DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/549,294 application filed 6 September 2023, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant is reminded that “[u]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327. In the instant case, a graphitized carbon material has been interpreted as including “a carbon material…[that has been] subjected to a thermal treatment (for example, at a temperature in the range of 1,400° C. to 3,000° C. so that regions having a graphite structure…[are] formed in the carbon material” [paragraph 0020 of the published application]. Non-colloidal has been interpreted as “compris[ing] only a single phase, i.e., the individual constituents of the composition are mixed completely homogeneously” [paragraph 0043 of the published application]. Note the degree of graphitization appears to be explicitly defined in paragraph 0022 of the published application.
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 7 and 11 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 7 recites “…the at least one organic noble metal complex is a noble metal complex selected from the group consisting of noble metal complexes of the type [LPt[O(CO)Rl]X]n, [LPd[O(CO)R1]X]n, [LRh[O(CO)R1]]m, and [LIr[O(CO)R1]]m,…” However, L is not defined in either claim 7 nor claim 1 from which 7 depends. Perhaps, claim 7 should depend from claim 6.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the support material and the noble metal derived from the at least one organic noble metal complex are present in a weight ratio of at least 1:1.” It is unclear where the support and noble metal complex are present in said ratio. Options include the impregnation step of claim 1(b), the thermal treatment step of claim 1(c), the product of the thermal treatment step 1(c), or one or more of the preceding. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined.
With respect to claim 12, it is obvious that
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasumi et al (JP 2005216772).
Note: in the discussion that follows, reference will be made to the English-language machine translation provided by Clarivate Analytics that is attached herewith.
With respect to claims 1-2 and 13, Kawasumi et al discloses an “electrode catalyst…in which catalytic metal fine particles are supported on a graphitized conductive carbon support having 10 to 100 edges per unit area (900 nm2) in the visual field area when observed with a scanning electron microscope” [see paragraph under the heading “TECHNICAL-FIELD” on page 1]. The reference further teaches “[w]hen the conductive carbon support is heat-treated, it can be graphitized…In order to prepare such a conductive carbon carrier, the conductive carbon is calcined by firing in a nonflammable gas atmosphere at 1,000 to 3,500 ° C., more preferably 2,000 to 3,000 ° C.” [2nd and 4th paragraphs on page 3 of translation]. Consequently, while Kawasumi et al does not explicitly disclose that the graphitized conductive carbon support has a degree of graphitization of at least 10%, since the method of preparing the graphitized conductive carbon support is the same as that discussed in the reference, it is expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that the graphitized conductive carbon support meets the required degree of graphitization. Kawasumi et al further discloses “[t]he catalytic metal fine particles supported on the conductive carbon carrier are noble metal fine particles and/or catalytic metal fine particles composed of an alloy of noble metal fine particles and a base metal or an intermetallic compound, and the average particle diameter of the catalytic metal fine particles is 1 to 10 nm, more preferably 2 to 5 nm” [5th paragraph on page 4 of the translation]. The reference further teaches “when a noble metal element-containing solution is used, the noble metal can be easily supported on the inner surface of the conductive material because the noble metal is uniformly dispersed in the solution…the third aspect of the present invention is that a graphitized conductive carbon carrier…and a noble metal element-containing solution. A method for producing an electrode catalyst, comprising: adding a reducing agent having a strong reducing property to the noble metal element to a mixed solution, and supporting the noble metal on the carrier” [2nd to last paragraph on page 5 of translation] and “[e]xamples of the noble metal include platinum, palladium, rhodium, osmium, ruthenium, and iridium, and the source of these noble metals is not particularly limited, and compounds containing these noble metals can be widely used. Examples of such compounds include nitrates, sulfates, ammonium salts, amines, carbonates, bicarbonates, inorganic salts such as halogen salts, nitrites, and oxalic acid, carboxylates and hydroxides…, [a]lkoxides, oxides, and the like can be exemplified, and can be appropriately selected depending on the type and pH of the solvent in which these are dissolved. Among these, for industrial use, nitrate, carbonate, oxide, hydroxide, platinum, platinum chloride, dinitrodiamine platinum and the like are preferable” [last paragraph on page 5 of translation], which solvent includes formic acid [see Example 1: “[a]fter 1 g of graphitized carbon obtained in Production Example 1 was mixed and dispersed in 50 ml of formic acid, 200 ml of dinitrodiamine platinum nitrate aqueous solution (platinum concentration: 8.4% by mass) was added and further stirred…”]. Last, Kawasumi et al discloses “[a]fter the noble metal and/or base metal fine particles are supported on the conductive carbon support, it is isolated from the solution, dried, and then the support is fired at 400 to 800 ° C. In particular, when only the noble metal fine particles are supported on the conductive carbon support, firing is performed at 500 to 800 ° C” [see 5th paragraph on page 6 of translation]. Formic acid corresponds to the organic solvent of instant claim 1(b)(i) and dinitrodiamine platinum nitrate corresponds to the organic noble metal complex of 1(b)(ii). The drying and/or firing corresponds to the thermal treatment of instant claim 1(c).
With respect to claim 9, the aforementioned “8.4% by mass” discussed above yields about 6.9 mass % of the total composition (assuming the 200 mL aqueous Pt has a density of about 1 g mL-1 given the dilute concentration of Pt; 16.8 g Pt/(61 g formic acid [rformic = 1.22 g mL-1]+183.2 g water)).
With respect to claim 12, the aforesaid reduction and firing obviously decomposes the noble metal compounds into their metal forms.
With respect to claim 14, the reference discloses “[t]he concentration of these noble metals is preferably 0.1 to 1.0% by mass, more preferably 0.3 to 60% by mass in terms of metal” [see first paragraph on page 6 of translation].
With respect to claim 15, the aforementioned electrode catalyst corresponds to the electrochemical cell of the instant claim or renders such obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8, and 10 are 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.
Claims 7 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 3, it is not obvious that graphitized carbon forms a homogeneous or single-phase composition with water and the solvent, particularly, the formic acid discussed above since graphite is highly insoluble in at least water. It is known that graphite may dissolve (at least partly) in a binary mixture of water/acetone, but acetone does not appear to be one of the solvents of Kawasumi et al. With respect to claims 4-5 and 10, the concentrations required in each are greater than the concentrations taught in the reference. With respect to claims 6 and 7, Kawasumi et al does not teach the recited ligands or complexes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Neumann et al (US 2017/0141405), which discloses “[a] known method for producing porous graphitized carbon material covered with metal nanoparticles involves infiltrating a porous template framework of inorganic material with a carbon precursor. After thermal treatment of the precursor, the template is removed and the particulate porous carbon material is covered with a catalytically active substance. According to the invention, in order to keep the proportion of the noble metal loading at a low level, the thermal treatment of the precursor first involves carbonization, and the material is not graphitized into graphitized, particulate, porous carbon material until the template has been removed. The graphitized carbon material has a hierarchical pore structure with a pore volume of at least 0.5 cm3/g and at least 75% of the pore volume is apportioned to macropores with, size 100 to 5000 nm” [abstract] and “[a] graphitization degree of 69.67%” [paragraph 0063] and “[p]referably, a noble metal selected from the platinum group, preferably platinum, or an alloy of the noble metal is used as the catalytically active substance” [paragraph 0087] and “[i]t has turned out to be useful when the covering with catalytically active substance in method step (e) comprises a measure in which a solution of a noble metal compound is applied to the carbon material and is subjected to a decomposition treatment to form a deposit of catalytically active particles on the porous carbon material” [paragraph 0089]; also, the WIPO Machine translation of Kawasumi et al (JP 2005216772) for further reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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 A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
15 April 2026
Prosecution Insights