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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 16, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: in line 4, please insert a comma after the phrase “on applying the potential” to improve clarity.
Claim 18 recites “150°C 250°C” but appears to be missing the word “to” between the two temperatures. Please insert a hyphen or “to” between the two values.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 recites a method of making the electrocatalyst, however, it is dependent on claim 1 which recites a method of generating hydrogen. It appears that claims 1 and 18 are two different classes of inventions, i.e., method of operating and method of making. The mixed categories of inventions within the claim chain makes the claim 18 indefinite because it is not clear how a method of making the catalyst is further limiting a method of generating hydrogen.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cole et al. (US 20250066937).
Regarding claim 1, Cole et al. teaches a method of generating hydrogen, comprising:
applying a potential to an electrochemical cell (i.e., applying a voltage between the electrodes; paragraph 42 and Fig. 1),
wherein the electrochemical cell is at least partially submerged in an aqueous solution (i.e., the electrochemical cell is in contact with water for water electrolysis, paragraph 32),
wherein on applying the potential, water in the aqueous solution is reduced thereby forming hydrogen (paragraph 32),
wherein the electrochemical cell comprises:
an electrocatalyst (i.e., catalyst coding 314, paragraph 84); and
a counter electrode (i.e., electrode 112, Fig. 1)
wherein the electrocatalyst comprises:a substrate; and MnVxCo2-xO4 particles, wherein x <= 0.4 (i.e., manganese colbaltite, MnCo2O4, where x =0, paragraph 91)
wherein the MnVxCo2-xO4 particles have a spherical shape (i.e., the catalyst is nanometer-sized and generally have spherical shape as shown in Fig. 10),
wherein the MnVxCo2-xO4 particles have an average diameter less than 100 nanometers (Cole et al. teaches that the particles can be less than 200 nm, paragraph 110), and
wherein the MnVxCo2-xO4 particles are dispersed on the substrate to form the electrocatalyst (i.e., catalyst particles are coated on a substrate, paragraph 5).
Cole et al. does not explicitly teach applying a potential of -0.1 to -1.0 V.
However, according to Faraday’s law, the voltage of an electrochemical reaction drives the electron transfer between the anode and cathode. The voltage creates an electric field in the electrolyte and electrodes, pushing electrons from the anode (oxidation) to the cathode (reduction). Cole et al. teaches that the operating voltage is a parameter in the electrochemical cell and an appropriate voltage is applied between electrodes to drive electrochemical reaction (paragraph 42). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the voltage to the claimed potential of -0.1 to -1 V in order to optimize the desired rate of hydrogen production.
Regarding claim 2, Cole et al. teaches that the particles can be less than 200 nm (paragraph 110) which encompasses the instant claim. According to MPEP 2144.05, a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claims 4-5, Cole et al. teaches that the slurry of the catalyst particles can be deposited to thickness of 0.5-25 µm (paragraph 111). One having ordinary skill in the art would expect that the particles would be aggregated to form microspheres having an average diameter within the thickness of the catalyst layer since the particles are co-deposited with surfactants that form precursor particles (paragraph 89).
Regarding claims 7-11 and 13, the instant claims are directed to the inherent properties of the electrocatalyst. Since Cole et al. teaches the same catalyst, i.e., MnCo2O4 (paragraph 91), as recited in claim 1, the electrocatalyst of Cole et al. would inherently have the same properties as those of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 17, Cole et al. teaches an acid electrolytic solution (paragraph 35).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cole et al. (US 20250066937) in view of Kuhn et al. (US 202200812789).
Cole et al. does not explicitly teach the weight percent of MnO2 is less than 5% of the total weight of the electrocatalyst particles.
Kuhn et al. teaches an electrocatalyst, MnCo2O4, for water splitting to generate hydrogen (paragraphs 35 and 37). Kuhn et al. teaches that an effective amount of a transition metal is used to achieve the desired modification of the physical property of the composition or material. This property could be in achieving the desired improvement in oxygen overpotential (paragraph 28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modified the weight of MnO2 in the electrocatalyst of Cole et al. to be less than 5% of the total weight of the electrocatalyst particles in order to optimize the physical property of the electrocatalyst to achieve the desired improvement in the oxygen over potential, as suggested by Kuhn et al. (paragraph 28).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cole et al. (US 20250066937) in view of Rehman et al. (US 11746429).
Cole et al. does not explicitly teach the substrate is made of is glassy carbon.
Rehman et al. teaches a method for decomposing water into hydrogen and oxygen using a glassy carbon substrate (column 24, line 60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modified the method of Cole et al. by depositing the electrocatalyst on glassy carbon as taught by Rehman et al. because glassy carbon is a suitable substrate for an electrode in electrochemical water oxidation.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cole et al. (US 20250066937) in view of Jiang et al. ("Crystallinity-modulated Co2–x V x O4 nanoplates for efficient electrochemical water oxidation." ACS Catalysis 11.24 (2021): 14884-14891).
Cole et al. does not explicitly teach replacing Co atoms with V atoms.
Jiang et al. teaches an efficient cobalt–vanadium spinel-type electrocatalyst for electrochemical water oxidation with an extremely high concentration of Co3+ ions by tuning the balanced vanadium ions’ concentration in crystallinity-modulated Co2–xVxO4 nanoplates (Abstract). Jiang et al. substituting Co atoms with V atoms (page 14888, last paragraph). This catalyst shows stable and efficient water oxidation, resulting in a very low over potential and excellent stability (page 14885, right: first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cole et al. by replacing Co atoms with V atoms in the electrocatalyst, because it would form an electrocatalyst having a low overpotential and excellent stability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 12, 14, and 15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims require the combination of all four elements in the electrocatalyst, especially the inclusion of vanadium.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure. US 20220010440 teaches a vanadium-doped electrocatalyst for water splitting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN V VAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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.
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights