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/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of group II, claims 5-14 in the reply filed on 06 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that a special technical feature exists among groups I-II. This is not found persuasive because the references cited herein in rejecting group II, claims 5-14 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 also demonstrate a lack of unity of invention due to a lack of a special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06 July 2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 5 and 6 refer to “normal temperature.” This term is defined in the specification at [0015] as filed, referring to “in accordance with the description of JIS Z 8703-1983 ‘Standard Atmospheric Conditions for Testing.’” The standard defines temperatures of 20 °C, 23 °C, and 25 °C. As such, the limitation will be interpreted as referring to a temperature within the range of 20 and 25 °C inclusive.
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.
Claims 5-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (JP 2008047473 A, as previously attached) in view of Toyosawa (JP 2008177023 A, as previously attached).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Ono teaches a method for manufacturing a slurry containing a polymer material and a composite in which at least one of an elemental metal or a metal compound is carried on a carrier ([0094]: “catalyst slurry” includes polymer material and a composite including catalytic ions, and water or alcohol solvent). The composite is manufactured by a method including the mixing of a solvent and carrier, to which a metal ion source and reducing agent are added ([0055]-[0060]; [0066]-[0067]: reduction; [0070]: examples of solvents).
Ono does not teach the depressurizing step at less than 80 kPa absolute pressure, nor wherein both of these steps occur at normal temperature.
However, Toyosawa teaches another method of manufacturing a metal catalyst on a carrier by subjecting a dispersion liquid containing a solvent and the metal catalyst ions to a reduced pressure treatment, between 1 × 10-14 Pa and 5 × 10-15 Pa ([0027]: as a plating solution). No mention is made of temperature during this reduced pressure treatment. However, because boiling of the dispersion liquid is undesirable, it is obvious to one skilled in the art to attempt this process at room temperature, reading on a range of 20 to 25 °C as the limitation of “normal temperature” has been interpreted.
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to add a step of exposing the dispersion liquids to a reduced-pressure atmosphere, as taught by Toyosawa, in the manufacturing of the composite taught by Ono. One would do so in order to achieve sufficient removal of dissolved gas without boiling the dispersion liquid (Toyosawa [0027]).
Regarding claims 7-9, modified Ono further teaches that the metal compound of the method of claim 5 may contain any one of Au, Ag, Pt, Ir, or Pd, among other claimed metals ([0028]-[0030]). These are in the form of particles with an average size of 6 to 15 nm, within the claimed range of “100 nm or less” ([0033]). The polymer material is an ion-exchange resin ([0094]: “proton-conducting polymer such as Nafion”).
Regarding claims 11-13, modified Ono further teaches manufacturing an electrode with the slurry prepared by claim 5 and an ion-exchange membrane electrode assembly comprising the same electrode ([0095]-[0100]; [0089]).
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (JP 2008047473 A) in view of Toyosawa (JP 2008177023 A) as applied to claims 9 and 13 above, and further in view of Patru et al. (US 2020/0308718 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 14, modified Ono does not specifically teach wherein the ion-exchange resin of claim 9 is an anion-exchange resin, nor the use of the ion-exchange membrane-electrode-assembly of claim 13 in a CO2 electrolytic apparatus.
However, Patru teaches that electrocatalyst slurries may be prepared with anion exchange ionomers, reading on anion-exchange resin ([0046]). Mixing anion exchange ionomer into the catalyst layer is stated to provide an optimal environment for carbon dioxide reduction reactions ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use an anion exchange resin material in the polymer material of the slurry of Ono. One would have been motivated to make this substitution because the use of anion-exchange material in the catalyst slurry, and therefore a finished electrode, is shown by Patru to be effective in electrolytic cells for reduction of carbon dioxide.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2007/0180954 A1 to Kim et al. teaches an electrode formed of dispersed copper nanoparticles. US 2016/0251766 A1 to Masel et al. teaches the use of ion-exchange membrane electrode assemblies in electrolytic CO2 reduction processes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colton B. Forry whose telephone number is (571)272-8873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/CBF/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights