Introductory Notes
Any paragraph citation of the instant is in reference to the U.S. published patent application.
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 .
Joint Inventors
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 and 15 in the reply filed on 6/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/24/2026.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOU (US 20200067105 A1, supplied with an IDS) in view of TAMURA (US 20080026282 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, YOU discloses a catalyst for a fuel cell electrode (“an electrode catalyst for fuel cells” [0014]), the catalyst comprising:
an active particle (“active particle” [0014] as shown in Fibs. 1A-1B) which comprises:
a core comprising platinum, a transition metal excluding platinum, and an oxide of a non-transition metal (“a core including an alloy including platinum (Pt) represented by Chemical Formula 1, a transition metal, and metal oxide” [0014]);
and a shell disposed on the core and comprising platinum (“a shell including Pt” [0014]).
Regarding “wherein the active particle comprises platinum and the non-transition metal in a molar ratio of 100:1.80 to 100:4.00”:
YOU discloses “PtMaCb [Chemical Formula 1]” [0014] and that “C denotes the metal oxide” [0015] where the “range of b is approximately 0.25≤b≤1.0” [0015]. YOU teaches the benefit of the invention is that the “durability of the electrode catalyst and the activity of the ORR increase” [0099]. YOU further discloses “content of the shell 120 with respect to the core 110 may be approximately 5 to 25 parts by weight with respect to total 100 parts by weight of the core 110” [0056]. Taken as a whole, this places the ratio of total Pt in the active particle to C metal oxide in the core at approximately 100:90 as a maximum (wherein b is the maximum 1.0 and the amount of Pt in the shell is the minimum 5 parts by weight) and 100:20 as a minimum (wherein b is the minimum 0.25 and the amount of Pt in the shell is the maximum 25 parts by weight). Notably the minimum of YOU is above the claimed range. Therefore, YOU does not expressly teach the active particle comprises platinum and the non-transition metal in a molar ratio of 100:1.80 to 100:4.00 as claimed.
TAMURA is directed to a fuel cell catalyst with a core-shell particle structure like YOU.
TAMURA discloses “the catalyst carrier should be electronically conductive. In the present invention, Sn-doped In2O3, F-doped SnO2, and Sb-doped SnO2 are used as the electroconductive catalyst carrier” [0044] and that “from the viewpoint of lowering the resistance, the doping level of the tin (Sn), fluorine (F) or antimony (Sb) element is more preferably 0.1 to 10% by mole” [0046]. As such TAMURA teaches the introduction of dopants with the benefit of lowering resistance. Furthermore, TAMURA discloses examples with doping such as Example 11 which has a “catalyst carrier of Sb-doped SnO2, in which the level of Sb (antimony) doped was 5% by mole” [0158].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce the dopant of TAMURA into the catalyst of YOU. The extent to which the dopant is added being a result effective variable within the control of one of ordinary skill in the art where the disclosed amounts of metal oxide in YOU and dopant in TAMURA arrive at molar ratios within the claimed range. For example, taking a median disclosed molar ratio of YOU for total Pt to metal oxide of 100:55 and using a median disclosed dopant level of 5% from TAMURA arrives at total PT to dopant ratio of 100:2.75, central to the claimed range.
The motivation to do so being to combine the benefit of YOU’s “durability of the electrode catalyst and the activity of the ORR increase” (YOU [0099]) with TAMURA’s “lowering the resistance” (TAMURA [0046]).
Therefore, modified YOU discloses the non-transition metal in a molar ratio of 100:1.80 to 100:4.00 [and in the case of claim 2: a molar ratio of 100:2.00 to 100:3.80] (as taught by TAMURA).
Notably the instant does not limit the number of non-transitional metals and in the above mapping it is the dopant of TAMURA (e.g. Sb) that is being mapped to the non-transition metal of the instant claims, not the complete metal oxide of modified YOU (e.g. Sb-doped SnO2 as a whole).
Regarding claim 3, modified YOU discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and YOU further discloses the active particle comprises platinum and the transition metal excluding platinum in a molar ratio of 100:15.00 to 100:40.00 (Chemical Formula 1 with Pt and Ma where “a range of a is approximately 0.33<a≤1.0” [0015] in combination with “content of the shell 120 with respect to the core 110 may be approximately 5 to 25 parts by weight with respect to total 100 parts by weight of the core 110” [0056] arrives at values for transition metal M that read on the claimed range).
Regarding claim 4, modified YOU discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and YOU further discloses the transition metal is at least one selected from the group consisting of titanium, vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, and zinc (“M may denote a transition metal, and for example, may be one of cobalt (Co), iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), and copper (Cu)” [0037]).
Regarding claim 5, modified YOU discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and YOU further discloses the oxide of the non-transition metal is at least one selected from the group consisting of indium oxide, tin oxide, and antimony oxide (“C may denote metal oxide, and for example, may be one material selected from among InO2, SnO2, Sb2O3” [0038]; furthermore, TAMURA discloses “Sn-doped In2O3 … and Sb-doped SnO2 are used as the electroconductive catalyst carrier” [0044] as such there is an overlap between YOU and TAMURA and each teaches indium, tin, as well as antimony oxides).
Regarding claim 6, modified YOU discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and YOU further discloses a carbon-based support supporting the active particle (“carbon-based carrier may be added to the electrode catalyst composition” [0063])
Regarding claim 15, modified YOU discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and YOU further discloses A fuel cell comprising: an oxidation electrode; a reduction electrode; and an electrolyte membrane disposed between the oxidation electrode and the reduction electrode (“Fuel cells include an anode where fuel is oxidized, a cathode where oxygen is reduced, and an electrolyte” [0005]), wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the oxidation electrode and the reduction electrode comprises the catalyst of claim 1 (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Claims 1-4, 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOO (US 20150086903 A1)
Regarding claims 1 and 2, YOO discloses a catalyst for a fuel cell electrode (“electrode catalyst for a fuel cell” [0013]), the catalyst comprising:
an active particle (“active particle” [0013]) which comprises:
a core comprising platinum, a transition metal excluding platinum, and an oxide of a non-transition metal (“a core including an alloy including platinum, a transition metal, and a first nonmetal element” [0013]; regarding the non-transition metal of the instant and the nonmetal of YOO, the instant does not have a special definition of non-transition metal outside of providing examples such as “indium, tin, and antimony” per instant [0042] which are notably not present in claim 1; as such metalloids of the p-block read on non-transition metal and YOO discloses ‘nonmetal’ elements such as tellurium which is a metalloid similar to antimony);
and a shell disposed on the core and comprising platinum (“a shell on the core, the shell including an alloy including platinum” [0013]).
Regarding “wherein the active particle comprises platinum and the non-transition metal in a molar ratio of 100:1.80 to 100:4.00” and in the case of claim 2 “a molar ratio of 100:2.00 to 100:3.80”:
YOO discloses Chemical Formula 1 of PtMaAb where “A may be sulfur (S), selenium (Se), or tellurium (Te)” [0045] and “b may be in a range of 0≤b≤0.5” [0045]; furthermore Example 1 [0103] gives A as low as 0.078, which equates to a ratio of 100:7.8 in just the core notably prior to accounting for the Pt in the shell.
YOO teaches “the nonmetal element may be introduced into the core … to increase a stability of the transition metal by bonding between the transition metal and the nonmetal element” [0039] and further that “due to the bonding of the transition metal and the nonmetal element, the shell including platinum may more effectively prevent dissolution of the transition metal” [0039]. Regarding the ranges for M and A, YOO teaches the disclosed ranges “improve stability of the transition metal and to cause lattice strain to increase oxygen reduction reaction activity” [0049]. As such YOO teaches a range of values and provides an example at a low molar ratio even before account for Pt in the shell, which only gets lower as the Pt shell is accounted for and the “weight ratio of the core to the shell may be from about 1:0.01 to about 1:1” [0060].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the overlapping portion of the range to improve stability and increase oxygen reduction reaction activity.
Therefore, modified YOU discloses the non-transition metal in a molar ratio of 100:1.80 to 100:4.00 [and in the case of claim 2: a molar ratio of 100:2.00 to 100:3.80].
Regarding claim 3, modified YOO discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and YOU further discloses the active particle comprises platinum and the transition metal excluding platinum in a molar ratio of 100:15.00 to 100:40.00 (Chemical Formula 1 with Pt and Ma where “a may be in a range of 0<a≤0.6” [0046] as well as “M may be at least one selected from the group of Co, Fe, Ni, and Cu, and A may be S” [0047] and Example 1 with Fe0.282 per [0103]; notably these values are prior to accounting for the Pt in the shell where the “weight ratio of the core to the shell may be from about 1:0.01 to about 1:1” [0060]).
Regarding claim 4, modified YOO discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and YOU further discloses the transition metal is at least one selected from the group consisting of titanium, vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, and zinc (“M may be at least one selected from the group of Co, Fe, Ni, and Cu, and A may be S” [0047]).
Regarding claim 6, modified YOO discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and YOU further discloses a carbon-based support supporting the active particle (“active particle may be supported on the carbonaceous support” [0061])
Regarding claim 15, modified YOO discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and YOU further discloses A fuel cell comprising: an oxidation electrode; a reduction electrode; and an electrolyte membrane disposed between the oxidation electrode and the reduction electrode (“a fuel cell includes a cathode; an anode disposed opposite to the cathode; and an electrolyte membrane” [0015]), wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the oxidation electrode and the reduction electrode comprises the catalyst of claim 1 (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
HAAS (US 20190379058 A1) directed to a catalyst composition in which tin oxide is doped with Sb per [0023].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS L MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/T.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights