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 .
Claims 1-7 are presently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicants’ Priority Document was filed on October 30, 2023.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is indefinite for reciting the word “type” therein, e.g., “rod-type”, “horn-type, plate-type”. The addition of the word “type” extends the scope of the claims so as to render them indefinite since it is unclear what “type” is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to the otherwise definite expression renders the definite expression indefinite by extending its scope. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955). It is advised to delete “type” from this claim.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okahara et al. (JP 2007-179963) in view of Sugiura et al. (JP 2008-108495).
Regarding claim 1, Okahara et al. teach the preparation of a catalyst, wherein a conductive carrier (e.g., carbon) is made to carry a catalyst metal under a deflected magnetic field condition by vacuum arc deposition by means of a vacuum arc plasma deposition source, wherein as a result of the vacuum arc deposition, high adhesion between the support and the catalytic metal can be achieved ("deposition carried out by an arc plasma process"). See the Abstract and paragraph [0007] of Okahara et al.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Okahara et al. teach that examples of the conductive material include carbonaceous materials, e.g., graphite carbon, carbon fiber, carbon cloth, carbon paper, activated carbon, carbon nanohorn, carbon nanotube, carbon nanocoil, fullerene, acetylene black, furnace black, etc. See paragraph [0032] of Okahara et al.; the teachings of carbon nanohorn and carbon nanotube are considered to read upon the limitations “rod-type”, “tubular”, and “horn-type” in claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Okahara et al. teach that examples of the catalyst metal include rhodium, iridium, nickel, cobalt and manganese; see paragraph [0030].
Okahara et al. do not explicitly teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding surface-treating the carbon carrier by an oxidation process, as recited in Applicants’ claims 1 and 5. However, paragraph [0033] of Okahara et al., teaches that the “carbonaceous material may be subjected to a treatment known in the field of fuel cell catalysts, as long as the effect of the present invention is not impaired.”
Okahara et al. additionally do not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 2 regarding the formation of a defect in the surface of the carbon carrier, as a result of the surface treatment by an oxidation process. Okahara et al. teach that the catalyst obtained by the aforementioned preparation “has catalytic metal particles embedded in the surface of the carrier”, and that “catalytic metal is implanted into the surface of the support”, thus providing “an anchor effect”, wherein “the catalytic metal is firmly supported on the support”. See paragraphs [0037] and [0038] of Okahara et al.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Sugiura et al. teach the preparation of a catalyst carrier for a fuel cell, wherein the carrier is subjected to electrochemical oxidation prior to supporting a catalyst thereon; see paragraphs [0008]-[0009] of Sugiura et al., as well as paragraphs [0031]-[0033], the latter of which describes the electrochemical oxidation procedure.
Examples of the catalyst carrier include carbon-based carriers, e.g., carbon black, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanowalls, and activated carbon; exemplary catalysts include rhodium. See paragraph [0017] of Sugiura et al.
Note that these carbon-based carriers and rhodium are disclosed in Okahara et al., as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the method of Okahara et al. by incorporating therein the step of subjecting the carrier to an oxidation process, as suggested by Sugiura et al., as subjecting the carrier to electrochemical oxidation results in the formation of a fuel cell having a durability that can be maintained for a long period of time, which is advantageous in suppressing a decrease in the power generation performance of the fuel cell. See paragraph [0042] of Sugiura et al.
Regarding claim 2, it is considered that because Sugiura et al. teach an oxidation process reading upon that recited in claims 1 and 5, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect the formation of a defect on the surface of the aforementioned catalyst carrier. Further, because Okahara et al. teach that the catalyst obtained by the preparation disclosed therein “has catalytic metal particles embedded in the surface of the carrier”, and that “catalytic metal is implanted into the surface of the support”, thus providing “an anchor effect”, wherein “the catalytic metal is firmly supported on the support” (see paragraphs [0037] and [0038] of Okahara et al.), the combined teachings of Okahara et al. and Sugiura et al. would be expected to result in the formation of defects on the surface of the carbon carrier, and in the deposition of the catalyst at positions of said defects.
Neither Okahara et al. nor Sugiura et al. teach that the preparation obtained by these references’ combined teachings result in the deposition of a “transition metal single-atom catalyst”, as recited in claim 1. However, because the combined teachings of these references, as discussed above, read upon Applicants’ claimed method, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect the preparation obtained by the combined teachings of Okahara et al. and Sugiura et al. to successfully and effectively deposit transition metal single atoms, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR 101639724) in view of Sugiura et al. (JP 2008-108495).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 4, Choi et al. teach the preparation of composite particles comprising a carbon-based support body, a plurality of nanoparticles including transition metal formed on the carbon-based support body, and a carbon-based shell formed on the surface of the plurality of nanoparticles. Examples of the carbon-based support body include carbon black, graphitized carbon, carbon nanotubes, and carbon nanofibers. See paragraphs [0013]-[0016], [0023], and [0024] of Choi et al., as well as Figure 1, which depicts an embodiment of the composite particles, wherein the carbon-based support body is round (considered to read upon the claim limitation “spherical” in claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, Choi et al. teach Fe (iron), Co (cobalt), and Ni (nickel) as exemplary transition metals, and further teach that “other transition metals…may be used depending on the purpose of the composite particle.” See paragraph [0025] of Choi et al.
Further regarding claim 1, and also regarding claim 7, Choi et al. teach the formation of nickel nanoparticles on carbon black using a vacuum arc plasma deposition device under the conditions of applying a voltage of 30 to 250 V, an electric capacity of 100 to 1080 µF, and a pulse cycle of 5 to 25 Hz (“deposition is carried out by an arc plasma process”). See paragraph [0043] of Choi et al.
While Choi et al. teach application of a voltage falling within Applicants’ claimed range of “between 50 to 200 V” and a pulse cycle of 5 to 25 Hz, this reference does not explicitly teach the claim limitation of “1 to 30 pulse shots”, as recited in claim 7. However, in view of the comparable voltage range taught by Choi et al., the skilled artisan would have been motivated to determine through routine experimentation the optimal number of pulse cycles, such as that recited in claim 7, to optimize the deposition of nickel particles.
Choi et al. do not teach or suggest the limitations of claims 1 and 2 regarding the surface treatment of the carbon carrier by an oxidation process, or regarding the formation of defects on the carbon carrier as a result of the surface treatment, wherein the transition metal catalyst is deposited at positions of said defects. Choi et al. also do not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 5 regarding the forms of oxidation processes recited therein.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Sugiura et al. teach the preparation of a catalyst carrier for a fuel cell, wherein the carrier is subjected to electrochemical oxidation prior to supporting a catalyst thereon; see paragraphs [0008]-[0009] of Sugiura et al., as well as paragraphs [0031]-[0033], the latter of which describes the electrochemical oxidation procedure.
Examples of the catalyst carrier include carbon-based carriers, e.g., carbon black, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanowalls, and activated carbon; exemplary catalysts include rhodium. See paragraph [0017] of Sugiura et al.
Note that carbon black and carbon nanotubes are disclosed in Choi et al., as discussed above. Further, the teaching by Choi et al. in the feasibility that “other transition metals…may be used depending on the purpose of the composite particle” is considered sufficient motivation to combine the teachings of Choi et al. and Sugiura et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the preparation of Choi et al. by incorporating therein the step of subjecting the carrier to an oxidation process, as suggested by Sugiura et al., as subjecting the carrier to electrochemical oxidation results in the formation of a fuel cell having a durability that can be maintained for a long period of time, which is advantageous in suppressing a decrease in the power generation performance of the fuel cell. See paragraph [0042] of Sugiura et al.
Regarding claim 2, it is considered that because Sugiura et al. teach an oxidation process reading upon that recited in claims 1 and 5, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect the formation of a defect on the surface of the aforementioned catalyst carrier. Further, because Choi et al, as shown in Figure 4, depicts the presence of metal nanoparticles on the surface of the carbon-based support body, the combined teachings of Choi et al. and Sugiura et al. would be expected to result in the formation of defects on the surface of the carbon carrier, and in the deposition of the catalyst at positions of said defects.
Neither Choi et al. nor Sugiura et al. teach that the preparation obtained by these references’ combined teachings result in the deposition of a “transition metal single-atom catalyst”, as recited in claim 1. However, because the combined teachings of these references, as discussed above, read upon Applicants’ claimed method, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect the preparation obtained by the combined teachings of Choi et al. and Sugiura et al. to successfully and effectively deposit transition metal single atoms, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bae et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0394161) is the English language equivalent of KR 10-2182553, cited by Applicants.
Joo et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0060535) is the English language equivalent of KR 10-2247287, cited by Applicants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Patricia L. Hailey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 February 18, 2026