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 .
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 is indefinite since M1 and M2 are undefined dimensions. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably be apprised of infringement based on the distribution of MoO3 on the surface of the NiO particles.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (CN106159288 submitted in the IDS filed 11/21/2023 with citation from the translation provided by Applicant).
Sun teaches Ni-based anode material containing MOx-modified NiO where M is selected from Mg, Al, Sn, Mo, and W and x is a mole fraction larger than or equal to 1 and smaller than or equal to 3 (see Abstract). Sun further discloses MOx-doped NiO in the form of particles (See [0043], [0074] and Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to select any of Mg, Al, Sn, Mo, and W as taught by Sun including Mo to produce a MoOx-modified NiO useful for anode material as taught by Sun.
Regarding claim 2, Sun teaches that the MOx is a discontinuous nanoscale oxide layer (see [0024]).
Regarding claims 3-4, Sun teaches NiO particles containing MoO3 wherein the NiO particles are subjected to calcination temperatures (825-850°C see Sun at [00456]) in ranges inside the range of calcination temperatures in the method for producing the invention (see Specification as filed [0007] and Claim 11). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the crystalline diameter of the NiO particles to be in ranges comparable to those claimed because of the identical calcination temperatures.
Regarding claims 6-7, Sun teaches the particles wherein the MOx accounts for 0.001 to 20 % of the total molar amount of MOx and NiO (i.e., where N1 is 67.48 to 99.00807 mass% and M1 for MoO3 is 0.00193 to 32.52 mass%) (see [0021]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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). Here, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the MoO3-NiO particles as taught by Sun where the amount of NiO and the amount of MoO3 are in any overlapping range with 67.48 to 98.00807 mass% and 0.00193 to 32.52 mass%, respectively, as taught by Sun including the claimed range to produce his anode material.
Regarding claim 8, since Sun teaches that the MOx coating is discontinuous, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that for some regions of the NiO particle discontinuously coated with MoO3, there are ratios where M2/M1 is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Sun teaches a method for preparing the MOx-modified nickel oxide comprising combusting a nickel nitrate and oxide of MOx (See [0045-0046]).
Regarding claim 11, Sun teaches baking at 825-850°C to obtain MOx-doped NiO (see [0046]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Nada et al (US 9,570,754).
As applied to claim 1, Sun teaches a MoOx-modified NiO powder which is used for anode material for solid oxide fuel cell.
Regarding claim 5, Sun does not teach a median diameter D50 of the nickel oxide particles calculated by laser diffraction/scattering method is 10 µm to 1000 µm. Nada teaches an anode material for solid oxide fuel cell comprising composite powder of NiO where the D50 is 0.3 to 50 µm (see Col 1, Ln 6-9, Col 4, Ln 51 to 60, and Col 4, Ln 15-17). Regarding measurement by laser diffraction/scattering method, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that particle size is a physical property that is not changed by the measurement method. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the particle size as taught by Sun to be the same if measured by laser diffraction/scattering method. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the NiO anode material for solid oxide fuel cells where the particle size is in any overlapping range with 0.3 to 50 µm as taught by Nada to produce an anode material suitable for solid oxide fuel cells.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun as applied to claim 9 and in further view of Geus (US 3,925,481).
As applied to claim 9, Sun teaches a method for producing a MoOx-modified NiO powder comprising calcining a nickel compound in the presence of a molybdenum compound.
Regarding claim 10, Sun further teaches a method where the molybdenum compound is a MOx precursor salt and may be a salt of M for example ammonium molybdate (see [0047]). Sun does not teach a method where the molybdenum compound is it least one compound selected from a group including molybdenum trioxide, lithium molybdate, potassium molybdate, and sodium molybdate.
Geus teaches a method for producing a catalyst comprising tin oxide particles being covered by a substantially monomolecular layer of molybdenum oxide, the method comprising forming the molybdenum layer by adding molybdenum to the tin oxide as a salt or oxide of molybdenum, e.g., as ammonium molybdate or MoO3 (molybdenum trioxide), followed by drying and calcining (see Col 3, Ln 4-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as taught by Sun where the molybdenum compound comprises MoO3 as taught by Geus since Geus teaches that they are known equivalents for producing MoO3 coatings on metal oxides by calcination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FORREST whose telephone number is (571)270-5833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10AM-6PM).
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights