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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, X., & Zhao, C. (2015). Electrodeposition of hierarchically structured three-dimensional nickel–iron electrodes for efficient oxygen evolution at high current densities. Nature Communications, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7616 (henceforth referred to as "Lu").
In regard to claim 1, Lu teaches a method of generating oxygen comprising:
An electrochemical cell on page 2 column 1
The electrochemical cell is partially submerged in the aqueous solution as evidenced by the oxidation of an aqueous solution described on page 2 column 1
Applying a potential within 0-2 V to an electrochemical cell in figure 3
Oxidizing an aqueous solution on page 2, column 1
Said oxidation generating oxygen on page 2, column 1
The aforementioned electrochemical cell comprising:
An electrocatalyst on page 2 column 1
A counter electrode on page 3 column 2
Said electrocatalyst comprising a nickel foam substrate on page 2 column 1
A layer of FeNi alloy particles attached to the substrate on page 2 column 1
The FeNi particles take the shape of nanosheets on page 2 column 2
Lu fails to teach that the FeNi alloy nanosheets have an average width of 1-5 µm or an average length of 1-10 µm. Lu does teach on page 2 column 2 that the lateral extension of the nanosheets range from 50 to several hundred nanometers as well as that the rippled nanosheets form FeNi nanostructures which is considered to meet the claimed “flower shaped”.
MPEP 2144.04 IV (A) teaches that changes in size/proportion are not patentably distinct and MPEP 2144.04 IV (B) teaches that changes in shape are not patentably distinct. Therefore, given the prior art teaches a nanosheet that differs from the claimed nanosheet only in thickness and in shape, it would have been obvious to have provided the nanosheets with a size and shape as claimed with the reasonable expectation that they would have continued to function effectively in the electrochemical cell of Lu.
In regard to claim 2, Lu teaches the nanosheets having an average thickness of around 10 nm page 2, column 2. This falls within the claimed less than 40 nm.
In regard to claim 3, Lu teaches the nanosheets being vertically aligned perpendicular to the nickel foam substrate in Figure 1 (b).
In regard to claim 4, Lu teaches the presence of 1-10 nm quantum dots in Figure 1 (d) referring to the small black dots and shapes on the TEM image as “rippled nanosheets”. The TEM image is similar in composition to the present application’s figures 5A and 5B used as evidence for the presence of quantum dots.
In regard to claim 5, Lu teaches that the nanosheets are interconnected to form a hierarchical structure on page 3 column 1.
In regard to claim 6, Lu teaches that the FeNi alloy is equal molar parts Fe and Ni in page 2 column 2.
In regard to claim 9, Lu teaches that the FeNi covers the entire surface of the nickel foam substrate in supplementary figure 1 and on page 2 column 2.
In regard to claim 13, Lu teaches that the electrocatalyst has an overpotential within the range of 300-350 mV for a current density within the range 50-500 mA/cm2 in supplementary table 2.
In regard to claim 14, Lu teaches that the overpotential does not vary by more than 5% after the potential is applied for 1-100 hours in figure 3 (d)
In regard to claim 15, Lu teaches that the electrocatalyst consists of FeNi on the surface of the nickel foam substrate on page 2 column 2.
In regard to claim 16 and 17, Lu teaches that the base is potassium hydroxide on page 3 column 2.
In regard to claim 18, Lu teaches that the counter electrode is made of platinum on page 3 column 2.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hatami, E., Toghraei, A., & Barati Darband, G. (2021). Electrodeposition of Ni–Fe micro/nano urchin-like structure as an efficient electrocatalyst for overall water splitting. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 46(14), 9394–9405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.12.110 (henceforth referred to as "Hatami").
Lu teaches the method of claim 1 as explained above, but fails to teach that the particles do not comprise oxygen or that the particles consist of Fe and Ni.
Hatami teaches on page 9396 column 1 a method of electrocatalyst formation involving the electrodeposition of iron salts and nickel salts generating FeNi alloy nanoparticles consisting of only Fe and Ni. They explain that they do this on page 9395 column 1 to create an electrocatalyst that is practical as both an oxygen evolution reaction catalyst as well as a hydrogen evolution reaction catalyst. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to electrodeposit iron and nickel salts to form nanoparticles with the composition of Hatami’s to generate more universally applicable electrocatalysts.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20070160899 A1 (henceforth referred to as "Atanassova").
Lu teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Lu further teaches that the electrocatalyst is formed by mixing an iron salt and a nickel salt in a solvent to form a homogenous solution on page 2 column 2. Lu fails to teach an aerosol-assisted chemical vapor deposition procedure.
In regard to claim 10, Atanassova teaches in [0305] the formation of an iron/nickel electrocatalyst via spraying an aerosolized solution into a tube furnace at about 550 degrees and explains in [0007] that this process is a favorable method to yield a high degree of uniformity in particle distribution. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the aerosolized vapor deposition technique of Atanassova in conjunction with the nickel foam of Lu to achieve uniformly deposited FeNi electrocatalyst.
In regard to claim 12, Atanassova teaches in [0104] that the carrier gas can be a combination of inert and reactive gasses, explicitly naming nitrogen and hydrogen due to their inert and use as reducing agent respectively. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use nitrogen and hydrogen as the carrier gas to prevent the oxidation of the desired FeNi electrocatalyst.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Atanassova as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Gurmen et al. (2009. "Nanocrystalline spherical iron-–nickel (Fe–Ni) alloy particles prepared by ultrasonic spray pyrolysis and hydrogen reduction (USP-HR). Journal of Alloys and Compounds. Vol 480, pp. 529-533 ; henceforth referred to as "Gurmen").
In regard to claim 11, both Lu at p. 6 “Preparation of NiFe/NF” and Atanassova at [0305] teach nickel-iron containing nanoparticle synthesis. However, neither reference reports a time for the depositing.
Gurmen at the Abstract and Table 1 teaches a method of preparing iron-nickel alloy particles, including depositing for 90 minutes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that to carry out the depositing for a time period as claimed, as the claimed time encompasses that taught by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY SABATOSE whose telephone number is (571)272-9893. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-6:00 M-Th.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/A.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights