DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed July 15th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that as demonstrated by Comparative Examples 3, 4, and 5 in the as-filed specification, carbon supports prepared under similar operational conditions do not inherently fall within the scope of the intensity ratio as recited in the now-pending claim 1 (Remarks, page 9).
The Examiner notes that in Applicant’s specification the examples appear to be prepared under similar conditions except that the temperature increase rate differs (see Table 1), all the examples exhibit high surface area (Table 3), but have different intensity ratios in terms of peak height (Table 2).
The Applicant argues that the characteristics required for fuel cell catalyst supports are (i) high catalytic activity and (ii) oxidation resistance. It is well established in the art that these two properties exist in a strict trade-off relationship (e.g., increasing surface area or lowering crystallinity to boost activity usually destroys oxidation resistance). Okui et al., Hayashida et al., and the present application solve this problem using completely incompatible approaches (Remarks, page 9). Okui et al. achieves high catalytic activity by lowering the overall crystallinity of the support via heavy mechanical pulverization, which keeps the supported platinum particles small. To prevent the poor oxidation resistance that normally results from low crystallinity, Okui et al. requires specific heat treatment conditions and pulverization to artificially minimize the amount of weak edge surfaces (Remarks, page 9).
As to this argument, the Examiner respectfully contends that Okui et al. discloses pulverization using a mill (pars. [0070]-[0071]) and the Applicant’s specification also discloses milling and heat treatment (para. [0064]). Thus, it’s not clear how these would be completely incompatible and the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Hayashida et al. addresses the trade-off by selectively controlling localized crystallization (Hayashida et al., paragraph [0013]). It suppresses crystallization in parts other than the inner surface of the pores to maintain specific surface area, while selectively crystallizing only the inner surfaces where the catalytic metal sits to provide oxidation resistance (Remarks, page 10).
However, Hayashida et al. is only relied upon to provide motivation for increased surface area (page 2, for enhancing reaction activity). It is noted that while Hayashida et al. recognizes a trade-off (page 2, para. [0003]), the Examiner respectfully contends that catalyst supports having varying degrees off that trade-off would still at least function.
The Applicant argues that the present application discovered a previously unknown correlation where maintaining an optimum crystalline balance directly controls and optimizes the crystallite size and when precise crystallinity is combined with exceptionally high specific surface area the carbon support provides abundant active sites that prevent the catalyst metal from agglomerating without sacrificing structural or oxidation stability (Remarks, page 10).
However, the Examiner respectfully notes that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The Applicant argues that because low-crystallinity carbon is structurally fragile when hollowed out, Okui et al. explicitly states that its catalyst metal is highly dispersed when the specific surface area is less than 900 m²/g (Okui et al., paragraph [0038]). If one were to try to force the high specific surface area (not less than 1000 m²/g) of Hayashida et al. or the present application onto the structural concept of Okui et al., the low-crystallinity carbon walls of Okui et al. would become structurally fragile and fail under fuel cell oxidation conditions. Okui et al. explicitly warns against this by capping its surface area below 900 m²/g (Remarks, page 10).
The applicant's position on this point is considered to be speculative attorney's argument unsupported by objective technical evidence on the issue because it’s not clear that Okui et al. “warns against this by capping its surface area below 900 m²/g” (para. [0038]). While Okui et al. states “preferably less than 900 m2/g”, Okui et al. also states “a specific surface area of the carbon powder of the present invention is not particularly limited” (para. [0038]). Okui et al. also teaches other factors which could lead to an alteration of surface area such as the catalyst metal type (para. [0074]) and catalyst particle shape and size (which is also not particularly limited, para. [0076]). Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).
The Applicant argues that Burket et al. relates broadly to the synthesis and general structure of nano-porous carbon. It completely lacks any disclosure, suggestion, or context regarding what structural configurations are preferable or functional for a fuel cell catalyst support. There is absolutely no motivation for a skilled artisan to pluck a random peak ratio from a non-analogous carbon synthesis reference and apply it to a highly specialized fuel cell environment (Remarks, pages 11-12).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Burket et al. discloses the use of the carbon in a catalyst support (page 502, left column, line 8) and the catalyst support would function or be suitable as a catalyst support for a fuel cell at least because it has high surface area (page 502, right column, line 19, page 503, Table 1), oxidation susceptible structures removed (page 509, Section 5, Abstract), and is thermally stable (page 502, line 4). Burket et al. is also at least reasonably pertinent to the problem of optimizing the crystal structure of carbon (Introduction section, pages 501-502) used in catalysts (page 502, left column, line 8). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s other arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “the carbon support having” in line 2. It is recommended to change this to “the carbon support having:” (which is how claim 1 is written).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-10, 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burket et al. (previously attached non-patent literature) in view of Okui et al. (US 20190083957) and Hayashida et al. (Applicant provided JP 2018012626A).
Regarding claim 1, Burket et al. discloses a carbon support for a catalyst (page 502, left column, line 8, Abstract) and "where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation" (See MPEP 2111.02). Nonetheless, the catalyst support of Burket et al. would be functional as a carbon support in a fuel cell catalyst (catalyst support, page 502, line 8, high surface area, page 502, right column, second paragraph, having thermal stability and resistant to chemical attack, page 502, lines 3-8, where material susceptible to oxidation has been removed, Abstract).
Burket et al. discloses the carbon support has diffraction peaks of a (002) plane which are observed at least at 2θ=22.5° to 25° (Fig. 7, 24.3°, Abstract), 26° (Fig. 7, Abstract), and 26.5° (Fig. 7, Abstract) in an X-ray diffraction spectrum with CuKα rays (page 503, section 2.2).
Burket et al. discloses a ratio of an intensity I(P1)/I(P2) between a peak P1 observed at 2θ=26° and a peak P2 observed at 2θ=26.5° of not less than 1.4, wherein the I(P1) and the I(P2) respectively represent peak heights of the peak P1 and the peak P2 (Burket et al. reasonably discloses the ratio is much greater than 1.4 in terms of the height, Fig. 7) as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
633
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Burket et al. discloses a BET specific surface area of not less than 1000 m2/g (such as 1060 m2/g, page 503, Table 1, right column, row 8).
Further, Okui et al. discloses a carbon support for a fuel cell catalyst (para. [0001]), having: diffraction peaks of a (002) plane which are observed at least at 2θ=22.5° to 25° (pars. [0013] and [0034]), 26° (para. [0034]), and 26.5° (para. [0035]) in an X-ray diffraction spectrum with CuKα rays (para. [0036]) and Hayashida et al. discloses a carbon support for a fuel cell (catalyst carrier, Abstract) having a diffraction peak P1 at 26⁰ and a peak P2 at 26.5⁰ (Abstract) and a BET specific surface area of 450-1250 m2/g (Abstract). Thus, assuming arguendo that the intended use recited in the preamble were to have patentable weight (which is not conceded), it would have been obvious to use the carbon support of Burket et al. in a fuel cell (having structure and properties suitable for that use as discussed above).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a carbon support such as one having structure producing x-ray diffraction peaks at 22.5° to 25°, 26°, and 26.5° and having a BET specific surface area of 450-1250 m2/g (Hayashida et al., Abstract, Burket et al., Table 1) for use in a fuel cell catalyst.
Regarding claim 3, Burket et al. discloses the intensity ratio I(P1)/I(P2) is not less than 1.7 (Burket et al. reasonably discloses the ratio is much greater than 1.7 in terms of the height, Fig. 7) as shown above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Burket et al. does not explicitly disclose the BET specific surface area is not less than 1200 m2/g.
However, Burket et al. indicates that a specific surface area not less than 1200 m2/g would result by selecting a heat treatment temperature slightly less than 2000° C (as shown in Table 1, the specific surface area decreases with increasing treatment temperature with a large difference occurring between 1800° C [1698 m2/g] and 2000° C [1060 m2/g] such that a temperature slightly less than 2000° C would produce a surface area greater than 1200 m2/g).
Furthermore, Hayashida et al. further teaches an overlapping range for the BET specific surface area (450-1250 m2/g, Abstract).
Therefore, 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 the teachings of Burket et al. wherein the carbon support has a BET specific surface area of not less than 1200 m2/g.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a BET specific surface area of not less than 1200 m2/g in order to provide more surface area for dispersing and anchoring catalytic metal particles to facilitate diffusibility of reactants, increase contact with reactants, and increase efficiency (Hayashida et al., page 2, pars. [0003]-[0004]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have at least considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Hayashida et al. at least overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges for use in a carbon support of a fuel cell catalyst including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Burket et al. discloses the support includes micropores (nanopores below 2 nm, Abstract) wherein the micropores have a volume of not less than 0.37 mL per gram of the carbon support (such as 0.5 cm3/g, Table 1, which equals 0.5 mL/g).
Regarding claim 8, Burket et al. discloses a catalyst (implied by “catalyst support”, page 502, left column, line 8) and "where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation" (See MPEP 2111.02). Nonetheless, the catalyst of Burket et al. would be functional as a fuel cell catalyst (catalyst support, page 502, line 8, high surface area, page 502, right column, second paragraph, having thermal stability and resistant to chemical attack, page 502, lines 3-8, where material susceptible to oxidation has been removed, Abstract).
Burket et al. discloses the catalyst comprises a carbon support (Abstract, page 502, left column, line 8) the carbon support having diffraction peaks of a (002) plane which are observed at least at 2θ=22.5° to 25° (Fig. 7, 24.3°, Abstract), 26° (Fig. 7, Abstract), and 26.5° (Fig. 7, Abstract) in an X-ray diffraction spectrum with CuKα rays (page 503, section 2.2).
Burket et al. discloses an intensity ratio I(P1)/I(P2) between a peak P1 observed at 2θ=26° and a peak P2 observed at 2θ=26.5° of not less than 1.4, wherein the I(P1) and the I(P2) respectively represent peak heights of the peak P1 and the peak P2 (Burket et al. reasonably discloses the ratio is much greater than 1.4 in terms of the height, Fig. 7) as shown above for claim 1.
Burket et al. discloses a BET specific surface area of not less than 1000 m2/g (such as 1060 m2/g, page 503, Table 1, right-most column).
Further, Okui et al. discloses a fuel cell catalyst with a carbon support (para. [0001]) having diffraction peaks of a (002) plane which are observed at least at 2θ=22.5° to 25° (pars. [0013] and [0034]), 26° (para. [0034]), and 26.5° (para. [0035]) in an X-ray diffraction spectrum with CuKα rays (para. [0036]) and Hayashida et al. discloses a fuel cell catalyst with a carbon support (catalyst carrier, Abstract) having a diffraction peak P1 at 26⁰ and a peak P2 at 26.5⁰ (Abstract) and a BET specific surface area of 450-1250 m2/g (Abstract). Thus, assuming arguendo that the intended use recited in the preamble were to have patentable weight (which is not conceded), it would have been obvious to use the catalyst of Burket et al. in a fuel cell (having structure and properties suitable for that use as discussed above).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a catalyst with a carbon support such as one having structure producing x-ray diffraction peaks at 22.5° to 25°, 26°, and 26.5° and having a BET specific surface area of 450-1250 m2/g (Hayashida et al., Abstract, Burket et al., Table 1) for use as a fuel cell catalyst.
Insomuch as Burket et al. does not expressly disclose a catalyst metal, Okui et al. (para. [0074]) and Hayashida et al. (page 1., paragraph 5) both teach a catalyst metal.
Therefore, 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 the teachings of Burket et al. to further include a catalyst metal.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a metal as a catalyst.
Regarding claim 9, Burket et al. does not disclose a crystallite size.
However, Okui et al. further teaches wherein: the catalyst metal contains platinum; and the platinum has a crystallite size (a measurement technique, para. [0076]) of less than 4 nm (para. [0145], overlapping rang 3-5 nm).
Therefore, 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 the teachings of Burket et al. to include wherein the catalyst metal contains platinum; and the platinum has a crystallite size of less than 4 nm.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a crystallite size of less than 4 nm to provide for adequate catalytic activity while being firmly supported (Okui et al., para. [0076]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Okui et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Regarding claim 10, Burket et al. does not disclose a crystallite size.
However, Okui et al. discloses wherein the platinum has a crystallite size of not more than 3.3 nm (para. [0145], overlapping rang 3-5 nm, also para. [0153], 2.5 nm).
Therefore, 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 the teachings of Burket et al. to include wherein the catalyst metal contains platinum; and the platinum has a crystallite size of not more than 3.3 nm.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a crystallite size of not more than 3.3 nm to provide for adequate catalytic activity while being firmly supported (Okui et al., para. [0076]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Okui et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Regarding claim 12, Burket et al. discloses the intensity ratio I(P1)/I(P2) is not less than 1.7 (Burket et al. reasonably discloses the ratio is much greater than 1.7 in terms of the height, Fig. 7) as shown above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Burket et al. does not explicitly disclose the BET specific surface area is not less than 1200 m2/g.
However, Burket et al. indicates that a specific surface area not less than 1200 m2/g would result by selecting a heat treatment temperature slightly less than 2000° C (as shown in Table 1, the specific surface area decreases with increasing treatment temperature with a large difference occurring between 1800° C [1698 m2/g] and 2000° C [1060 m2/g] such that a temperature slightly less than 2000° C would produce a surface area greater than 1200 m2/g).
Furthermore, Hayashida et al. further teaches an overlapping range for the BET specific surface area (450-1250 m2/g, Abstract).
Therefore, 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 the teachings of Burket et al. wherein the carbon support has a BET specific surface area of not less than 1200 m2/g.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a BET specific surface area of not less than 1200 m2/g in order to provide more surface area for dispersing and anchoring catalytic metal particles to facilitate diffusibility of reactants, increase contact with reactants, and increase efficiency (Hayashida et al., page 2, pars. [0003]-[0004]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have at least considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Hayashida et al. at least overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges for use in a carbon support of a fuel cell catalyst including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Regarding claim 16, Burket et al. discloses the support includes micropores (nanopores below 2 nm, Abstract) wherein the micropores have a volume of not less than 0.37 mL per gram of the carbon support (such as 0.5 cm3/g, Table 1, which equals 0.5 mL/g).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burket et al. (previously attached non-patent literature) in view of Okui et al. (US 20190083957) and Hayashida et al. (Applicant provided JP 2018012626A) as applied to claim 1 or claim 8 above and in further view of Nagami et al. (US 20150295250).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Burket et al. does not expressly disclose an oxidation onset temperature.
However, Burket et al. discloses removing material susceptible to oxidation (Abstract) and Nagami et al. discloses a carbon support and catalyst for a fuel cell (Abstract) and Nagami et al. teaches oxidation occurs at 580-650⁰ C (para. [0095]).
Therefore, 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 the teachings of Burket et al. to achieve an oxidation onset temperature of not lower than 610⁰ C.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an oxidation onset temperature of not lower than 610⁰ C to resist oxidation.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have at least considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Nagami et al. at least overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges for use in a carbon support of a fuel cell catalyst including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Assuming, arguendo, that the carbon support of Burket et al. in view of Nagami et al. does not have the claimed oxidation onset temperature, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the oxidation onset temperature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the apparatus of Burket et al. with the range recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burket et al. (previously attached non-patent literature) in view of Okui et al. (US 20190083957) and Hayashida et al. (Applicant provided JP 2018012626A) as applied to claim 1 or claim 8 above and in further view of Lee et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Analysis of Activation Process of Carbon Black Based on Structural Parameters Obtained by XRD Analysis”) and Mizuuchi et al. (US 20150352522).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Burket et al. discloses the carbon support has mesopores (page 503, Table 1), but does not appear to expressly disclose a pore diameter. However, Hayashida et al. further teaches mesopores (page 7, para. [0006]) with an average pore diameter of 3.5 nm to 5.0 nm in that Hayashida et al. discloses an overlapping range of mesopore diameters (2-10 nm, page 7, para. [0006]).
Likewise, Mizuuchi et al. teaches a carbon support for a fuel cell (para. [0021]) and further teaches mesopores with overlapping pore size (1-20 nm, para. [0018]).
Further, Lee et al. discloses the use of a carbon support for a fuel cell (page 2, second paragraph) and Lee et al. teaches mesopores, including that mesopores with a diameter of 2-5 nm or greater may be formed during activation and Lee et al. indicates the average pore size may be adjusted by controlling burn-off (page 2, third paragraph).
Therefore, 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 the teachings of Burket et al. wherein the mesopores have an average pore diameter of 3.5 nm to 5.0 nm.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select/adjust a mesopore average pore diameter to achieve an average pore diameter of 3.5 nm to 5.0 nm in order to match the desired particle size for catalyst metal (Okui et al., para. [0050] and [0153], Mizuuchi et al., para. [0041]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by the above-cited references overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record discloses carbon supports for catalysts or catalysts with carbon supports having a ratio of a height of an x-ray diffraction peak P1 at 2ϴ=26° to a peak P2 at 2ϴ=26.5° of at least 1.4 and which also have a BET specific surface area of not less than 1000 m2/g. The prior art of record discloses carbon supports with mesopores having a volume of not less than 0.73 mL per gram of the carbon support, but which do not disclose the peak height ratio of at least 1.4 and which are not prepared in the same fashion such that the prior art disclosing the peak height ratio could not reasonably be modified to also achieve the mesopore volume.
Therefore, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose carbon supports for catalysts or catalysts with carbon supports having a ratio of a height of an x-ray diffraction peak P1 at 2ϴ=26° to a peak P2 at 2ϴ=26.5° of at least 1.4 and with a BET specific surface area of not less than 1000 m2/g and which also includes mesopores having a volume of not less than 0.73 mL per gram of the carbon support.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights