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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15 and 16 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/7/2026.
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.
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 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok (KR 2019071334 see attached translation), and further in view of Park (KR 101901223 see attached translation).
As to claim 1, Seok discloses a method of producing a catalyst for a fuel cell ([0001], discussed throughout), the method comprising:
forming a carbon support dispersion solution ([0013], discussed throughout);
forming a first metal precursor-mixed solution by mixing a solution of a first metal precursor with the carbon support dispersion solution ([0013], Pt-transitional metal alloy; discussed throughout);
supporting a first metal by irradiating the first metal precursor-mixed solution with an electron beam ([0013]; discussed throughout);
injecting a second metal precursor into a first metal-supported mixed solution ([0013], transition metal precursor; discussed throughout);
supporting a second metal by irradiating a second metal precursor-injected mixed solution with an electron beam ([0013]; discussed throughout).
Seok is silent to heat-treating a carbon support on which the second metal is supported. Park discloses a catalyst for a fuel cell (page 1, [0001]) wherein a metal precursor is added to a solvent and a catalyst carrier (page 2) wherein a post heating stage is added after the electron beam (page 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to added the post heat treatment from Park within Seok because the post heat treatment improves the activity and durability of the catalyst (page 5).
NOTE: the claim does not make it clear if there the method is being performed in a step by step process (i.e. the second metal precursor is added after the first metal is irradiated) or if steps are occurring at the same time. Thus, should it be considered that the claims are a step by step process it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to adjust the sequence of adding ingredients as a mere change in sequence of adding ingredients (see MPEP 2144.04 IV C).
As to claim 2, modified Seok discloses wherein, the carbon support comprises at least one selected from reduced graphene oxide, graphene, graphite, single-walled carbon nanotubes, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, carbon nanohorns, carbon nanofibers, acetylene black, and furnace black ([0013], carbon nanotube, note it would be either a single or multiwalled carbon nanotube; discussed throughout).
As to claim 3, modified Seok discloses wherein, the first metal precursor comprises a platinum (Pt) precursor ([0013], discussed throughout).
As to claim 4, modified Seok discloses wherein, the first metal precursor comprises at least one selected from platinum acetylacetonate, platinum acetate, platinum chloride, and platinum nitrate ([0037], discussed throughout).
As to claim 5, modified Seok discloses wherein, in the forming of the first metal precursor-mixed solution, a pH of the first metal precursor-mixed solution is adjusted to be basic ([0013], [0026], discussed throughout).
As to claim 6, modified Seok discloses wherein, in the supporting of the first metal, the electron beam is irradiated for 20 minutes or less ([0017], discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 7, modified Seok discloses wherein, the second metal precursor comprises at least one precursor of transition metal selected from Ti, Sc, V, Y, Zr, Nb, La, Hf, and Ta ([0015], discussed throughout).
As to claim 8, modified Seok is silent to wherein, the second metal precursor comprises at least one selected from TiCl4, C12H28O4Ti, Ti(OC2H5)4, Ti(OBu)4, C12H28O4Ti, and [(CH3)2CHO]2Ti(C5H7O2)2. However, Seok discloses the use of Ti and Ru as transitional metals. When Ru was added it was added it with Chlorine. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to add Ti with Chlorine as well as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
As to claim 9, modified Seok discloses wherein, the second metal precursor is injected by an in-situ method ([0013], in-situ means in the natural or original position or place, given that the second metal precursor is added it can be considered added/injected by an in-situ method; discussed throughout).
As to claim 10, modified Seok discloses wherein, in the injecting of the second metal precursor, a pH of the mixed solution is adjusted to be basic ([0013], [0026], discussed throughout).
As to claim 11, modified Seok discloses wherein, in the supporting of the second metal, the electron beam is irradiated for 30 minutes or less ([0017], discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 12, modified Seok discloses wherein, the supporting of the second metal comprises filtering and then drying the mixed solution to which the electron beam has been irradiated ([0057], shows filtering then drying after being irradiated; discussed throughout).
As to claim 14, modified Seok discloses wherein, in the heat treating, a heat treatment time is 1 hour to 5 hours (page 5, Park, discussed throughout).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights