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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-5 are pending in the instant application. Claims 1, 3-5 have been amended. Claim 2 has been canceled.
Objections to Specification
Applicant has amended the title of the instant application. The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 3, & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Pub No. CN105312087A, published February 10 2016).
In regard to claims 1 and 4, Wang et al. teaches a catalyst comprising metal nanoclusters with an oxygen reduction activity (paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0079]), wherein the metal particles are supported on the support (referred to as the loading of particles onto a support, pp. 23, [0081]) and the particles are platinum particles (nanoclusters of Pt, paragraph [0016]). Wang et al. teaches the catalyst further comprises a support (carbon material, paragraph [00012]) wherein the support may be a conductive carbon (conductive carbon black, paragraph [0033], and acetylene black, paragraph [0144]). Wang et al. further teaches that the catalyst may comprise a binder, Nafion, to adhere said catalyst to an electrode surface (Nafion®, mixed into solution during electrode preparation for catalysts, paragraph [0106] of translation, paragraph [0101] of original document).
With regard to the catalyst further comprising an additive which is cyanuric acid, Wang et al. teaches that cyanuric acid and melamine are added to a carbon support and heated to a maximum temperature of 423 K (Example 14, paragraphs [0160]-[0161]) to form the modified carbon material MDC2-1 which platinum nanoclusters are disposed onto (paragraph [0161]). The two chemicals, when heated, form a complex (paragraph [0160]), better known as melamine cyanurate, on the surface of the support. Melamine cyanurate is a co-crystal of melamine and cyanuric acid where the two chemicals are spatially organized in a hydrogen-bonding network. Key, the two chemicals are not covalently bonded together or chemically altered in the complexing process. Therefore, despite the complex having different physical properties, the chemical identity of cyanuric acid is preserved in the final catalyst process as in no part of the process is the composition heated to a sufficient temperature to initiate chemical decomposition (320-360°C or 593-633 K). Therefore, the catalyst composite of Example 14 contains cyanuric acid as an additive.
With regard to the loading of cyanuric acid as an additive in the catalyst, Wang et al. broadly teaches that the platinum particles may be 0.1-90 wt% of the composite, and the additive (a combination of melamine and cyanuric acid) may be added in a mass ratio of 1:1 to 1:100 additive:support (paragraphs [0014], [0019], [0029]). In Example 16, Wang et. al. discloses that a
mixture of melamine (60 mg), cyanuric acid (60 mg), and platinum nanoparticles are supported on
carbon black (400 mg) where the platinum nanoparticles account for 90 wt% of the composite (pp. 59-
60, [0173]-[0175]). Since the platinum nanoparticles are 90 wt% of the composite, the melamine and
cyanuric acid supported on carbon black is 10 wt% of the composite. Cyanuric acid comprises 11.5 wt% of the non-Pt components ((60mg/60mg+60mg+400mg)*100%). Therefore, the ratio of cyanuric acid with respect to the platinum nanoparticles is ~0.013 ((11.5% C.A.*10 wt%)/90wt% Pt). Using a similar mathematical analysis of Example 15, the ratio of cyanuric acid to platinum particles is 0.50. The disclosed compositions create a range of cyanuric acid to platinum particles (0.013-0.50) which encompasses the instantly claimed ranges of 0.050≤x≤0.150 (claim 1) and 0.050≤x≤0.100 (claim 4).
In addition, Wang et al. teaches that the additive has a desirable effect on the final catalyst composition; specifically improved catalytic efficiency via the prevention of agglomeration of Pt particles (paragraphs [0079], [0082]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the ratio of the additive, cyanuric acid, to the platinum particles based on the results-effective function of the additive. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time 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.
In regard to claim 3, Wang et al. teaches a catalyst comprising metal nanoclusters with an oxygen reduction activity (paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0079]), wherein the metal particles are supported on the support (referred to as the loading of particles onto a support, pp. 23, [0081]) and the particles are platinum particles (nanoclusters of Pt, paragraph [0016]). Wang et al. teaches the catalyst further comprises a support (carbon material, paragraph [00012]) wherein the support may be a conductive carbon (conductive carbon black, paragraph [0033], and acetylene black, paragraph [0144]). Wang et al. further teaches that the catalyst may comprise a binder, Nafion, to adhere said catalyst to an electrode surface (Nafion®, mixed into solution during electrode preparation for catalysts, paragraph [0106] of translation, paragraph [0101] of original document).
With regard to the catalyst further comprising a first additive which is cyanuric acid and a second additive which is melamine, Wang et al. teaches that cyanuric acid and melamine are added to a carbon support and heated to a maximum temperature of 423 K (Example 14, paragraphs [0160]-[0161]) to form the modified carbon material MDC2-1 which platinum nanoclusters are disposed onto (paragraph [0161]). The two chemicals, when heated, form a complex (paragraph [0160]), better known as melamine cyanurate, on the surface of the support. Melamine cyanurate is a co-crystal of melamine and cyanuric acid where the two chemicals are spatially organized in a hydrogen-bonding network. Key, the two chemicals are not covalently bonded together or chemically altered in the complexing process. Therefore, despite the complex having different physical properties, the chemical identities of cyanuric acid and melamine are preserved in the final catalyst process, as in no part of the process is the composition heated to a sufficient temperature to initiate chemical decomposition (320-360°C or 593-633 K for cyanuric acid, 343°C or 616 K for melamine). Therefore, the catalyst composite of Example 14 contains cyanuric acid and melamine as first and second additives.
Wang et al. teaches that cyanuric acid and melamine are added to the composite in a 1:1 weight ratio w/r to each other (60 mg of each). With regard to the loading of cyanuric acid and melamine as additives in the catalyst, in Example 16, Wang et. al. discloses that a mixture of melamine (60 mg), cyanuric acid (60 mg), and platinum nanoparticles are supported on carbon black (400 mg) where the platinum nanoparticles account for 90 wt% of the composite (pp. 59-60, [0173]-[0175]). Since the platinum nanoparticles are 90 wt% of the composite, the melamine and cyanuric acid supported on carbon black is 10 wt% of the composite. Cyanuric acid and melamine combined comprises 23 wt% of the non-Pt components ((60mg+60mg/60mg+60mg+400mg)*100%). Therefore, the ratio of cyanuric acid and melamine with respect to the platinum nanoparticles is ~0.026 ((23% C.A.+M*10 wt%)/90wt% Pt). Using a similar mathematical analysis of Example 15, the ratio of cyanuric acid and melamine to platinum particles is 1. The disclosed compositions create a range of cyanuric acid to platinum particles (0.026-1) which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 0.050≤x≤0.150.
As noted above, Wang et al. teaches that the additive has a desirable effect on the final catalyst composition; specifically improved catalytic efficiency via the prevention of agglomeration of Pt particles (paragraphs [0079], [0082]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the ratio of the additive, cyanuric acid, to the platinum particles based on the results-effective function of the additive. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daimon et al. (ACS Catalysis, 12, 2022, pp 8976-8985).
In regard to claim 5, Wang et al. discloses the use of acetylene back as a support (pp. 47, Example 10, paragraph [0133]) and a perfluorocarbon sulfonic acid polymer, Nafion®, as a binder (paragraph [0106] of translated copy, paragraph [0101] of original document). Wang et al. does not disclose that the metals particles of the composition are platinum-cobalt alloy particles.
However, Daimon et al. discloses the use of platinum-cobalt alloy nanoparticles (Section 2.2, pp. 8977) exhibiting high oxygen reduction activity (abstract, pp. 8976) as cathode catalysts for the oxygen reduction reaction. Daimon et al. demonstrates that the platinum-cobalt alloy nanoparticles
demonstrate superior catalytic activity to their platinum counterpart (pp. 8979, left column, lines 50-58 of Daimon et al.) with 2.2x higher mass activity w/r to Pt.
The catalysts described by Wang et al. and Daimon et al. are used as ORR cathode electrocatalysts, so it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the teachings of both works are compatible. Wang et al. discloses that alloying precious metals like platinum with other transition metals is advantageous to both reduce the cost of the catalyst and produce unique functions that individual metals do not possess (pp. 3, paragraph [0005]). This teaching is suggestive that the platinum-cobalt alloy nanoparticles disclosed by Daimon et al. could, with a reasonable degree of success, be used in the composition of Wang et al. to improve the catalytic activity due to the unique properties of alloy particles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to substitute the platinum nanoclusters of Wang et al. with the platinum-cobalt alloy nanoparticles taught by Daimon et al. to improve catalytic activity of the catalyst composition for the oxygen reduction reaction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claims 1 and 3-5, applicant argues that Wang et al. does not disclose the additive is cyanuric acid because Wang et al. mixes cyanuric acid and melamine at a temperature sufficient (>40°C near neutral, see Effect of Ionization on Assembly in Ma et al., Langmuir, 2011, 27(14), pp. 8841-8853) to form melamine cyanurate, which is a distinct chemical species. As pointed out by applicant, the complex, melamine cyanurate, is not a tradition crystalline solid where the constituents are ionized or otherwise covalently/ionically bonded. The hydrogen bond network which holds together the co-crystal consists exclusively of intermolecular forces, and the cyanuric acid and melamine are chemically unchanged while being in the co-crystal. The fact that the co-crystal is chemically distinct does not preclude the fact that it still contains cyanuric acid, and therefore the catalyst of Wang et al. discloses the claimed cyanuric acid as an additive as required by claim 1. Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim language which does not limit how cyanuric acid is present in the catalyst composition, only that the final catalyst comprises it.
With regards to claims 1 and 3-5, applicant argues that Wang et al. does not disclose the claimed additive/metal ratio of 0.050-0.150 because no cyanuric acid remains in the final catalyst as a result of high-temperature treatment (573-973 K) which causes decomposition of cyanuric acid. The cited example, Example 16, does not use a high temperature treatment. The highest reported temperature used was 423 K (paragraphs [0160]-[0161]) which is well below the decomposition temperature for cyanuric acid (593-633 K) and the reported temperatures required for polycondensation to g-C3N4 materials (400°C/670 K, see Thermal polycondensation of MCS to carbon nitride nano-sheets and their post-calcination in the air in Vu et al., ChemSusChem, 2019, 12, pp. 291-312).
With regards to claim 5, applicant argues that Wang et al. and Daimon et al. are not compatible because Daimon’s melamine modification of Pt-Co requires melamine, which applicant argues is not present in Wang et al.’s composition. Applicant argues that a) melamine cyanurate complex is chemically distinct from melamine and b) Wang et al. uses a temperature treatment which volatizes all melamine added. As discussed above, the fact that melamine is present in a hydrogen-bonded co-crystal in the catalyst composition does not interfere with the fact that the catalyst comprises melamine. Hydrogen bonds are intermolecular forces, not chemical bonds, and thus the chemical structure of melamine is maintained in the catalyst composition. Furthermore, no excessive heat treatment is used in the examples cited in the prior art rejections. Examples 14-16 use a maximum temperature of 423 K (see paragraphs [0157]-[0175]), which is below the decomposition point of melamine (616 K).
With regards to claim 5, applicant argues that the combination of Wang et al. and Daimon et al. is improper because Wang et al. does not teach a benefit to using Pt-Co particles in its catalyst composition. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With regards to claim 5, applicant argues that the combination of Wang et al. and Daimon et al. is improper because no motivation to combine the references was cited. However, it was previous stated that Daimon et al. demonstrates the Pt-Co alloy particles exhibit higher ORR catalytic mass activity over its nonalloy Pt counterparts (see previous action and pp. 8979, left column, lines 50-58 of Daimon et al.). The 2.2x increase in mass activity measurements is directly correlated to the nature of the Pt-Co alloy. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace the Pt nanoclusters taught in Wang et al.’s composition with Pt-Co alloy particles as they have been specifically shown to perform better in the context of the ORR.
For the reasons above, applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive.
Conclusion
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 MORDECAI M LEAVITT whose telephone number is (571)272-6637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-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 (571) 272-1176. 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.
/MORDECAI M LEAVITT/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights