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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/03/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of 1-5 and 7-8 in the reply filed on 04/03/2026 is acknowledged.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al. (US 20200075964 A1, provided in the IDS filed 08/03/2023).
Regarding claims 1-2, and 5, Mizutani teaches an electrode catalyst with a carbon support that has a mode size of pores in the range of 2.1 nm to 5.1 nm (0038). This pore size is mesoporous as “mesoporous” is known in the art to mean between 2 and 50 nm. The carbon support also has catalyst metal particles inside (0035) and contain platinum as a catalytic metal (0045). The size of the catalyst particles is 2.5-5.1 nm (0017), which necessarily means that the mean particle size is also between those two values and forms a value less than 6 nm, rendering the claimed range obvious. The modal pore size is 2.1-5.1 nm (0038), which is a range that is inside the claimed range of 2-50 nm and is therefore obvious. these ranges together provide a potential r/R ratio between 0.49 (2.5/5.1) and 2.43 (5.1/2.1). Realistically, the ratio cannot go over 1.0 as the particles would not physically fit inside the pores, however, a modified range of 0.49-1 still overlaps with the claimed range of 0.01-.6 and is therefore obvious in view of overlapping ranges and routine experimentation in order to prevent a decrease in performance, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Mizutani teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the carbon support is greater than 0.1 microns but less than 50 microns as shown in figures 1 and 2a. To further explain, figure 1 shows a schematic of an electrode catalyst (0024) and figure 2a shows a 3D-TEM image of an electrode catalyst (0025). Using the scale in the top left of figure 2a that denotes 0.1 micron, it is clear that the particle size is larger than 0.1 micron and figure 1 shows that the electrode catalyst is expected to terminate and does not extend significantly further than shown via fig. 2a. These figures together show that the electrode catalyst is definitively larger than 0.1 microns but smaller than 50 microns which forms a value within the claimed range and is therefore obvious.
PNG
media_image1.png
336
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
230
230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Mizutani teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the electrode catalyst is for a fuel cell (0001).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al. (US 20200075964 A1) in view of Miyata et al. (US 20220021005 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Mizutani teaches claim 1 as described above but is silent to a total pore surface area greater than 80% or more of a total surface area per unit mass of mesoporous carbon support. Miyata teaches an electrode catalyst for a fuel battery that contains a mesoporous material and a metal catalyst (Miyata, abstract). Miyata further teaches that the mesoporous material has a pore surface area ratio of greater than 0.9, or 90%, in order to reduce the deterioration of the catalyst activity due to the covering of the catalyst metal particles with the ionomer (Miyata 0035, 0045). As 90% is greater than 80%, the range is obvious in view of overlapping ranges, see MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the electrode catalyst with a carbon support as described by Mizutani in claim 1 and modify the carbon support to have a pore surface area ratio of greater than 0.9 in order to reduce the deterioration of catalyst activity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights