CTNF 18/539,655 CTNF 97586 DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017206568 A (Harada ‘568 – citing to the attached English translation) in view of JP 2014214290 A (Yamahira ‘290 – citing to the attached English translation) . Regarding claim 1 , Harada ‘568 teaches a catalyst for fuel cells (a fuel cell catalyst; [0008]) , wherein the catalyst comprises a metal catalyst and a carbon support (the fuel cell catalyst is obtained by depositing (supporting) platinum on the surface of carbon black; [0021]) ; wherein the carbon support supports the metal catalyst (the platinum is strongly supported on the carbon black surface; [0021]) ; wherein the carbon support is carbon support particles (carbon black particles; [0009] & [0011]) ; wherein a specific surface area of the carbon support particles is 800 m 2 /g or more and 1200 m 2 /g or less (the specific surface area of the carbon black is within 500 m 2 /g and 1000 m 2 /g; [0010]) ; and wherein a bulk density of the carbon support particles is 0.02 g/ml or more and 0.07 g/ml or less (the bulk density of the carbon black is 0.05 g/ml or less; [0014]) . Harada ‘568 teaches aggregated particles of 20 µm or more, and thus, does not disclose wherein a particle size of the carbon support particles is 200 nm or more and 400 nm or less. Yamahira ‘290 discloses carbon black that can be used as a catalyst support ([0023]). The carbon black has a specific surface area of 300 to 1100 m 2 /g ([0009]). The carbon black has a bulk density between 0.01 to 0.03 g/ml ([0009]). The carbon black has a maximum aggregate particle diameter of 20 µm or less ([0012]). When aggregated particles larger than 20 µm are present, surface smoothness cannot be maintained during coating due to the aggregated particles ([0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the particle size of the carbon black particles in the catalyst for fuel cells, as taught by Harada ‘568, to be 20 µm or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of 200 nm or more 400 nm or less, to ensure surface smoothness during coating, as suggested by Yamahira ‘290. Further, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists ( In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Regarding claim 2 , Harada ‘568 teaches the catalyst according to Claim 1, wherein the particle size of the carbon support particles is 300 nm or more and 400 nm or less (the carbon black has a maximum aggregate particle diameter of 20 µm or less; [0012] of Yamahira ‘290) . As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists ( In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Regarding claim 3 , Harada ‘568 teaches the catalyst according to Claim 1, wherein the bulk density of the carbon support particles is 0.05 g/ml or more and 0.07 g/ml or less (the bulk density of the carbon black is 0.05 g/ml or less; [0014] of Harada ‘568) . As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists ( In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20180375139 A1 (Yamamoto ‘139) discloses an electrode catalyst for fuel cells comprising a carbon material ([0027]). For example, a catalyst layer containing Ketjenblack(R) supporting 30% of Pt as an electrode catalyst was used ([0102]). The specific surface area of the carbon material is preferably 800 to 1200 m 2 /g ([0032]). The average particles size of the carbon material may be 0.05 to 10 µm ([0033]). JP 2019169317 A (Takeshita ‘317 – citing to the attached English translation) discloses a carbon porous body having a diameter, pore size, and specific surface area within a specific range, and a pore structure suitable for use as a catalyst support in a fuel cell ([0011]). The carbon porous material has a specific surface area of 800 m 2 /g or more ([0012]). The carbon porous material has a diameter of 100 nm or more and 300 nm or less ([0012] & [0021]). If the diameter of the carbon porous material becomes too small, the voids in the catalyst layer become too small, making flooding more likely to occur at high humidity ([0021]). If the diameter of the carbon porous material becomes too large, the resistance to movement increases ([0021]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR H KRONE whose telephone number is (571)270-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST. 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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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. /TAYLOR HARRISON KRONE/Examiner, Art Unit 1725 /JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/539,655 Page 2 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/539,655 Page 3 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/539,655 Page 4 Art Unit: 1725
Prosecution Insights