DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a final office action in response to a communication filed on May 8, 2025. Claims 1-19 are pending in the application.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 and 103 from the previous office action are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
As asserted by Applicant, the limitation “nanostructured” is interpreted as materials exhibiting structural organization on the nanometer scale including mesoporous systems, and “mesoporous” is interpreted as pore sizes fall within the range between 2 and 50 nm (see Response, pp. 7-8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 8-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung (US 2019/0211464), supported by Ansari (S.M. Ansari, Effect of Oleylamine on the Surface Chemistry, Morphology, Electronic Structure, and Magnetic Properties of Cobalt Ferrite Nanoparticles, Nano materials, 2022(12), 3015, pp. 1-19) as an evidence.
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches a method for producing a catalyst-coated three-dimensionally structured electrode (¶49: a preparation method of an electrode) comprising the following steps:
a) making available a three-dimensionally structured metal substrate (¶51: a metal substrate; ¶43: the metal substrate is a porous substrate such as a mesh; thus the metal substrate is three-dimensionally structured);
b) producing a suspension comprising a template, a metal precursor and a solvent (¶50: preparing a coating solution containing a platinum group metal precursor, a rare earth metal precursor, an organic solvent, and an amine based solvent; ¶87: the amine-based solvent is oleylamine; here, the oleylamine is deemed to be the template);
c) applying the suspension to the three-dimensionally structured metal substrate, so that a suspension film forms on the three-dimensionally structured metal substrate (¶51: applying the coating solution on the metal substrate to form a catalyst layer);
d) drying the suspension film on the three-dimensionally structured metal substrate at a temperature T1, (¶52: drying the catalyst layer; ¶87: dried at 200 ⁰C), so that the solvent within the suspension film evaporates and a layer of a catalyst pre-stage with integrated template structures is obtained (as evidenced by Ansari, the breakdown temperature of oleylamine (OLA) is 350 ⁰C (p. 10, last para.), so it will stay in the catalyst layer during drying at 200 ⁰C); and
e) thermally treating the three-dimensionally structured metal substrate, comprising the catalyst pre-stages (¶53: heat-treating the catalyst layer), at a second temperature T2 a calcinating time t2 (¶87: heat-treated at 500 ⁰C for 10 minutes), so that a mesoporous catalyst coating forms (as evidenced by Ansari, the breakdown temperature of oleylamine (OLA) is 350 ⁰C (p. 10, last para.), and it completely decomposed temperature is around 400 ⁰C as shown in Fig. 7 (Ansari, p. 11), thus the catalyst coating layer would be porous after the decomposition of oleylamine. Ansari further discloses inhomgeneities on a length scale of 2 nm that could be attributed to OLA capping over the NPs (p. 4, last para.), and thus the formed pores due to decomposition of OLA would fall in meso scale).
Regarding claim 3, Jung teaches wherein the three-dimensionally structured metal substrate in the applying step includes a mesh (¶43: the metal substrate is a porous substrate such as a mesh).
Regarding claim 4, Jung teaches wherein the temperature T2 is in a range between 200 ⁰C and 1000 ⁰C, and that the calcinating time t2 is in a range between 1 minute and 1440 minutes (¶87: heat-treated at 500 ⁰C for 10 minutes).
Regarding claim 5, Jung teaches wherein the temperature T1 ranges from 18 ⁰C and 250 ⁰C (¶87: dried at 200 ⁰C).
Regarding claim 8, Jung teaches wherein the meal precursor comprises one of a metal salt, several metal salts of respectively different metals, or their hydrates (¶87: RuCl3.nH2O and Ce(NO3)2).
Regarding claim 9, Jung teaches wherein the metal salts is metal nitrate (¶87: Ce(NO3)2).
Regarding claim 10 and 17, Jung teaches wherein the metal precursor selected from transition metals (claim 10) that is ruthenium (claim 17) (¶87: RuCl3.nH2O).
Regarding claim 11, Jung teaches wherein the solvent is a C1-C4 alcohol (¶67: the alcohol-based solvent is a C1 alcohol).
Regarding claim 12, Jung teaches an electrode for an electrochemical cell (¶2: an electrode for electrolysis), comprising: a three-dimensionally structured metal substrate (¶51: a metal substrate; ¶43: the metal substrate is a porous substrate such as a mesh; thus the metal substrate is three-dimensionally structured) and a nano-structured mesoporous catalyst coating thereon (as described in claim 1, e.g., ¶87; here, since the heat-treated process is carried out at 500 ⁰C, which would completely decompose oleylamine, and thus the electrode coating would be a nano-structured mesoporous).
Further, Examiner notes that Jung and the instant inventions use the similar components, i.e., a coating solution comprising metal precursors, organic solvent, and template (Jung, ¶87: oleylamine as the template; Spec. PGpub ¶54: the template comprises surfactants; here, oleylamine is a surfactant) under the similar process of drying and thermally treating (Jung, ¶87: dried at 200 ⁰C for 10 minutes and heat-treated at 500 ⁰C for 10 minutes; Spec. ¶71: drying at a temperature from 18 ⁰C to 250⁰C; ¶63: heating at a temperature ranging from 200 ⁰C to 1000 ⁰C for from 1 minute to 1440 minutes; ¶65: the calcination is for the thermal decomposition of the template). As evidenced by Ansari, oleylamine would be completely decomposed at 400 ⁰C (Ansari, Fig. 7), so oleylamine would be removed in Jung’s catalyst layer during the heat-treatment, and thus result in the similar nano-structured mesoporous coating layer.
Regarding claim 13, Jung teaches wherein the three-dimensionally structured metal substrate comprises a mesh (¶43: the metal substrate is a porous substrate such as a mesh).
Regarding claim 14, Jung teaches an electrochemical cell including an electrode (¶2: an electrode for electrolysis; here, a cell having an electrode for electrolysis is capable of performing electrolysis and is necessarily to be an electrochemical cell) according to the claim 12 (as described in claim 12).
Regarding claim 15, Jung teaches wherein the temperature T2 is in a range between 300 ⁰C and 800 ⁰C (¶87: heat-treated at 500 ⁰C).
Regarding claim 16, Jung teaches wherein the calcinating time t2 is in a range between 10 minute and 120 minutes (¶87: heat-treated for 10 minutes).
Regarding claim 18, Jung teaches wherein the solvent is a mixture of at least two of methanol, ethanol, formamide and tetrahydrofuran (¶66: the organic solvent can be an alcohol-based solvent, a glycol ether-based solvent, or a combination thereof; ¶67: the alcohol-based solvent is methanol; ¶68: the glycol ether-based solvent is 2-ethyoxyethanol).
Regarding claim 19, Jung teaches an electrode (¶2: an electrode for electrolysis) comprising a three-dimensionally structured metal substrate (¶51: a metal substrate; ¶43: the metal substrate is a porous substrate such as a mesh; thus the metal substrate is three-dimensionally structured) and a nano-structured mesoporous catalyst coating (¶87; here, since the heat-treated process is carried out at 500 ⁰C, which would completely decompose oleylamine, and thus the electrode coating would be a nano-structured mesoporous), wherein the electrode is produced according to the method of claim 1 (as described in claim 1).
Further, the designation “according to the method of claim 1” is product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113(I).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Mizuta (US 6,183,554).
Regarding claim 2, Jung discloses all limitations of claim 1. Jung further discloses the coating solution was brush-coated on the metal mesh as the applying step (¶87), but fails to teach wherein the applying step includes using an immersion coating technique to apply the suspension.
However, Mizuta teaches an applying step of coating solution can be carried out by known methods, such as by immersion, spraying, brush coating or spin coating (col. 2, ll. 61-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung by substituting brush-coating by immersion coating as taught by Mizuta because both coating steps are well-known in the art and the substitution of one known element for another would yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2141(III)(B).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Uensal (US 2012/0094210).
Regarding claims 6-7, Jung discloses all limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the suspension comprises at least one amphiphile block copolymer (claim 6) or the at least one amphiphile block copolymer is poly styrene block poly(4 vinyl pyridine (PS-P4VP) (claim 7).
However, Uensal teaches catalyst ink for an electrode comprising a liquid medium and polymer particles ([Abstract]). Suitable polymers of the polymer particles are selected from the group consisting of polystyrene (PS), polyvinylpyridine (PVP) (¶30). Examiner notes that PS is hydrophobic and PVP is hydrophilic. Uensal teaches the polymers can be used individually or as a mixture, i.e., blend (¶36). In an example of the polymer (polyazoles), Uensal discloses the polymer may be in the form of a copolymer or a blend, and the block copolymer can be deblock or triblock (¶47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung by incorporating a polymer into the suspension as taught by Uensal because the catalyst ink including the polymer particles are suitable for producing electrodes, membrane-electrode assemblies and also fuel cells for use at high temperature with increased three-phase interfacial area (¶9). Here, the combination of Jung and Uensal would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to use am amphiphilic diblock copolymer, including a hydrophilic PVP block and hydrophobic PS block, as suggested by Uensal. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the amine-based solvent of Jung cannot be regarded as a “template” because the amine in Jung acts as a stabilizer, forming amine-containing metal species in solution and influencing the chemical composition of the final catalyst layer because it does not function as a pre-existing nanostructured scaffold or mold that directs the spatial arrangement of material (Response, p. 9, para. 1). This argument is unpersuasive. First, Examiner notes that the term “template” is not a pre-existing scaffold or mold, like a matrix, but molecules that decompose upon heating forming pores (see PGpub ¶53: following its removal, a defined porous material is left). Second, the oleylamine of Jung serves the same function as “template” in the instant application because when the alcoholic solvent is vapored during the drying followed by the decomposition of oleylamine forming the pores in the suspension film.
Applicant argues the template is a polymer, forming micelles, that are evenly distributed in an order manner throughout the coating (p. 9, last para.). Examiner notes that none of such limitations, e.g., template made of a polymer in a form of micelle, is recited in the instant claim 1.
Applicant argues Jung does not teach the use of an amine-based solvent could lead to templated mesoporosity (p. 10, para. 1). This argument is unpersuasive because Ansari, as an evidence, teaches inhomgeneities on a length scale of 2 nm that could be attributed to OLA capping over the NPs (p. 4, last para.). Thus, the formed pores due to decomposition of OLA would fall in meso-scale, i.e., from 2 to 50 nm.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached on 571-272-8521. 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.
/C. SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights