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 § 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 3, 5, 8, 17 and 19 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation pH below 4, and the claim also recites “optionally a pH between 0 and 4 or any pH therebetween, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation pH above 4, and the claim also recites “optionally a pH between 4 and 8 or any pH therebetween, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The term “sufficient” in the last line of claims 8, 17 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The conditions for preparing the oxidation product, i.e. hydrogen peroxide, have been rendered indefinite.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites, in part, “according to any one of claim 1”. This phrase should read “according to claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 recites, in part, “the method of claim 16”. However, it is noted that claim 16 is directed to an electrochemical cell. A method is recited in claims 8 and 17. For examination purposes, claim 18 has been considered as dependent upon claim 17. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jin et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2017/0044679).
Regarding claim 1, Jin teaches an electrochemical cell comprising an electrolyte and a cathode immersed in the electrolyte (paragraph 23),
wherein the cathode comprises a two-electron oxygen reduction reaction electrocatalyst composed of a metal chalcogenide, wherein the metal is Ni (paragraph 4 – electrocatalyst may be a transition metal dichalcogenide with formula MX2, where M is Ni and X is Se).
Regarding claim 2, the metal chalcogenide of Jin comprises c-NiSe2 (paragraph 4)
Regarding claim 3, the electrolyte of Jin may be acidic, neutral or basic (paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 4, claim 1 requires NiSe2 OR PdSe2. Accordingly, claim 4 is withdrawn from consideration as it does not further limit the NiSe2 of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the electrolyte of Jin may be acidic, neutral or basic (paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 6, it is important to note that the electrolyte is the material worked upon by this apparatus, and as such, its composition does not serve to structurally define the apparatus, beyond imparting the limitation that the device should be capable of containing an electrolyte in contact with the electrodes. In the instant case, Jin discloses an anode and a cathode immersed in an electrolyte (paragraphs 23, 28, 40) and thus, it meets the structural limitations of the claims.
Regarding claim 7, it is important to note that the electrolyte is the material worked upon by this apparatus, and as such, its composition does not serve to structurally define the apparatus, beyond imparting the limitation that the device should be capable of containing an electrolyte in contact with the electrodes. In the instant case, Jin discloses an anode and a cathode immersed in an electrolyte (paragraphs 23, 28, 40) and thus, it meets the structural limitations of the claims.
Regarding to claim 9, Jin discloses an electrochemical cell comprising an acidic catholyte, a cathode immersed in the catholyte, an acidic anolyte, and an anode immersed in the anolyte (paragraphs 23, 28, 40 – the electrolyte in each anode and cathode compartments may be acidic, basic or neutral),
wherein the cathode immersed in the catholyte comprises a two-electron oxygen reduction reaction electrocatalyst comprised of a metal chalcogenide (paragraph 4 – electrocatalyst may be a transition metal dichalcogenide with formula MX2, where M is Ni and X is Se).
Even though Jin fails to explicitly teach wherein the particular composition of the catholyte and anolyte, it is important to note that the electrolyte is the material worked upon by this apparatus, and as such, its composition does not serve to structurally define the apparatus, beyond imparting the limitation that the device should be capable of containing an electrolyte in contact with the electrodes. In the instant case, Jin discloses an anode and a cathode immersed in an electrolyte (paragraphs 23, 28, 40) and thus, it meets the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the two-electron oxygen reduction reaction electrocatalyst of Jin comprises a metal chalcogenide (paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 11, the metal chalcogenide of Jin comprises an earth- abundant metal (paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 12, the metal chalcogenide of Jin comprises Ni (paragraph 4 – electrocatalyst may be a transition metal dichalcogenide with formula MX2, where M is Ni and X is Se).
Regarding claim 13, the metal chalcogenide of Jin comprises a pyrite type transition metal dichalcogenide with formula MX2, where M is Ni and X is Se (paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 14, the electrolyte of Jin may be acidic, neutral or basic (paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 15, even though Jin fails to explicitly teach wherein the regenerable metal ion in the electrolyte is Fe+, it is important to note that the electrolyte is the material worked upon by this apparatus, and as such, its composition does not serve to structurally define the apparatus, beyond imparting the limitation that the device should be capable of containing an electrolyte in contact with the electrodes. In the instant case, Jin discloses an anode and a cathode immersed in an electrolyte (paragraphs 23, 28, 40) and thus, it meets the claims.
Regarding claim 16, it is important to note that the electrolyte is the material worked upon by this apparatus, and as such, its composition does not serve to structurally define the apparatus, beyond imparting the limitation that the device should be capable of containing an electrolyte in contact with the electrodes. In the instant case, Jin discloses an anode and a cathode immersed in an electrolyte (paragraphs 23, 28, 40) and thus, it meets the 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.
Claims 8 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0259746).
Regarding claim 8, Jin discloses all the features discussed above, but fails to teach a method for production of hydrogen peroxide, the method comprising introducing oxygen into the electrochemical cell according to claim 1 for preparing the hydrogen peroxide.
Wang discloses a method for the efficient electrocatalytic synthesis of hydrogen peroxide, the method comprising introducing oxygen into an electrochemical cell comprising an anode, and a cathode; wherein the cathode may be selected from an oxygen-reducing electrode coated with a transition metal chalcogenide electrocatalyst (abstract; paragraphs 58, 63, 66, 96, 107, 148-149).
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to introduce oxygen into the electrochemical cell of Jin because as taught by Wang, this is well known in the art to be effective for the production of hydrogen peroxide in an electrochemical cell comprising a cathode coated with a transition metal chalcogenide electrocatalyst, and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claim 17, Jin discloses all the features discussed above, but fails to teach a method for preparing an oxidation product of a biomass-derived feedstock, the method comprising introducing the biomass-derived feedstock into the electrochemical cell according to claim 1 under conditions sufficient for preparing the oxidation product.
Wang discloses a method for the efficient electrocatalytic synthesis of an oxidation product, i.e. hydrogen peroxide, the method comprising introducing a biomass-derived feedstock into an electrochemical cell comprising an anode, and a cathode; wherein the cathode may be selected from an oxygen-reducing electrode coated with a transition metal chalcogenide electrocatalyst (abstract; paragraphs 58, 63, 66, 96, 107, 148-149).
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to introduce a biomass-derived feedstock into the electrochemical cell of Jin because as taught by Wang, this is well known in the art to be effective for the production of an oxidation product, i.e. hydrogen peroxide, in an electrochemical cell comprising a cathode coated with a transition metal chalcogenide electrocatalyst, and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claim 18, Wang further discloses wherein a potential between 0.56-0.82 V vs. RHE is applied to the cathode (paragraphs 35, 123).
Regarding claim 19, Jin discloses all the features discussed above, but fails to teach a method for preparing an oxidation product of a biomass-derived feedstock, the method comprising introducing the biomass-derived feedstock into the electrochemical cell according to claim 9 under conditions sufficient for preparing the oxidation product.
Wang discloses a method for the efficient electrocatalytic synthesis of an oxidation product, i.e. hydrogen peroxide, the method comprising introducing a biomass-derived feedstock into an electrochemical cell comprising an anode, and a cathode; wherein the cathode may be selected from an oxygen-reducing electrode coated with a transition metal chalcogenide electrocatalyst (abstract; paragraphs 58, 63, 66, 96, 107, 148-149).
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to introduce a biomass-derived feedstock into the electrochemical cell of Jin because as taught by Wang, this is well known in the art to be effective for the production of an oxidation product, i.e. hydrogen peroxide, in an electrochemical cell comprising a cathode coated with a transition metal chalcogenide electrocatalyst, and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claim 20, Wang further teaches wherein less than 1.0 V of externally applied bias may be applied (paragraphs 20, 24).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights