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 .
Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment, filed on August 4, 2023, has been made of record and entered. In this amendment, the Specification has been amended to correct a non-patent literature citation, and claims 3 and 8 have been amended to eliminate multiple claim dependency.
No claims have been canceled or added; claims 1-9 are presently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicants’ Priority Document was filed on August 4, 2023.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0014] of Applicants’ Specification, “Non-Paten Document 1” should be amended to recite “Non-Patent Document 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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 1 is (and claims 2-9 depending directly or indirectly therefrom are) indefinite, as the claim limitation “ammonia gas…of a concentration of 10 to 100%” is not defined in terms of, for example, by volume percent, or by mole percent.
Claim 1 is also indefinite for reciting the limitation “flow-type reactor”.
The word “type” extends the scope of the claims so as to render them indefinite since it is unclear what “type” is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to the otherwise definite expression renders the definite expression indefinite by extending its scope. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955). It is respectfully suggested that the word “type”, where applicable, be removed from the claims.
Claims 2-9, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, do not cure these deficiencies in claim 1, and are thus included in this rejection.
Claim 3 is (and claims 4-7 depending directly or indirectly therefrom are) rejected for containing the trademark/trade name “CNovel”, and recites the claim limitation “CNovel (available from Toyo Tanso Co., Ltd., trade name, registered trademark).”
Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a porous carbon support and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims 4-7, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 3, do not cure the deficiency in claim 3, and are thus included in this rejection.
Claims 4, 6, and 7 lack antecedent basis for “catalyst particle”; claim 1, from which claims 4, 6, and 7 and indirectly depend, recites “catalyst particles”.
Claim 5 lacks antecedent basis for “catalyst particles”; claim 4, from which claim 5 depends, recites “catalyst particle”.
Claim 8 is indefinite for failing to recite active steps defining the claimed method of producing a gas diffusion electrode.
Claim 9 is indefinite for failing to recite active steps defining the claimed method of producing a membrane-electrode assembly.
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.
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, 3-6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0121219).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 6, Mei et al. teach a catalyst material comprising catalyst particles having a composition substantially represented by ATxNu, wherein A contains Pt or Pt and at least one noble metal element selected from the group consisting of Ru, Pd, Au, and Ag; T contains at least one element selected from the group consisting of Fe, Co, Ni, Sn, Mn, Cr, V, Ti, Mo, Nb, Zr, W, Ta, and Hf; and atomic ratios x and u fall within ranges 0 ≤ x ≤ 4 and 0.005 ≤ u ≤ 1, respectively. See paragraphs [0008], [0009] and [0040]-[0046] of Mei et al.; from these teachings, the skilled artisan would be motivated to select Ni as element T to obtain a “PtNi alloy”, and also, when the atomic ratio x is 0, envision a catalyst particle comprising Pt (“catalyst particle made of Pt (0 valence)”).
Further regarding claim 1, Mei et al. teach a manufacturing method of the aforementioned catalyst material, wherein a Pt-containing catalyst precursor is nitrided at a temperature of 200°C to 1,000°C for 0.05 to 100 hours in a gas atmosphere containing NH3 with a partial pressure of 0.05 atm or more (0.005 MPa or more). See paragraph [0014] of Mei et al., as well as paragraphs [0035], [0055], and [0056], the last two of which disclose preferred nitriding conditions of a temperature ranging from 400 to 800°C, a duration of 3 to 24 hours, an upper limit of NH3 partial pressure of 20 atm (2.0265 MPa), and the presence of gases such as hydrogen and oxygen in addition to NH3 during nitriding. Although Mei et al. do not explicitly teach or suggest Applicants’ claimed “concentration of 10 to 100%”, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to determine through routine experimentation the optimal concentration of ammonia gas, such as that recited in Applicants' claim 1, in an endeavor to either obtain a platinum nitride-based nano-material within a shorter time, or to obtain a uniform material. See paragraph [0056] of Mei et al.
Regarding claim 3, Mei et al. teach the feasibility in the aforementioned catalyst particles being applied or carried on the surface of another material, examples of which include carbon-based powders (“porous carbon support”). See paragraph [0050] of Mei et al.
Regarding claim 5, Mei et al. teach, in the aforementioned manufacturing method, that the catalyst prior to nitriding is not particularly limited, and may comprise an oxide containing Pt and the element T (“catalyst particles further contain a Pt oxide”). See paragraph [0057] of Mei et al.
Regarding claim 8, Mei et al. teach the formation of an electrode composition (“gas diffusion electrode”) from the aforementioned catalyst material, a proton conductive material, and a conductive substance. In said formation, water, the catalyst, a proton conductive solution, and an organic solvent are combined, followed by adding a conductive substance and dispersing for form a slurry (“a step of preparing an ink…”). See paragraphs [0057] and [0060]-[0061] of Mei et al.
Regarding claim 9, Mei et al. teach the formation of a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) from the aforementioned electrode composition, wherein the aforementioned electrode composition serves as either the cathode electrode or the anode electrode. See paragraph [0070] of Mei et al.
While Mei et al. teach a method comparable to that recited in Applicants’ claim 1, this reference does not teach the limitations of this claim regarding the “catalyst having a porous carbon support that has nanopores having a pore diameter of 1 to 20 nm, micropores having a pore diameter of less than 1 nm, and a BET specific surface area (nitrogen adsorption specific surface area) of 1000 to 1500 m2/g”. However, because this reference teaches a method comparable to that instantly claimed and further teaches the formation of a catalyst comprising “catalyst particles containing Pt supported on the support”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to reasonably expect the catalyst obtained by the method disclosed in Mei et al. to exhibit a porous carbon support having (a) nanopores and micropores having respective pore diameters comparable to that instantly claimed, and (b) a BET specific surface area comparable to that instantly claimed, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
“Similar processes can reasonably be expected to yield products which inherently have the same properties.” In re Spada, 15 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 111013625; English translation provided and relied upon by the Examiner) in view of Mei et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0121219).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, and 7, Xu et al. teach a PtMNx-coated Pt/C core-shell nanocatalyst and the preparation thereof, where M is selected from Fe, Co, Ni or Cu, wherein a PtM/C catalyst is prepared and subjected to gas-phase reduction to form PtM/C alloy nanoparticles, followed by soaking the alloy nanoparticles in dilute acid, filtering, washing and drying to form PtM/C alloy nanomaterials, and subjecting the alloy nanomaterials to vapor-phase nitriding to form the PtMNX-coated Pt/C core-shell nanocatalyst. See paragraphs [0011]-[0015] and [0020] of Xu et al., as well as paragraph [0026], which teaches as an exemplary embodiment of the core-shell nanocatalyst, where PtNiNx is the core, and “the shell is a dense Pt atom” (PtNi alloy”; “core particle and a Pt-containing shell…”).
The PtM/C alloy nanoparticles are formed by adding precursor solutions of Pt and M to an ethanol solution and mixing evenly, adding a carbon material support (“porous carbon support”), stirring and evaporating to dryness, and drying (“preparing a powder in which the catalyst particles are supported on the support”). The vapor-phase nitriding is performed with NH3 as a nitriding gas at a temperature of 400-600°C for a time of 1 to 3 hours (paragraph [0024]; “accommodating the powder…, flowing ammonia gas…”). Because only NH3 is disclosed by Xu et al. as the nitriding gas, the skilled artisan would readily envision the nitriding gas to exhibit an NH3 concentration of 100%, thus reading upon the claim limitation “ammonia gas…of a concentration of 10 to 100%” recited in claim 1. Additionally, although Xu et al. do not explicitly teach a pressure at which the preparation occurs, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect said preparation to occur at atmospheric pressure, e.g., 0.101325 MPa, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Further regarding claim 1, and also regarding claim 2, Xu et al. teach an embodiment in which PtM/CH2 alloy nanoparticles are prepared, and subsequently acid-washed with 0.2 mol/L dilute HNO3, allowed to stand for 24 hours (“dispersed in an aqueous nitric acid solution of 0.01 to 1.5 mol/L…”), then filtered, washed, and dried to obtain PtM/C alloy nanomaterials. The alloy nanomaterials are placed in a tube and purged with Ar gas, followed by switching the gas to NH3 and heated to a temperature of 500°C and held at that temperature for 2 hours. See Examples 1 and 2 (paragraphs [0044]-[0048]) of Xu et al.
Although Xu et al. do not explicitly teach a temperature at which the alloy nanoparticles are allowed to stand for 24 hours, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect said standing to occur at a temperature comparable to that recited in Applicants’ claim 2, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary. Additionally, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the embodiment disclosed in Xu et al. by incorporating a stirring step (“while stirring”) to maximize contact between the alloy nanoparticles and the dilute HNO3.
Regarding claim 8, Xu et al. teach the preparation of an electrode (“gas diffusion electrode”) from the aforementioned core-shell nanocatalyst, wherein the nanocatalyst is dispersed in a mixture of ethanol and Nafion solution (“polymer electrolyte (ionomer)”; “dispersion medium”), and stirred ultrasonically until a uniform dispersion is formed. The dispersion is transferred to a glassy carbon disk electrode. See paragraphs [0053]-[0054] of Xu et al.
Xu et al. do not teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding (a) “flowing ammonia gas…for 5 to 10 hours to chemically react the powder and the ammonia gas”, as recited in claim 1, and (b) the step of washing with ion-exchanged water”, as recited in claim 2.
Regarding (a), Mei et al. teach a catalyst material comprising catalyst particles having a composition substantially represented by ATxNu, wherein A contains Pt or Pt and at least one noble metal element selected from the group consisting of Ru, Pd, Au, and Ag; T contains at least one element selected from the group consisting of Fe, Co, Ni, Sn, Mn, Cr, V, Ti, Mo, Nb, Zr, W, Ta, and Hf; and atomic ratios x and u fall within ranges 0 ≤ x ≤ 4 and 0.005 ≤ u ≤ 1, respectively. See paragraphs [0008], [0009] and [0040]-[0046] of Mei et al.; note that Fe, Co, and Ni are also disclosed in Xu et al. as exemplary metals in the nanocatalyst disclosed therein. Mei et al. additionally teach a manufacturing method of the aforementioned catalyst material, wherein a Pt-containing catalyst precursor is nitrided at a temperature of 200°C to 1,000°C for 0.05 to 100 hours in a gas atmosphere containing NH3 with a partial pressure of 0.05 atm or more (0.005 MPa or more). See paragraph [0014] of Mei et al., as well as paragraphs [0035], [0055], and [0056], the last two of which disclose preferred nitriding conditions of a temperature ranging from 400 to 800°C, a duration of 3 to 24 hours; note that this latter nitriding temperature is comparable to the vapor-phase nitriding temperature disclosed in Xu et al. (400-600°C; see paragraph [0024] therein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the preparation of Xu et al. by incorporating therein the nitriding duration of, for example, from 3 to 24 hours, as suggested by Mei et al., motivated by these references’ common teachings regarding the treatment of catalysts with NH3 gas.
Regarding (b), while Xu et al. teach the step of acid-washing the PtM/CH2 alloy nanoparticles, followed by filtering, washing, and drying to obtain the PtM/C alloy nanomaterials (Examples 1 and 2; paragraphs [0044]-[0048]), this reference does not explicitly teach or suggest the employment of ion-exchanged water. However, Mei et al., in paragraph [0069] therein, teach the feasibility in washing a catalyst composition with ion exchange water. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the preparation of Xu et by employing ion exchange water in the washing step subsequent to the filtering step, as suggested by Mei et al., as a conventional washing technique.
Additionally, while Xu et al. in view of Mei et al. teach a method comparable to that recited in Applicants’ claim 1, these references do not teach the limitations of this claim regarding the “catalyst having a porous carbon support that has nanopores having a pore diameter of 1 to 20 nm, micropores having a pore diameter of less than 1 nm, and a BET specific surface area (nitrogen adsorption specific surface area) of 1000 to 1500 m2/g”. However, because the combined teachings of these references teach a method comparable to that instantly claimed, and further teach the formation of a catalyst comprising “catalyst particles containing Pt supported on the support”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to reasonably expect the catalyst obtained by the combined teachings of Xu et al. in view of Mei et al. to exhibit a porous carbon support having (a) nanopores and micropores having respective pore diameters comparable to that instantly claimed, and (b) a BET specific surface area comparable to that instantly claimed, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
“Similar processes can reasonably be expected to yield products which inherently have the same properties.” In re Spada, 15 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Patricia L. Hailey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 April 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights