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 .
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 1-16 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.
Claims 1, 3, 8 and 12 recite an “intensity ratio”, but it is unclear if this ratio is based on a ratio of an area of the peaks or their height. In paragraphs [0015]-[0016] the prior art is described in terms of the area of the peak, but the specification does not appear to explicitly state that the claimed peak intensities are based on area or height and Table 2 seems to indicate they are based on the height of the peaks. As best understood “a.u.” in Table 2 means “arbitrary units”. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the “intensity ratio” because it is not known if the intensities are regarding the area under the peak or only the peak height.
It is noted that Girgsdies (see attached non-patent literature entitled “Peak Profile Analysis in X-ray Powder Diffraction”) states that peak height is used as an approximation whereas the real measure of intensity is the peak area (see slide/page 12).
Claims 2, 4-7, 9-11 and 13-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 or claim 8.
Claim 16 recites “the catalyst support” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As best understood, this is interpreted as “the carbon support”.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-10, 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okui et al. (US 20190083957) in view of Hayashida et al. (Applicant provided JP 2018012626A) and Burket et al. (attached non-patent literature).
Regarding claim 1, 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]).
Okui et al. does not expressly disclose an intensity ratio between peaks P1 and P2.
However, the preparation method disclosed by Okui et al. appears substantially similar to that of the instant application (See instant specification Example 1 and Table 1) as Okui et al. discloses heat treatment at 900⁰ C for 1 hour, treatment with sulfuric acid (para. [0136]), water washing and drying (para. [0136]) followed by heat treatment of 1800⁰ C for 1 hour (para. [0137]). Further, Okui et al. discloses the same diffraction peaks at 2θ=22.5° to 25° (pars. [0013] and [0034]), 26° (para. [0034]), and 26.5° (para. [0035]). Thus, it appears Okui et al. would have substantially identical crystal structure and where the claimed prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established and “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Thus, Okui 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.
Okui et al. does not expressly disclose a BET specific surface area of not less than 1000 m2/g, but Okui et al. states that the surface area is not particularly limited (para. [0038]) 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 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 Okui et al. wherein the carbon support has a BET specific surface area of not less than 1000 m2/g, such as 1000 m2/g - 1250 m2/g.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a BET specific surface area of not less than 1000 m2/g 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 considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Okui et al. in view of Hayashida 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, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003) and MPEP 2144.05.
Assuming, arguendo, that the peak intensity ratio is not disclosed by Okui et al.; Burket et al. teaches a carbon structure which may be used as a carbon support in a fuel cell (catalyst support, page 502, line 8) having peaks located at 2θ=22.5° to 25° (24.3⁰, Abstract), 26°, and 26.5° (Abstract) and 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 (Burket et al. reasonably teaches the ratio is much greater than 1.4 in terms of both area under the peak and height, Fig. 7) as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
405
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Okui et al. where an intensity ratio I(P1)/I(P2) between a peak P1 observed at 2θ=26° and a peak P2 observed at 2θ=26.5° is not less than 1.4.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a heat-treated support resulting in an intensity ratio greater than 1.4 (Burket et al., Fig. 7) in order to drive out defects in graphenes and remove oxidation susceptible structures (Burket et al., page 509, Conclusions section) or to achieve higher surface area and pore volumes (Burket et al., page 503, Table 1).
Regarding claim 3, the preparation method disclosed by Okui et al. appears substantially similar to that of the instant application (see instant specification Example 1 and Table 1) as Okui et al. discloses heat treatment at 900⁰ C for 1 hour, treatment with sulfuric acid (para. [0136]), water washing and drying (para. [0136]) followed by heat treatment of 1800⁰ C for 1 hour (para. [0137]). Further, Okui et al. discloses the same diffraction peaks at 2θ=22.5° to 25° (pars. [0013] and [0034]), 26° (para. [0034]), and 26.5° (para. [0035]). Thus, it appears Okui et al. would have substantially identical crystal structure and where the claimed prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established and “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” See In re Spada, supra.
Thus, Okui 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 1.7. Otherwise, Burket et al. teaches a carbon structure which may be used as a carbon support in a fuel cell (catalyst support, page 502, line 8) having peaks located at 2θ=22.5° to 25° (24.3⁰, Abstract), 26°, and 26.5° (Abstract) and 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 1.7 (Burket et al. reasonably teaches the ratio is much greater than 1.7 in terms of both area under the peak and peak height, Fig. 7) as shown above for claim 1.
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 Okui et al. wherein the intensity ratio I(P1)/I(P2) is not less than 1.7.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a heat-treated support resulting in an intensity ratio greater than 1.7 (Burket et al., Fig. 7) in order to drive out defects in graphenes and remove oxidation susceptible structures (Burket et al., page 509, Conclusions section) or to achieve higher surface area and pore volumes (Burket et al., page 503, Table 1).
Regarding claim 4, Okui et al. does not expressly disclose a BET specific surface area of not less than 1200 m2/g, but Okui et al. states that the surface area is not particularly limited (para. [0038]) 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 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 Okui et al. wherein the carbon support has a BET specific surface area of not lower 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 considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Okui et al. in view of Hayashida 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 6, Okui et al. discloses the support has mesopores, the mesopores having a volume of not less than 0.73 mL per gram of the carbon support (para. [0138], 1.15 cm3/g = 1.15 mL/g).
Regarding claim 8, Okui et al. discloses a catalyst for a fuel cell (para. [0073]), comprising a carbon support and a catalyst metal (para. [0074]), the carbon support 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]).
Okui et al. does not expressly disclose an intensity ratio between peaks P1 and P2.
However, the preparation method disclosed by Okui et al. appears substantially similar to that of the instant application (see Applicant’s specification, Example 1 and Table 1) as Okui et al. discloses heat treatment at 900⁰ C for 1 hour, treatment with sulfuric acid (para. [0136]), water washing and drying (para. [0136]) followed by heat treatment of 1800⁰ C for 1 hour (para. [0137]). Further, Okui et al. discloses the same diffraction peaks at 2θ=22.5° to 25° (pars. [0013] and [0034]), 26° (para. [0034]), and 26.5° (para. [0035]). Thus, it appears Okui et al. would have substantially identical crystal structure and where the claimed prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established and “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” See In re Spada, supra.
Thus, Okui 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.
Okui et al. does not expressly disclose a BET specific surface area of not less than 1000 m2/g, but Okui et al. states that the surface area is not particularly limited (para. [0038]) and Hayashida et al. discloses a catalyst for a fuel cell (catalyst carrier, Abstract) having a diffraction peak P1 at 26⁰ and a peak P2 at 26.5⁰ (Abstract) and 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 Okui et al. wherein the carbon support has a BET specific surface area of not less than 1000 m2/g, such as 1000 m2/g - 1250 m2/g.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a BET specific surface area of not less than 1000 m2/g 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 considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Okui et al. in view of Hayashida 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.
Assuming, arguendo, that the peak intensity ratio is not disclosed by Okui et al.; Burket et al. teaches a carbon structure which may be used with a catalyst in a fuel cell (catalyst support, page 502, line 8) having peaks located at 2θ=22.5° to 25° (24.3⁰, Abstract), 26°, and 26.5° (Abstract) and 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 (Burket et al. reasonably teaches the ratio is much greater than 1.4 in terms of both area under the peak and height, Fig. 7) as shown above for claim 1.
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 Okui et al. where an intensity ratio I(P1)/I(P2) between a peak P1 observed at 2θ=26° and a peak P2 observed at 2θ=26.5° is not less than 1.4.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a heat-treated support resulting in an intensity ratio greater than 1.4 (Burket et al., Fig. 7) in order to drive out defects in graphenes and remove oxidation susceptible structures (Burket et al., page 509, Conclusions section) or to achieve higher surface area and pore volumes (Burket et al., page 503, Table 1).
Regarding claim 9, Okui et al. discloses 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).
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, 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).
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, the preparation method disclosed by Okui et al. appears substantially similar to that of the instant application (see instant specification, Example 1 and Table 1) as Okui et al. discloses heat treatment at 900⁰ C for 1 hour, treatment with sulfuric acid (para. [0136]), water washing and drying (para. [0136]) followed by heat treatment of 1800⁰ C for 1 hour (para. [0137]). Further, Okui et al. discloses the same diffraction peaks at 2θ=22.5° to 25° (pars. [0013] and [0034]), 26° (para. [0034]), and 26.5° (para. [0035]). Thus, it appears Okui et al. would have substantially identical crystal structure and where the claimed prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established and “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” See In re Spada, supra.
Thus, Okui 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 1.7. Otherwise, Burket et al. teaches a carbon structure which may be used as a carbon support in a fuel cell (catalyst support, page 502, line 8) having peaks located at 2θ=22.5° to 25° (24.3⁰, Abstract), 26°, and 26.5° (Abstract) and Burket et al. discloses a ratio of 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 1.7 (Burket et al. reasonably teaches the ratio is much greater than 1.7 in terms of both area under the peak and peak height, Fig. 7) as shown above for claim 1.
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 Okui et al. wherein the intensity ratio I(P1)/I(P2) is not less than 1.7.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a heat-treated support resulting in an intensity ratio greater than 1.7 (Burket et al., Fig. 7) in order to drive out defects in graphenes and remove oxidation susceptible structures (Burket et al., page 509, Conclusions section) or to achieve higher surface area and pore volumes (Burket et al., page 503, Table 1).
Regarding claim 13, Okui et al. does not expressly disclose a BET specific surface area of not less than 1200 m2/g, but Okui et al. states that the surface area is not particularly limited (para. [0038]) and Hayashida et al. discloses a carbon support for a fuel cell catalyst (catalyst carrier, Abstract) having a diffraction peak P1 at 26⁰ and a Peak P2 at 26.5⁰ (Abstract) and 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 Okui et al. wherein the BET specific surface area is not lower 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 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 considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Okui et al. in view of Hayashida 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 15, Okui et al. discloses the carbon support has mesopores, the mesopores having a volume of not less than 0.73 mL per gram of the carbon support (para. [0138], 1.15 cm3/g = 1.15 mL/g).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okui et al. (US 20190083957) in view of Hayashida et al. (Applicant provided JP 2018012626A) and Burket et al. (attached non-patent literature) as applied to claim 1 or claim 8 above and in further view of Nagami et al. (US 20150295250).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Okui et al. does not expressly disclose an oxidation onset temperature.
However, the preparation method disclosed by Okui et al. appears substantially similar to that of the instant application (see instant specification, Example 1 and Table 1) as Okui et al. discloses heat treatment at 900⁰ C for 1 hour, treatment with sulfuric acid (para. [0136]), water washing and drying (para. [0136]) followed by heat treatment of 1800⁰ C for 1 hour (para. [0137]). Further, Okui et al. discloses the same diffraction peaks at 2θ=22.5° to 25° (pars. [0013] and [0034]), 26° (para. [0034]), and 26.5° (para. [0035]). Thus, it appears Okui et al. would have substantially identical structure and where the claimed prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established and “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” See In re Spada, supra.
Thus, Okui et al. discloses wherein the carbon support has an oxidation onset temperature of not lower than 610° C.
Otherwise, 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]) and Okui et al. discloses “excellent oxidation resistance” (para. [0016]) and would presumably have an oxidation temperature above 610⁰ C in view of Nagami et al.’s oxidation range for a similar carbon support having porous structure (para. [0102]).
Assuming, arguendo, that the carbon support of Okui 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 invention to have provided the apparatus of Okui 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 Okui et al. (US 20190083957) in view of Hayashida et al. (Applicant provided JP 2018012626A) and Burket et al. (attached non-patent literature) as applied to claim 1 or claim 8 above and in further view of Mizuuchi et al. (US 20150352522).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Okui et al. discloses the carbon support has mesopores (para. [0050]), 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]).
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 Okui 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 (Okui et al., para. [0062]) 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.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okui et al. (US 20190083957) in view of Hayashida et al. (Applicant provided JP 2018012626A) and Burket et al. (attached non-patent literature) as applied to claim 1 or claim 8 above and in further view of Uchimura et al. (Applicant provided JP 2018081740A).
Regarding claim 7 and 16, insomuch as Okui et al. does not disclose micropores; Burket et al. teaches 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).
Further, Uchimura et al. teaches a carbon support for a fuel cell (page 2, para. [0001]) and Uchimura et al. teaches the use of micropores (page 6, para. [0007]).
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 Okui et al. wherein the carbon support has micropores, the micropores having a volume of not less than 0.37 mL per gram of the carbon support.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to increase the volume per gram in order to achieve a higher surface area (Burket et al., page 502, right column, second paragraph) and allow for transport or access (Uchimura et al., page 9, para. [0001], Burket et al., page 509, lines 28-29) and/or prevent detachment of catalyst (Uchimura et al., page 10, para. [0007]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shodai et al. (US 20220328846) teaches a supported platinum catalyst having an oxidation reaction temperature of not lower than 620° C (claim 1).
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