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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, Qiusheng, et al. "Interface engineering of NixSy@MoS2 heterostructured nanorods as high-efficient electrocatalysts for water splitting." International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 46.71 (2021): 35077-35087 (hereafter referred to as Zhou-2021) in view of Subbaraman US20140116890A1 and Lv, Hong, et al. "Self-assembled RuO2@IrOx core-shell nanocomposite as high efficient anode catalyst for PEM water electrolyzer." Applied Surface Science 514 (2020): 145943 (hereafter referred to as Lv-2020).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou-2021 discloses an oxygen evolution catalyst (Zhou-2021, abstract), comprising:
a core comprising nickel sulfide (Zhou-2021, p. 35078, right column [0002], “the catalyst with core-shell nanostructure is beneficial to endow more active sites and regulate the electronic structure”, p. 35079, right column [0001], “NixSy@...NixSy nuclei” )
and a shell surrounding a surface of the core (Zhou-2021, p 35078, right column [0002], “the shell with the controllable structure, such as thickness, composition, crystallinity, and porosity, could provide a potential possibility for improving the catalytic activity of materials”. P. 35079, right column [0001], “shell on the matrix surface and the formation of the core-shell nanostructure”) but does not disclose the shell comprising iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide.
In an oxygen evolution catalyst Subbaraman teaches the shell comprising iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide (Subbaraman, [0004], [0032]).
Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to modify the shell structure of Zhou-2021 with the teaching of Subbaraman wherein a shell surrounding a surface of the core and comprising iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide thereby the design of core-shell materials with the more noble metal species localized to the surfaces of the catalyst particles will further help in lowering the cost of these catalysts and given that the active materials are 3d transition metal oxides, such as iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide, the cost of these catalysts can then be significantly lowered without significant compromise in performance at all levels (Subbaraman, [0004], [0069]).
Zhou-2021 as modified by Subbaraman does not teach wherein the shell comprises either (a) a first layer surrounding the core and comprising ruthenium oxide; and a second layer surrounding the first layer and comprising iridium oxide, or (b) a first layer surrounding the core and comprising iridium oxide; and a second layer surrounding the first layer and comprising ruthenium oxide, or (c) an alloy comprising an oxide of an alloy of iridium and ruthenium.
In a catalyst for oxygen evolution Lv-2020 teaches a first layer comprising ruthenium oxide and a second layer surrounding the first layer and comprising iridium oxide (Lv-2020, section 3, p. 3, left column [0001], “RuO2@IrOx”). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nickel sulfide core and iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide shell, of Zhou-2021 as modified by Subbaraman with the teaching of Lv-2020 wherein the shell comprises: a first layer surrounding the core and comprising ruthenium oxide; and a second layer surrounding the first layer and comprising iridium oxide thereby maintaining high efficient OER activity and good stability (Lv-2020, section 4, p. 7, right column [0001], “designed and constructed to maintain high efficient OER activity and good stability”).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou-2021 (see above for full reference) in view of Subbaraman US20140116890A1 and Lv-2020 (see above for full reference), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chai, Yong-Ming, et al. "Solvent dependent in situ growth of NixSy supported on nickel foam as electrocatalysts for oxygen evolution reaction." International Journal of Electrochemical Science 11.4 (2016): 3050-3055 (hereafter referred to as Chai-2016).
Regarding claim 2, modified Zhou-2021 teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above, Zhou-2021 however does not teach the shape of the core.
In an oxygen evolution catalyst comprising nickel sulfide Chai-2016 teaches wherein the NixSy has a shape of a polyhedral prism (Chai-2016, section 3, p. 3053, [0001], “(Figure 2h) displays many polyhedron structures dispersing on NixSy film of S-3”, Fig. 2h). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nickel sulfide core of modified Zhou-2021 using art known engineering techniques and the teaching of Chai-2016 wherein the core has a shape of a polyhedral prism, thereby having an earlier onset potential with much higher current density as the polyhedral prism shape may expose more activity sites for OER (Chai-2016, section 3, p. 3053, [0001], “S-3 has an earlier onset potential (1.24 V vs. RHE) than that of S-1 and S-2 (1.55 V vs. RHE), with much higher current density after 1.25 V (vs. RHE)”).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv -2020 (see above for full reference) in view of Zhou-2021 (see above for full citation) and further in view of Subbaraman US20140116890A1.
Regarding claim 6, Lv-2020 discloses a fuel cell (Lv-2020, p. 2, left column [0001], “The unique physicochemical property of the core-shell structure, which results from the surface strain and the atomic vicinity affecting the charge transfer between the core and shell, reveals multifunctional capabilities and/or enhanced properties in a wide range of applications (e.g. electrocatalytic[42,43], fuel cell”) an oxygen evolution catalyst (Lv-2020, p. 2, left column [0002], “The OER activity of RuO2@IrOx”), comprising: a shell comprising iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide (Lv-2020, p. 2, left column [0002], “The OER activity of RuO2@IrOx”), wherein the shell comprises either: a first layer comprising ruthenium oxide and a second layer surrounding the first layer and comprising iridium oxide (Lv-2020, section 3, p. 3, left column [0001], “RuO2@IrOx”). Lv-2020 however does not disclose a core comprising nickel sulfide and a shell surrounding a surface of the core.
In an oxygen evolution catalyst Zhou-2021 teaches comprising: a core comprising nickel sulfide (Zhou-2021, p. 35078, right column [0002], “the catalyst with core-shell nanostructure is beneficial to endow more active sites and regulate the electronic structure”, p. 35079, right column [0001], “NixSy@...NixSy nuclei” ). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the core of Lv-2020 with the teaching of Zhou-2021 wherein the core comprising nickel sulfide thereby enhancing the sufficient exposure and utilization of actives sites and accelerate the electron transfer rate of catalyst with a nickel sulfide core (Zhou-2021, abstract, “in order to enhance the sufficient exposure and utilization of actives sites and accelerate the electron transfer rate of catalyst, NixSy@MoS2 core-shell”). Lv-2020 as modified by Zhou-2021 does not teach a shell surrounding a surface of the core and comprising iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide.
In an oxygen evolution catalyst Subbaraman teaches the shell comprising iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide (Subbaraman, [0004], [0032]).
Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to modify the shell structure of Lv-2020 as modified by Zhou-2021 with the teaching of Subbaraman wherein a shell surrounding a surface of the core and comprising iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide thereby the design of core-shell materials with the more noble metal species localized to the surfaces of the catalyst particles will further help in lowering the cost of these catalysts and given that the active materials are 3d transition metal oxides, such as iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide, the cost of these catalysts can then be significantly lowered without significant compromise in performance at all levels (Subbaraman, [0004], [0069]).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, Qiusheng, et al. "Interface engineering of NixSy@MoS2 heterostructured nanorods as high-efficient electrocatalysts for water splitting." International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 46.71 (2021): 35077-35087 (hereafter referred to as Zhou-2021) in view of Subbaraman US20140116890A1 and Lee, Seung Woo, et al. "Multifunctional Ir–Ru alloy catalysts for reversal-tolerant anodes of polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells." Journal of Materials Science & Technology 60 (2021): 105-112 (hereafter referred to as Lee-2021).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou-2021 discloses an oxygen evolution catalyst (Zhou-2021, abstract), comprising:
a core comprising nickel sulfide (Zhou-2021, p. 35078, right column [0002], “the catalyst with core-shell nanostructure is beneficial to endow more active sites and regulate the electronic structure”, p. 35079, right column [0001], “NixSy@...NixSy nuclei” )
and a shell surrounding a surface of the core (Zhou-2021, p 35078, right column [0002], “the shell with the controllable structure, such as thickness, composition, crystallinity, and porosity, could provide a potential possibility for improving the catalytic activity of materials”. P. 35079, right column [0001], “shell on the matrix surface and the formation of the core-shell nanostructure”) but does not disclose the shell comprising iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide.
In an oxygen evolution catalyst Subbaraman teaches the shell comprising iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide (Subbaraman, [0004], [0032]).
Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to modify the shell structure of Zhou-2021 with the teaching of Subbaraman wherein a shell surrounding a surface of the core and comprising iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide thereby the design of core-shell materials with the more noble metal species localized to the surfaces of the catalyst particles will further help in lowering the cost of these catalysts and given that the active materials are 3d transition metal oxides, such as iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide, the cost of these catalysts can then be significantly lowered without significant compromise in performance at all levels (Subbaraman, [0004], [0069]).
Zhou-2021 as modified by Subbaraman does not teach wherein the shell comprises either (a) a first layer surrounding the core and comprising ruthenium oxide; and a second layer surrounding the first layer and comprising iridium oxide, or (b) a first layer surrounding the core and comprising iridium oxide; and a second layer surrounding the first layer and comprising ruthenium oxide, or (c) an alloy comprising an oxide of an alloy of iridium and ruthenium.
In an oxygen evolution catalyst Lee-2021 teaches a shell comprising an Ir-Ru alloy (Lee-2021, section 3, p. 107, right column [0001], “Ir-Ru alloy catalysts”). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nickel sulfide core and iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide shell of Zhou-2021 as modified by Subbaraman with the teaching of Lee-2021 wherein the shell is an alloy comprising an oxide of an alloy of iridium and ruthenium thereby having excellent OER activity, maintaining a low increase in overpotential and exhibiting good reversal-tolerance durability (Lee-2021, section 3, p. 110, Figs. 6a-c).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou-2021 (see above for full reference) in view of Subbaraman US20140116890A1 and Lee-2021 (see above for full reference), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chai, Yong-Ming, et al. "Solvent dependent in situ growth of NixSy supported on nickel foam as electrocatalysts for oxygen evolution reaction." International Journal of Electrochemical Science 11.4 (2016): 3050-3055 (hereafter referred to as Chai-2016).
Regarding claim 2, modified Zhou-2021 teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above, Zhou-2021 however does not teach the shape of the core.
In an oxygen evolution catalyst comprising nickel sulfide Chai-2016 teaches wherein the NixSy has a shape of a polyhedral prism (Chai-2016, section 3, p. 3053, [0001], “(Figure 2h) displays many polyhedron structures dispersing on NixSy film of S-3”, Fig. 2h). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nickel sulfide core of modified Zhou-2021 using art known engineering techniques and the teaching of Chai-2016 wherein the core has a shape of a polyhedral prism, thereby having an earlier onset potential with much higher current density as the polyhedral prism shape may expose more activity sites for OER (Chai-2016, section 3, p. 3053, [0001], “S-3 has an earlier onset potential (1.24 V vs. RHE) than that of S-1 and S-2 (1.55 V vs. RHE), with much higher current density after 1.25 V (vs. RHE)”).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, Qiusheng, et al. "Interface engineering of NixSy@MoS2 heterostructured nanorods as high-efficient electrocatalysts for water splitting." International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 46.71 (2021): 35077-35087 (hereafter referred to as Zhou-2021) in view of Subbaraman US20140116890A1 and Heras-Domingo, Javier. Modeling of RuO₂ surfaces and nanoparticles: their potential use as catalysts for the oxygen evolution reaction. 2020 (hereafter referred to as H-D-2020).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou-2021 discloses an oxygen evolution catalyst (Zhou-2021, abstract), comprising:
a core comprising nickel sulfide (Zhou-2021, p. 35078, right column [0002], “the catalyst with core-shell nanostructure is beneficial to endow more active sites and regulate the electronic structure”, p. 35079, right column [0001], “NixSy@...NixSy nuclei” )
and a shell surrounding a surface of the core (Zhou-2021, p 35078, right column [0002], “the shell with the controllable structure, such as thickness, composition, crystallinity, and porosity, could provide a potential possibility for improving the catalytic activity of materials”. P. 35079, right column [0001], “shell on the matrix surface and the formation of the core-shell nanostructure”) but does not disclose the shell comprising iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide.
In an oxygen evolution catalyst Subbaraman teaches the shell comprising iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide (Subbaraman, [0004], [0032]).
Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to modify the shell structure of Zhou-2021 with the teaching of Subbaraman wherein a shell surrounding a surface of the core and comprising iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide thereby the design of core-shell materials with the more noble metal species localized to the surfaces of the catalyst particles will further help in lowering the cost of these catalysts and given that the active materials are 3d transition metal oxides, such as iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide, the cost of these catalysts can then be significantly lowered without significant compromise in performance at all levels (Subbaraman, [0004], [0069]).
Zhou-2021 as modified by Subbaraman does not teach wherein the shell comprises either (a) a first layer surrounding the core and comprising ruthenium oxide; and a second layer surrounding the first layer and comprising iridium oxide, or (b) a first layer surrounding the core and comprising iridium oxide; and a second layer surrounding the first layer and comprising ruthenium oxide, or (c) an alloy comprising an oxide of an alloy of iridium and ruthenium.
In an oxygen evolution catalyst H-D-2020 teaches layering a first layer comprising iridium oxide and a second layer surrounding the first layer and comprising ruthenium oxide (He-D-2020, p. 29, [0001], “Another way to enhance their electrocatalytic stability is to synthesize a core-shell structure (lrO2 @ RuO2) and once subjected to OER electrocatalysis.”). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel sulfide core and iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide shell of modified Zhou-2021 with the teaching of H-D-2020 wherein the shell comprises: a first layer surrounding the core and comprising iridium oxide; and a second layer surrounding the first layer and comprising ruthenium oxide thereby lowering the overpotential but also increasing the whole stability (He-D-2020, p. 29, [0001], “…this core-shell conformation can not only lower the overpotential but also increases the whole stability”).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou-2021 (see above for full reference) in view of Subbaraman US20140116890A1 and H-D-2020 (see above for full reference), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chai, Yong-Ming, et al. "Solvent dependent in situ growth of NixSy supported on nickel foam as electrocatalysts for oxygen evolution reaction." International Journal of Electrochemical Science 11.4 (2016): 3050-3055 (hereafter referred to as Chai-2016).
Regarding claim 2, modified Zhou-2021 teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above, Zhou-2021 however does not teach the shape of the core.
In an oxygen evolution catalyst comprising nickel sulfide Chai-2016 teaches wherein the NixSy has a shape of a polyhedral prism (Chai-2016, section 3, p. 3053, [0001], “(Figure 2h) displays many polyhedron structures dispersing on NixSy film of S-3”, Fig. 2h). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nickel sulfide core of modified Zhou-2021 using art known engineering techniques and the teaching of Chai-2016 wherein the core has a shape of a polyhedral prism, thereby having an earlier onset potential with much higher current density as the polyhedral prism shape may expose more activity sites for OER (Chai-2016, section 3, p. 3053, [0001], “S-3 has an earlier onset potential (1.24 V vs. RHE) than that of S-1 and S-2 (1.55 V vs. RHE), with much higher current density after 1.25 V (vs. RHE)”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that modifying a material originally designed as a central core into a thin layer covering the surface of another material (i.e., a shell) goes beyond a mere substitution of materials, and fundamentally changes the structural position and bonding configuration. This is not persuasive as it is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention as neither a thickness nor bonding configuration are required as currently drafted. The Courts have held that arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. The Courts have further held that "An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness." See MPEP § 2145.
The examiner also notes that upon further consideration, Subbaraman additionally teaches wherein the shell comprises either: (a) a first layer surrounding the core and comprising ruthenium oxide and a second layer surrounding the first layer and comprising iridium oxide (Subbaraman, [0032], “metal core with a surface layer or two of the more stable metal…could be Au, Ru, Ir, etc.”), or
(b) a first layer surrounding the core and comprising iridium oxide; and a second layer surrounding the first layer and comprising ruthenium oxide (Subbaraman, [0032], “metal core with a surface layer or two of the more stable metal…could be Au, Ru, Ir, etc.”), or
(c) an alloy comprising an oxide of an alloy of iridium and ruthenium (Subbaraman, [0028], “metal-alloy oxides can also be employed…including but not limited to…Ru, Ir”), and which appears to teach and/or render obvious the claimed limitations as currently drafted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pickett US20100283005A1 (discloses particles comprising a NiS core and individual shell layers of Ir and Ru oxide and/or a shell layer comprising an alloy of Ir and Ru oxide, which can be used as catalyst particles).
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 JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights