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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/1/24 and 6/10/25 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 4/9/26 is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
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 1-14 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 recites the limitation "”the pores" in lines 5, and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests “the plurality of pores”. All claims that recite “the “pores” require correction. For example, see claims 5 and 9.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a number fraction of the active metal particles" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests “the number fraction of the active metal particles”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al., US 2017/0033368 A1.
Carpenter teaches a carbon supported catalyst including a carbon support having an average micropore diameter of less than about 70 angstroms (7 nm) and a platinum-group metal being disposed over the carbon support (abstract). See [0035].
FIG. 2 shows PGM catalyst particles 40 residing in micropores 42 in first carbon support 44. Some carbon support catalysts can have up to 80% of all catalyst metal particles located inside the micropores. PGM catalyst particles 40 tend to have restricted access to protons and reactant gases such as oxygen and hydrogen when incorporated into a fuel cell [0037].
PNG
media_image1.png
215
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 5B illustrates the pore diameter (A) of the carbon supported catalyst (shows standard deviation of the pore diameter). Figures 4A-D show TEM micrographs of a platinum supported catalyst wherein an average interparticle distance of the active material particles is 5 to 20 nm (shows standard deviation of the interparticle distance).
PNG
media_image2.png
573
481
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6-8, typically, the carbon support is a carbon powder having a plurality of carbon particles. The carbon particles may have any number of shapes without limiting the invention in any way. Examples of such shapes include, but are not limited to, nano-rods, nanotubes, nano-rafts, non-electrically conducting particles, spherical particles, and the like. In one variation, the carbon particles are a carbon powder and in particular, a high surface area carbon (HSC) powder typically having an average spatial dimension (e.g., diameter) from about 10 to 500 nanometers. In a refinement, the carbon powder has an average spatial dimension from about 20 to 300 nanometers. In another refinement, carbon black having an average spatial dimension from about 50 to 300 nanometers is used for the carbon particles [0033]. Figure 1 shows a fuel cell 10 comprising a cathode electrocatalyst layer 14.
Carpenter does not explicitly recite “standard deviation” of the average entrance pore diameter and/or “standard deviation” of the average interparticle distance.
However, one of skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found the claimed “standard deviation” of the average entrance pore diameter at least obvious in view of at least Figures 2, 5B and 5C of Carpenter. Carpenter teaches a carbon supported catalyst for fuel cell application. The carbon supported catalyst includes a platinum group metal and a carbon support having a plurality of pores. The plurality of pores has an average pore diameter that is greater than about 50 angstroms. The platinum group metal is disposed over/supported on the carbon support [0007]. In a refinement, the average pore diameter is greater than, in increasing order of preference, 50 angstroms, 55 angstroms, 60 angstroms, or 70 angstroms. In refinement, the average pore diameter is less than, in increasing order of preference, 150 angstroms, 120 angstroms, 100 angstroms, or 90 angstroms [0032]. See also [0035].
Furthermore, one of skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found the claimed “standard deviation” of the average interparticle distance at least obvious in view of at least Figures 4A-4D. The size legend in the Figures are 50 nm and 200 nm which makes obvious an interparticle distance of 5-20 nm with a standard deviation equal to or less than 50%. Regarding claim 5, Carpenter teaches the carbon support catalysts can have up to 80% of all catalyst metal particles located inside the micropores. Thus, Figures 4A-4D further renders obvious the average interpore distance of the pores recited by claim 5 when the pores contain up to 80% of the catalyst metal particles located inside the pores of the carbon support.
Regarding claims 11-12, Carpenter teaches the catalyst particles are located inside the pores of the carbon support and the carbon support having an average micropore diameter of less than about 70 angstroms (7 nm). A platinum-group metal being disposed over the carbon support. Thus, one of skill would have found Carpenter to at least suggest the average particle diameter of the active metal particles is 1 to 8 nm in order to be located inside the pores of the carbon support. See at least Figure 2. Furthermore, one of skill would have found the value recited by claim 12 obvious as the average particle diameter of the active metal particles would necessarily be less than the average entrance pore diameter of the carbon support in order for the active metal particles to be located inside the pores of the carbon support.
*
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai, US 2019/0348684 A1.
Arai teaches a catalyst layer for a fuel cell including a carbon carrier having pores and a catalyst metal carried on the carbon carrier wherein the crystal length of the carbon carrier is not less than 6 nm (abstract). The average pore diameter of the carbon carrier is 1 to 20 nm [0016]. The primary particle diameter of the carbon carrier is 200 to 700 nm [0017]. See also [0045-0047]. The catalyst metal may comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of platinum and a platinum alloy. The average particle diameter of the catalyst metal is not particularly limited and may be 3 nm or more, or 3.5 nm or more, and may be 10 nm or less, or 5 nm or less. This particle diameter can be measured in the same manner as the particle diameter of the carbon carrier. The carrying amount of the catalyst metal may be selected such that the catalyst metal is 1 to 99% by weight, 10 to 90% by weight, or 30 to 70% by weight relative to the carbon carrier [0051-0054].
Arai does not explicitly teach an average interparticle distance of the catalyst metal particles is 5 to 20 nm. However, one of skill in at art at the time the invention was filed would have found the claims interparticle distance at least obvious in view of the teachings of Arai. Arai teaches the average pore diameter of the carbon carrier is 1 to 20 nm and the primary particle diameter of the carbon carrier is 200 to 700 nm [0017]. Arai further teaches the average particle diameter of the catalyst metal may be 3 to 10 nm. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. No critically has been shown for the interparticle distance of the active metal particles of the presently claimed invention. See MPEP 2144 IV(A). Arai teaches by setting the crystal length of the carbon carrier to an appropriate length, it is possible to control the degree of hydrophilicity of the pores of the carbon carrier, thereby controlling the coverage of the catalyst metal by the ionomer, whereby it is possible to suppress a reduction in performance at the time of high humidification, particularly at high humidification and high load, while maintaining performance at low humidification [0028].
*
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima et al., US 2020/0119367 A1.
Iijima teaches a carbon material for use as a catalyst carrier for a polymer electrolyte fuel cell which is a porous carbon material and satisfies at the same time (1) the content of a crystallized material is 1.6 or less, (2) the BET specific surface area obtained by a BET analysis of a nitrogen gas adsorption isotherm is from 400 to 1500 m2/g and (3) the cumulative pore volume V2-10 with respect to a pore diameter of from 2 to 10 nm obtained by an analysis of a nitrogen gas adsorption isotherm using the Dollimore-Heal method is from 0.4 to 1.5 mL/g [abstract]. The catalyst may be platinum fine particles supported in the pores. When the pores have a size of from 2 to 10 nm, catalyst metal fine particles usually adjusted to have a diameter of several nanometers, are dispersed in the pores in a highly dispersed state, which contributes favorably to the catalyst utilization rate [0063]. The supported platinum amount of the carbon material supporting platinum was regulated to 25% by mass with respect to the total mass of the carbon material for use as a catalyst carrier and the platinum particles [0146].
Iijima does not explicitly state the average interparticle distance of the active material particles. However, one of skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found the claimed average interparticle distance obvious in view of the teachings of Iijima that the active material particles (platinum) should be in a well dispersed state. For the carbon material for use as a catalyst carrier, it is necessary that the BET specific surface area is from 400 to 1500 m2/g, and preferably from 500 m2/g to 1,400 m2/g. When the BET specific surface area is 400 m2/g or more, and preferably 500 m2/g or more, the catalyst metal particles with a size of several nanometers are supported in a well dispersed state, namely in a state where individual particles can exist keeping a certain interparticle distance among the catalyst metal particles. On the contrary, when the BET specific surface area is less than 400 m2/g, the interparticle distance among the catalyst metal particles becomes too short, and it may become difficult to support the catalyst metal particles at a high density and uniformly. As a result, the effective area of the catalyst metal particles may decrease and the fuel cell characteristics may greatly deteriorate. Meanwhile, when the same exceeds 1500 m2/g, since the edge portion in a porous carbon material increases, there arises a risk that decrease in practical crystallinity occurs and the durability tends to be lowered [0061].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY DOVE whose telephone number is (571)272-1285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-3:00.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/TRACY M DOVE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights