DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 were subject to restriction requirement mailed on 11/06/2025.
Applicant filed a response, and elected Group I, claims 1-16, and withdrew claims 17, without traverse on 12/29/2025.
Claims 1-17 are pending, and claim 17 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-8 and 10-16 are rejected.
Claim 9 is objected to.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In order to provide consistency of the term “the carbon support supporting the first metal” recited in claim 1, line 7, it is suggested to
amend “the carbon support” to “the carbon support supporting the first metal” in claim 1, line 8.
Claim 16, line 1, it is suggested to amend “contact” to “water contact”, to ensure clarity given that the specification discloses the contact angle is measured with water (specification, [00105]).
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok et al., KR 20190071334A (Seok) (provided in IDS received on 12/29/2025), in view of Pak et al., KR 101901223B1 (Pak).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Seok et al., KR 20190071334A and Pak et al., KR 101901223B1. The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 10-11, Seok teaches a method for manufacturing a catalyst for a fuel cell, the method comprises the steps of: dispersing a carbon-based carrier in a solvent; adding and mixing a catalyst precursor containing a Pt precursor, a binary transition metal precursor, and a ternary transition metal precursor to form a precursor mixture solution; adjusting the solution acidity to be basic; and irradiating the solution with an electron beam (Seok, Abstract);
preferably, the carbon-based carrier is a carbon particle powder obtained by pulverizing the pitch-based material so as to have excellent durability and dispersibility of the fuel cell catalyst. For the production of the carbon particle powder, the pitch-based material may be heat-treated at 900 to 2000 ° C under an inert gas atmosphere such as nitrogen gas or argon gas (reading upon heat treating a carbon support)). By this, the degree of crystallization of the material is increased, thereby reducing the impurities and improving the durability (Seok, page 3, 5th paragraph);
the Pt element (reading upon the second metal precursor), the bivalent transition metal element, and the ternary transition metal element may be added to the carbon-based carrier dispersion solution in the form of a metal salt precursor compound (Seok, page 4, 1st paragraph);
a metal alloy fuel cell catalyst is formed (reading upon obtaining a carbon support in which the second metal is alloyed) (Seok, page 4, 1st paragraph);
Further regarding claim 1, Seok does not explicitly disclose the separate steps of forming a first precursor mixed solution by mixing the carbon support and a first metal precursor solution, or forming a second precursor mixed solution by mixing the carbon support and a second metal precursor solution.
However, in general, the transposition of process steps, or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex parte Rubin (POBA 1959) 128 U.S.P.Q. 440, Cohn v. Comr. Pats. (DCDC 1966) 251 F Supp 378, 148 U.S.P.Q. 486.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to conduct the method of Seok by forming a first precursor mixed solution by mixing the carbon-based carrier, a binary transition metal precursor, then an electron beam irradiated to form a carbon-based carrier supporting the binary transition metal; then forming a second precursor mixed solution by mixing the carbon-based carrier supporting the binary transition metal and a Pt precursor, alloying Pt by irradiating the second precursor mixed solution with an electron beam, and yield expected results.
Further regarding claims 1 and 10, Seok does not explicitly disclose heat-treating the carbon support supporting the first metal.
With respect to the difference, Pak teaches supported catalyst as fuel cell catalyst prepared by electron beam irradiation (Pak, page 2, 3rd paragraph; page 4, bottom two paragraphs). Pak specifically teaches the method may further include post-treating the dried mixture (i.e., metal supported on a carrier) in a hydrogen gas atmosphere; the post treatment is preferably performed by heat treating at 200 to 400 ˚C for 30 minutes to 120 minutes (Pak, page 5, 4th and 6th paragraphs).
As Pak expressly teaches, the purpose of the post-treatment is to improve the activity and durability of the catalyst by metalizing a small amount of metal oxide after surface treatment and electron beam irradiation (Pak, page 5, 5th paragraph).
Pak is analogous art as Pak is drawn to supported catalyst as fuel cell catalyst prepared by electron beam irradiation.
In light of the motivation of applying a post-treatment, such as heat treating at 200 to 400 ˚C for 30 minutes to 120 minutes, after metal is supported on a carrier, as taught by Pak, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply heat treating after formation of each of the carbon-based carrier supporting a metal, including the carbon-based carrier supporting the binary transition metal, e.g., 200 to 400 ˚C for 30 minutes to 120 minutes, in order to improve the activity and durability of the catalyst by metalizing a small amount of metal oxide after surface treatment and electron beam irradiation, and thereby arrive at claim1 and a range that overlaps the range of claim 10.
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).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1, Seok in view of Pak further teaches this step S3 may be performed to reduce the transition metal of the catalyst precursor and to disperse the transition metal particles; this step can be performed by adding a pH adjusting agent to the precursor mixture solution. The pH adjusting agent may be, for example, at least one selected from the group consisting of NaOH, Na2CO3, KOH and K2CO3, but is not limited thereto. The preferred pH range of the acid-controlled precursor mixture solution may be 9-11 (Seok, page 5, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1, Seok in view of Pak further teaches the step (S4) may be performed by irradiating the electron beam under the above conditions for 20 to 40 minutes (Seok, page 5, 5th paragraph), which overlaps the range of the presently claimed.
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).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1, Seok in view of Pak further teaches in Example 1, after the reactor (i.e., electron beam radiation), the material was filtered and dried to prepare a catalyst for a fuel cell electrode (Seok, page 6, Example 1). As set forth in claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to conduct the method of Seok by forming a first precursor mixed solution by mixing the carbon-based carrier, a binary transition metal precursor, then an electron beam irradiated to form a carbon-based carrier supporting the binary transition metal; then forming a second precursor mixed solution by mixing the carbon-based carrier supporting the binary transition metal and a Pt precursor, alloying Pt by irradiating the second precursor mixed solution with an electron beam, which would necessary require filtering and drying of the carbon-based carrier supporting the binary transition metal.
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 1, Seok in view of Pak further teaches this step S3 may be performed to reduce the transition metal of the catalyst precursor and to disperse the transition metal particles; this step can be performed by adding a pH adjusting agent to the precursor mixture solution (i.e., which includes both the binary transition metal precursor solution and the platinum precursor solution). The pH adjusting agent may be, for example, at least one selected from the group consisting of NaOH, Na2CO3, KOH and K2CO3, but is not limited thereto. The preferred pH range of the acid-controlled precursor mixture solution may be 9-11 (Seok, page 5, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 1, Seok in view of Pak further teaches the step (S4) may be performed by irradiating the electron beam under the above conditions for 20 to 40 minutes (Seok, page 5, 5th paragraph), which overlaps the range of the presently claimed.
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).
Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 1, Seok in view of Pak further teaches in Example 1, after the reactor (i.e., electron beam radiation), the material was filtered and dried to prepare a catalyst for a fuel cell electrode (Seok, page 6, Example 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of Pak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qiu et al., CN 1330423A (Qiu).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Qiu et al., CN 1330423A (Qiu). The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Seok in view of Pak does not explicitly disclose wherein in the heat-treating of the carbon support, a heat treatment temperature is 400 °C to 700 °C, and a heat treatment time is 1 hour to 3 hours.
With respect to the difference, Qiu teaches a preparation method of carrier catalyst for fuel cell (Qiu, Abstract). Qiu specifically teaches air activation of carbon small ball carrier at 400-800 degrees centigrade for 0.5-2 hours (Qiu, page 2, 5th paragraph).
As Qiu expressly teaches, when using hard carbon as carrier, the catalyst utilization rate improves (Qiu, page 2, 3rd paragraph); so if using hard carbon as catalyst carrier, even under high pressure, also does not cause that porosity decreases so as to ensure the porosity and smoothly diffuse of reactant on the electrode (Qiu, page 2, 2nd paragraph).
Qiu is analogous art as Qiu is drawn to a preparation method of carrier catalyst for fuel cell.
In light of the motivation of using hard carbon as carrier, as taught by Qiu, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a hard carbon as carrier for the fuel cell catalyst in Seok in view of Pak, e.g., a carbon catalyst with air activation at 400-800 degrees centigrade for 0.5-2 hours, in order to ensure the porosity and smoothly diffuse of reactant on the electrode, and achieve improved catalyst utilization rate, and thereby arrive at ranges that overlaps those of the presently claimed.
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).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of Pak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marucchi-Soos et al., US 5916702 (Marucchi-Soos).
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1, Seok in view of Pak does not explicitly disclose wherein the first metal precursor is a precursor of zinc (Zn), magnesium (Mg), or calcium (Ca).
With respect to the difference, Marucchi-Soos teaches carbon-supported platinum-zinc alloy as fuel cell catalyst (Marucchi-Soos, Abstract; column 3, 1st paragraph). Marucchi-Soos specifically teaches the catalyst is carbon-supported platinum-zinc alloy and the composition is made by depositing on the carbon support a soluble zinc source including zinc nitrate (Marucchi-Soos, Abstract).
As Marucchi-Soos expressly teaches, the carbon-supported platinum-zinc alloy as fuel cell catalyst has utility in fuel cells in electrochemical processes requiring CO tolerant anodes (Marucchi-Soos, Abstract); the Pt-Zn/C electrode shows enhanced stability at potentials above zero Mv/RHE in those acidic solutions as typically would be used, e.g., for liquid electrolytes in fuel cells (Marucchi-Soos, column 3, lines 50-55).
Marucchi-Soos is analogous art as Marucchi-Soos is drawn to carbon-supported platinum-zinc alloy as fuel cell catalyst.
In light of the motivation of using a carbon-supported platinum-zinc alloy as fuel cell catalyst, as taught by Marucchi-Soos, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a zinc precursor as the binary transition metal precursor in Seok in view of Pak, in order to prepare a carbon-supported platinum-zinc alloy, as fuel cell catalyst, in order to achieve utility in electrochemical processes requiring CO tolerant anodes, and/or with enhanced stability at potentials above zero Mv/RHE in those acidic solutions as typically would be used, e.g., for liquid electrolytes in fuel cells, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of Pak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marucchi-Soos and Ivanova et al., M0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 (M=Cu, Co, Mn, Ni) ferrites supported on activated carbon as catalysts for methanol decomposition, Bulgarian Chemical Communications, 2021 (Ivanova).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1, Seok in view of Pak does not explicitly disclose wherein the first metal precursor is zinc nitrate hydrate (Zn(NO3)2·6H2O), zinc phosphate hydrate (Zn3(PO4)2·4H2O), or zinc sulfate hydrate (ZnSO4·7H2O).
With respect to the difference, Marucchi-Soos teaches carbon-supported platinum-zinc alloy as fuel cell catalyst (Marucchi-Soos, Abstract; column 3, 1st paragraph). Marucchi-Soos specifically teaches the catalyst is carbon-supported platinum-zinc alloy and the composition is made by depositing on the carbon support a soluble zinc source including zinc nitrate (Marucchi-Soos, Abstract).
As Marucchi-Soos expressly teaches, the carbon-supported platinum-zinc alloy as fuel cell catalyst has utility in fuel cells in electrochemical processes requiring CO tolerant anodes (Marucchi-Soos, Abstract); the Pt-Zn/C electrode shows enhanced stability at potentials above zero Mv/RHE in those acidic solutions as typically would be used, e.g., for liquid electrolytes in fuel cells (Marucchi-Soos, column 3, lines 50-55).
Marucchi-Soos is analogous art as Marucchi-Soos is drawn to carbon-supported platinum-zinc alloy as fuel cell catalyst.
In light of the motivation of using a carbon-supported platinum-zinc alloy as fuel cell catalyst, as taught by Marucchi-Soos, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a zinc precursor as the binary transition metal precursor in Seok in view of Pak, in order to prepare a carbon-supported platinum-zinc alloy, as fuel cell catalyst, in order to achieve utility in electrochemical processes requiring CO tolerant anodes, and/or with enhanced stability at potentials above zero Mv/RHE in those acidic solutions as typically would be used, e.g., for liquid electrolytes in fuel cells.
Further regarding the specific zinc nitrate for the soluble zinc source, Ivanova teaches zinc containing catalyst supported on carbon (Ivanova, Abstract). Ivanova specifically teaches Zn(NO3)2·6H2O as the soluble zinc source (Ivanova, page 94, left column, bottom paragraph).
Ivanova is analogous art as Ivanova is drawn to zinc containing catalyst supported on carbon.
In view of the disclosure of using Zn(NO3)2·6H2O as the soluble zinc source of Ivanova, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Zn(NO3)2·6H2O as the zinc nitrate for the soluble zinc source, in Seok in view of Pak and Marucchi-Soos, and yield expected results, and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of Pak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Joo et al., US 2007/0116625 A1 (Joo).
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 1, Seok in view of Pak does not explicitly disclose wherein the fuel cell catalyst has mesopores having a size of 2 nm to 50 nm.
With respect to the difference, Joo teaches carbon as support for catalysts of fuel cell electrodes (Joo, Abstract). Joo specifically teaches the average diameter of mesopores of the mesoporous carbon is 2 to 10 nm (Joo, [0062]).
As Joo expressly teaches, when the mesoporous carbon is used as a support for catalysts of electrodes, a supported catalyst containing the support can be used to manufacture a fuel cell having high efficiency.
Joo is analogous art as Joo is drawn to carbon as support for catalysts of fuel cell electrodes.
In light of the motivation of using a mesoporous carbon as support for fuel cell electrode catalyst, as taught by Joo, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a mesoporous carbon, e.g., with an average diameter of mesopores of the mesoporous carbon being 2 to 10 nm, as the carbon-based carrier in Seok in view of Pak, in order to manufacture a fuel cell having high efficiency, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of Pak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsuta et al., CN 102742056A (Mitsuta).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Mitsuta et al., CN 102742056A. The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 1, Seok in view of Pak does not explicitly disclose wherein the fuel cell catalyst has a contact angle of 10° to 19°
With respect to the difference, Mitsuta teaches fuel cell with electrode catalyst layer (Mitsuta, Abstract). Mitsuta specifically teaches the platinum black catalyst has high compatibility with water and the contact angle with water is small (Mitsuta, page 3, [0012]).
As Mitsuta expressly teaches, the platinum black catalyst has high compatibility with water and the contact angle with water is small, so the surface has property of physically attaching a large amount of water (Mitsuta, page 3, [0012]).
Mitsuta is analogous art as Mitsuta is drawn to fuel cell with electrode catalyst layer.
In light of the motivation of using a platinum black catalyst with high compatibility with water and small contact angle with water, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the catalyst in Seok in view of Pak with small contact angle with water, in order to achieve the property of physically attaching a large amount of water, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Although there are no disclosures on the amounts of contact agle as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("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."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of water contact angle, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to achieve desired attaching property with water, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Regarding claim 9, applied to claim 1, none of Seok, Pak, Marucchi-Soos, Ivanova, Qiu, Joo, and Mitsuta discloses or suggests wherein in the heat-treating of the carbon support supporting the first metal, the heat treatment temperature is 1000 °C to 1600 °C. Specifically, Seok in view of Pak teaches the post-treatment is preferably performed by heat-treating at 200 to 400˚C (Pak, page 5, 6th paragraph), which is outside of the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732