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 .
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeon et al (KR20200012563, English translation) in view of Hwan et al (KR20210072986, English translation).
‘563, paragraph 32, teaches 1) preparing an active carrier by supporting a mixture comprising a main catalyst precursor and a promoter precursor on a support; 2) drying the active carrier through multistage drying; 3) preparing a supported catalyst by heat treating the dried active support.
‘563, paragraph 38, teaches in order to uniformly support the main catalyst precursor and the cocatalyst precursor on a support, the main catalyst precursor and the cocatalyst precursor are added to a solvent.
‘563, paragraph 104, teaches the supported active material is heat-treated to prepare a supported catalyst.
‘563, paragraph 105, teaches when the heat treatment is performed, a supported catalyst in which the main catalyst and the promoter are present in the state of being coated on the surface and the pores of the support is prepared.
‘563, paragraph 107, teaches the heat treatment may be carried out at 600 to 800 ℃.
‘563, paragraph 42, teaches the support may include at least one selected from the group consisting of α-Al2O3 , γ-Al2O3, and AlO(OH) as an element that may affect the shape of the carbon nanotubes.
Heat treating at 600-800oC as taught by ‘563 reads on the step of sintering as claimed in claim 1 and 12.
Although ‘563 teaches a mixing step, ‘563 does not teach the mixing step performed under a pressure of 1.5 bar to 4.5 bar.
‘986, abstract, teaches a catalyst including a porous support and a catalyst metal, introducing the catalyst, a solvent, and an ionomer into a chamber, and infiltrating the ionomer into the pores of the support.
‘986 teaches the pressure applied to the contents of the chamber may be 2 bar to 200 bar.
‘986, paragraph 18, teaches the catalyst metal is bonded to the outer surface of the support and the inner surface of the pores of the support.
It 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 to mix the components ‘563 with a pressure of 2 bar to 200 bar as taught by ‘986 to ensure the catalyst metal is bonded to the outer surface of the support and the inner surface of the pores of the support.
Regarding claim 2, ‘986, paragraph 18, teaches the pressure applied to the contents of the chamber may be 2 bar to 200 bar.
Regarding claim 3, ‘563, paragraph 46, teaches the main catalyst may be at least one selected from the group consisting of cobalt, iron, nickel, manganese and chromium, of which cobalt is preferable.
Regarding claim 4, ‘563, paragraph 49, teaches the cocatalyst precursors are NH4VO3 , NaVO3 , V2O5, V(C5H7O2)3, (NH4) 6Mo7O24 , and (NH4) 6 Mo7O24·4H.
Regarding claim 5, ‘563, paragraph 51, teaches the mixture may include the main catalyst precursor and the cocatalyst precursor such that the molar ratio of the main catalyst and the cocatalyst is 40:1 to 3:1.
Regarding claim 7, ‘563, paragraph 164, teaches a catalyst specific surface area of 243, 250 and 252 m2/g.
Regarding claims 8-9, ‘563, paragraph 97, teaches vacuum drying under the vibration may be performed at 1 to 200 mbar.
Regarding claim 10, ‘563 teaches vacuum drying under the vibration may be carried out at 175-300oC.
Regarding claim 11, ‘563, paragraph 107, teaches the heat treatment may be carried out at 600 to 800 ℃, it is preferably carried out at 650 to 750 ℃.
The heat treatment may be performed for 1 to 12 hours, preferably 2 to 8 hours.
Regarding claim 12, ‘563, paragraph 117, teaches the supported catalyst may be introduced into a reactor. Subsequently, the gaseous carbonaceous compound or the gaseous carbonaceous compound and the reducing gas. Carbon nanotubes can be grown by chemical vapor phase synthesis through the decomposition of a carbon-based compound in a gaseous state by injecting a mixed gas of hydrogen or the like and a carrier gas (for example, nitrogen).
‘563, paragraph 42, teaches the support may include at least one selected from the group consisting of α-Al2O3 , γ-Al2O3, and AlO(OH) as an element that may affect the shape of the carbon nanotubes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/30/26 , with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-12 under Yeon in view of Hwan have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yeon in view of Hwan.
Applicant argues YEON represents the "conventional technology" that the present invention seeks to improve. YEON is entirely silent on applying pressure during the loading process and provides no technical motivation to control such pressure.
Examiner respectfully traverses.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant primarily argues that YEON does not expressly teach the claimed pressure. This argument merely agrees with the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), which admits that YEON does not disclose the entire claimed invention. Rather, Hwan is relied upon to teach claimed elements missing from YEON.
Applicant argues while both YEON and HWAN involve "catalysts," the specific chemical reactions and required structures differ significantly due the different applications thereof (CNT production VS. fuel cells). In HWAN, pressure is applied to force ionomers into the pores of a support that has already been loaded with catalyst metal, ensuring contact between the metal and the ionomer. In contrast, the present invention applies pressure to facilitate the initial diffusion of the catalyst components themselves into the support. Further, HWAN utilizes carbon-based supports (graphite, activated carbon, etc.), whereas the present invention utilizes metal-based supports (oxides/hydroxides), which possess distinct physical and chemical properties.
For a combination of YEON and HWAN to render the claims obvious, there must be a reasonable motivation to combine them. However, their combination is not apparent or reasonable to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner respectfully traverses.
‘563 broadly teaches preparing an active carrier by supporting a mixture comprising a main catalyst precursor and a promoter precursor on a support. Therefore, this reference is open to different types of conventional methods to prepare an active carrier.
‘986, abstract, teaches a catalyst including a porous support and a catalyst metal, introducing the catalyst, a solvent, and an ionomer into a chamber, and infiltrating the ionomer into the pores of the support.
‘986 teaches the pressure applied to the contents of the chamber may be 2 bar to 200 bar.
‘986, paragraph 18, teaches the catalyst metal is bonded to the outer surface of the support and the inner surface of the pores of the support.
Therefore, the teaching of ‘986 wherein a pressure is applied so a catalyst metal is bonded to a carrier can be broadly applied to the method of ‘563. ‘986 demonstrates the benefits of applying pressure to ensure different contents, either ionomers or metal, can be bonded to the support and inner surface of pores of the support.
As stated above, it 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 to mix the components ‘563 with a pressure of 2 bar to 200 bar as taught by ‘986 to ensure the catalyst metal is bonded to the outer surface of the support and the inner surface of the pores of the support.
‘986 is only used as teaching reference in order to teach applying a pressure to a support. It is noted that the "test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art", In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871,881 (CCPA 1981) and that "combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures", In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USP 224, 226 (CCPA).
It is also noted that there is no requirement in 35 U.S.C. 103, the MPEP or KSR
International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. that a secondary reference must implicitly or explicitly
acknowledge, appreciate or address the need for the solutions offered by a primary
reference. Applicant's argument would improperly restrict the meaning of “obvious”
under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant argues the preferred pressure range in HWAN is 50 to 200 bar, optimized for carbon-based supports and high-molecular-weight ionomers. Applying such high pressure to the metal-based supports of YEON (which have different structural tolerances) would not be a matter of routine experimentation. A PHOSITA would not have expected that the low-pressure range of the present invention would improve catalyst loading for CNT production based on the high-pressure ionomer slurry process of HWAN.
Examiner respectfully traverses.
‘986 as a whole broadly teaches the pressure applied to the contents of the chamber may be 2 bar to 200 bar.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Applicant argues even if YEON and HWAN were combined, the specific pressure range of the present invention is distinct and yields unexpected results. The present invention achieves high yield and high bulk density of CNTs specifically within the range of 1.5 to 4.5 bar. As shown in Examples 1, 2, and 7 VS. Comparative Examples 1-3 (atmospheric pressure), bulk density and yield are significantly improved by the claimed pressure. As shown in Example 6 VS. Comparative Example 4 (high pressure), yield decreases when the pressure exceeds the claimed range.
Examiner respectfully traverses.
The data to establish unexpected results is unpersuasive.
The data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the claims.
The data only shows a method comprising:
a step of mixing a specific oxide metal (alumina with a specific surface area of 190 m2/g and a D50 of 50 microns) and a specific catalyst supporting solution in a specific concentration (a cobalt precursor and a vanadium precursor having a concentration of 7 wt%) in a specific ratio (10:1) and a specific solvent (water) at a specific pressure (2-3.5 bar);
a step of drying at a specific temperature (120oC) at a specific pressure (normal or reduced);
a step of sintering at a specific temperature (720oC) in specific conditions (air) for a specific amount of time (1.5 hours)
while the present claims broadly encompass a method comprising:
a step of mixing ANY catalyst supporting solution with ANY aluminum, magnesium, calcium or silicon oxide or hydroxide to obtain a mixture wherein the step is performed broadly under a pressure of 1.5-4.5 bar;
a step of drying at ANY temperature or ANY pressure; and
a step of sintering at ANY temperature and ANY condition to obtain the catalyst.
Additionally, the data does not show applying pressure at the lower end value and at the upper end value (i.e., 1.5 ; 4.5 wt%), using the amount of the coloring foodstuff at the lower end value and at the upper end value (i.e., 30 wt.% ; 50 wt%) and sing the amount of the auxiliary coating agent.
As set forth in MPEP 716.02(d), whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support”. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occurred over the entire claimed range, In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Applicants have not provided data to show that the unexpected results do in fact occur over the entire claimed range of 1.5 to 4.5 bar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US3380931, col. 3, teaches the impregnation is carried out by immersing the support granules in the latter solution and alternately applying vacuum and pressure to fill all the pores of the support with solution.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 STEFANIE J COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5836. The examiner can normally be reached 10am- 6pm M-F.
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, 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.
/STEFANIE J COHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1732 7/30/26
Prosecution Insights