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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: Paragraph 23 “Chemical formula 2)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
The term “selected from a group consisting of at least one kind of functional group selected from the group of functional groups” in claim 2 is indefinite. The phrase “one kind of functional group” is unclear and renders the claim scope indefinite. The large Markush group in the beginning of the claim creates a circular definition with the term “one kind of functional group”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hase (JP 2011090987 A).
Regarding claim one, Hase discloses a catalyst that is a metal (paragraph 15) these metals have oxygen reduction capability, a binding agent considered to meet the additive required by the instant claims (paragraph 25), a polymer electrolyte agent considered to meet the binder required by the instant claims (paragraph 22), a binder (additive) with at least one organic nitrogen compound (paragraph 25), and a base point amount/acid point amount greater than zero and equal to or less than 6.82 (paragraph 40 example 2). The ratio in the example is roughly 0.1. The examiner calculates this value by finding the mass of the carrier: 8.3g * 0.6 = 4.98 g carrier. Then the examiner calculates the weight ratio of binder (additive) relative to carrier: 0.0245 g/4.98 g = 0.00492. Then the examiner calculates the weight ratio of polyelectrolyte (binder) relative to carrier: 5 g/4.98 g = 1. The equivalent weight of the basic functional group is 54.07 g/mol and the equivalent weight of acidic functional group is 1100 g/mol. Finally, the examiner calculates the base point amount/acid point amount: (0.0049/54.07)/(1/1100) = 0.1
Regarding claim three, Hase discloses a metal catalyst made of platinum (paragraph 15).
Regarding claim four, Hase discloses a carrier that supports the metal particle (paragraph 17).
Regarding claim five, Hase discloses a weight of binder (additive) with respect to a weight of carrier equal to or more than 0.0100 and equal to or less than 0.150. The examiner uses the weight ratio ranges of polyelectrolyte (binder) to carrier (paragraph 23) and molar ratio ranges of binder (additive) to acidic functional group of the polyelectrolyte (binder) (paragraph 28). The examiner uses these values from the text, a basis weight of the polyelectrolyte (binder), a basis weight of carrier, and the compounds in paragraph 40 example 2 to calculate a weight of binder (additive) with respect to carrier. The examiner calculates a value of 0.0145, within the claimed range. A table is provided below to show how these values are calculated.
Weight ratio of polyelectrolyte (binder) to carrier: 1.5
Basis: 3 g Nafion, 2 g carrier
Mol of acidic functional groups 3 g Nafion/1100 g/mol = 0.0027 mol
Molar ratio of binder (additive) to acidic functional groups of polyelectrolyte (binder): 0.1
Mol binder (additive) = 0.1*0.0027mol = 0.00027 mol
Molar mass binder (additive) = 108.14 g/mol
Mass binder (additive) = 0.00027 mol * 108.14 g/mol = 0.029 g
Weight ratio of additive to carrier = 0.029 g/2 g = 0.0145
Regarding claim six, Hase discloses a range of ratios of polyelectrolyte (binder) weight to carrier weight of 1:10 to 3:2, preferably 1:2 to 1:1, which meets the range of 0.7 to 1.15 (paragraph 23).
Regarding claim seven, Hase discloses a polyelectrolyte (binder) that is a perfluorocarbon sulfonate polymer (paragraph 22).
Regarding claim nine through eleven, Hase discloses a catalyst that is useful as an electrode for a fuel cell comprising the catalyst in claim one (paragraph 34). No specific structure is required for the fuel cell or metal-air cell in claims 10 and 11 besides the catalyst already anticipated. Thus, the examiner concludes that the catalyst is capable of performing the intended use in a fuel cell/metal-air cell as a cathode.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by Hase (JP 2011090987 A).
Regarding claim five, if it is considered that Hase does not disclose the claimed range with sufficient specificity to warrant a rejection under 102, then a rejection under 103 would apply. With respect to the encompassing and overlapping ranges previously discussed, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hase as applied to claim 1, 3-7, and 9-11 above, and further in view of Wang (CN105312087A).
The teachings of Hase are applied as above for claims 1, 3-7, and 9-11.
Regarding claim 2, Hase does not disclose an organic nitrogen compound that is a monomer represented by Formula (1). Hase does disclose an organic nitrogen (p-phenylenediamine) but it does not satisfy Formula (1).
Wang, in the same field of endeavor, discloses an organic nitrogen compound that is a monomer represented by Formula (1) (paragraph 0012, 0021, and 0024) in an oxygen reduction catalyst. The organic nitrogen in Formula (1) can have three amino groups (melamine).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the organic nitrogen taught in Wang to the catalyst taught in Hase. In the present invention, catalytic performance is improved with the organic nitrogen additive. Wang discloses that there is a synergistic effect between melamine and the platinum metal that improves the catalytic activity for oxygen reduction reaction (paragraph 0079) motivating one to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Hase does not disclose the additive oleylamine, melamine, or a polymer of melamine.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor, discloses the additive melamine (paragraph 0012, 0021, and 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the melamine taught in Wang to the catalyst taught in Hase. In the present invention, catalytic performance is improved with the additive melamine. Wang discloses that there is a synergistic effect between melamine and the platinum metal that improves the catalytic activity for oxygen reduction reaction (paragraph 0079) motivating one to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A CALDERON whose telephone number is (571)272-9866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5712721176. 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.
/DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1742
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742