GRAFTED CATALYST
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 and 6-15 in the reply filed on 8/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “sections with greater activity and sections with less activity” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-15 are 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 1 discloses polymeric chains are grated to the sections (of the catalyst particle) with less activity. However, there is no disclosure in the specification for how this is done. Paragraphs 0026 and 0027 of the as-filed specification disclose the polymeric units are grafted to the corners, edge, or facets with less activity of the catalyst particle but they do not disclose how this is accomplished. Paragraph 0045 discloses:
the polymeric units may be formed or grown in solution and/or grafted simultaneously with deposition such as in the ink/slurry. Depending on the polymeric units used further steps may be necessary. For example, if a scavenger such as in the form of a coordination compound, complex, or weak crosslinks is incorporated in the polymeric grafting units a metal oxide powder such as cerium oxide may be added into the ink or added after the catalyst is deposited and the polymeric units are grafted.
However, this still does not disclose how one of ordinary skill in the art can selectively choose to graft a polymeric chain to a less activity site on a catalyst particle due to lack of synthesis explanation and materials used.
Further, how can corners and edges of the catalyst particles have less activity? One of ordinary skill in the art would understand these atoms would be more reactive not less being that they have a lower coordination number, share fewer bonds with neighboring atoms, and have exposed 5d orbitals with higher-lying d-band centers.
Claims 2-4 and 6-15 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for their dependence on claim 1.
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 1-4 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buvat et al. (US 2019/0109329 A1) and further in view of He et al. (J. Phys. Chem. C (2013) 117 (10): 4877–4887).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Buvat et al. teach an electrochemical cell (Abstract; paragraphs 0026 and 107 disclose fuel cells.) comprising:
a pair of electrodes (Paragraph 0006); and
a plurality of catalyst particles deposited on a catalyst support (Paragraphs 0048, 0050, and claim 18 disclose platinum particles on a carbon support.). However, Buvat et al. do not specifically teach each catalyst particle having sections with greater activity, sections with less activity, and polymeric chains grafted to the sections with less activity, the polymeric chains providing steric hindrance proximate the catalyst to corresponding catalyst particle to reduce catalyst poisoning.
However, Buvat et al. teach platinum particles being grafted with grafts consisting of at least one polymer comprising at least one styrene repeating unit (Claim 18).
While Buvat does not disclose the catalyst particle has sections with greater activity and sections with less activity, this feature is shown in He et al.
He et al. disclose the presence of phosphate anions on atop (less reactive) sites on platinum clusters whereas more reactive sites on the platinum cluster (2-fold and 3-fold) are available for molecular oxygen to undergo the oxygen reduction reaction. The phosphate anions block O(H) poisoning from the atop sites with steric hindrance and prevents O(H) from poisoning the catalyst (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Buvat with the concept of He in order to keep remaining sites free for molecular oxygen to undergo the ORR.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the combination of Buvat and He et al. teach the electrochemical cell of claim 1. Buvat et al. further teaches an ionomer adjacent to catalyst particles and having sulfonic acid functional groups (Paragraphs 0184-0193 disclose hot pressing the catalyst particles onto a Nafion membrane. Nafion is ionomeric containing sulfonic acid functional groups.).
Regarding claims 6-11, the combination of Buvat and He et al. teach the electrochemical cell of claim 1. However, they do not disclose the bending stiffness, persistence length, or Kuhn length of the polymeric chains.
These limitations are merely examples of Changes in Size/Proportion. MPEP 2144.04 IV A: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claims 12-14, the combination of Buvat and He et al. teach the electrochemical cell of claim 1. Further, Buvat et al. teach the polymeric chains include double bonds, are cyclic, and include benzene rings (See Formula III in Claim 31).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Buvat and He et al. teach the electrochemical cell of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the catalyst has a grafting density of at least 2 to 20 chains per catalyst particle.
MPEP 2144.05 II A: Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 August 19th, 2026
Prosecution Insights