have a thickness from 10 nm to 500 nm per layer (claim 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide that the catalyst layer of the fuel cell electrode, as taught by Kim ‘156, has a thickness between 5 and 500 nm from the standpoint of catalytic perforamnce, as suggested by Wu ‘787, which overlaps with 1 to 200 nm.
Further, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20170088156 A (Kim ‘156 - citing to the previously attached English translation) in view of KR 20090130664 A (Kim ‘664 – citing to the previously attached English translation), and further in view of US 20130011764 A1 (Okada ‘764).
Regarding claim 18, Kim ‘156 discloses the fuel cell electrode according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above, wherein the non-platinum catalyst for a fuel cell can be applied as an electrode catalyst for polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells (PEMFC); [0073] of Kim ‘156), but does not specifically disclose a membrane-electrode assembly for a fuel cell comprising a polymer electrolyte membrane.
Okada ‘764 discloses a cathode catalyst layer and a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) for a fuel cell with a high level of power generation performance using a non-platinum oxide which has oxygen reduction activity ([0017]). The MEA 12 includes a polymer electrolyte membrane 1, a cathode catalyst layer 2, and an anode catalyst layer 3 ([0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a membrane electrode assembly for a fuel cell comprising the fuel cell electrode, as taught by Kim ‘156, with a polymer electrolyte membrane, as suggested by Okada ‘764, because the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding claim 19, Kim ‘156 discloses the membrane-electrode assembly of claim 18, wherein the fuel cell electrode is a cathode electrode (a cathode catalyst layer and a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) for a fuel cell with a high level of power generation performance using a non-platinum oxide which has oxygen reduction activity; [0017] of Okada ‘764).
Regarding claim 20, Kim ‘156 discloses a fuel cell comprising the membrane electrode-assembly for a fuel cell of claim 18 (a cathode catalyst layer and a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) for a fuel cell with a high level of power generation performance using a non-platinum oxide which has oxygen reduction activity; [0017] of Okada ‘764).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20120028790 A1 (Roh ‘790) discloses that a non-platinum catalyst having good oxygen reduction activity and durability in an acidic atmosphere can be prepared by coating a conductive polymer on a carbon support and then introducing chelated cobalt thereto ([0011]). The conductive polymer may be a nitrogen-containing polypyrrole or polyaniline ([0029]). The pyrrole or aniline may be added in a suitable amount, preferably 80 to 130 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the carbon support ([0036]). If the added amount of pyrrole or aniline is less than 80 parts by weight, catalyst durability may be degraded ([0036]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR H KRONE whose telephone number is (571)270-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 6:00 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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/TAYLOR HARRISON KRONE/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights