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 § 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 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (You et al., 2015), hereinafter You, and in view of Cai et al. (WO 2007140224), hereinafter Cai.
Regarding claim 1, You teaches:
C/SiC composite particles, comprising (Abstract):
porous carbon particles (Pg. 12353);
SiC particles distributed on inner wall surfaces of pores of the porous carbon particles (Abstract);
wherein an Si mass rate of the C/SiC composite particles is more than 0 mg/in2 to not more than 6.8 mg/in2, the "Si mass rate" being a rate of the mass of Si per unit surface area of the C/SiC composite particles (Abstract, Table 1);
wherein the C/SiC composite particles are made by a method comprising (Abstract):
preparing porous silica particles acting as a template (Abstract, pg. 12353);
precipitating carbon in pores of the prepared porous silica particles and obtaining a silica/carbon composite A (Abstract, pg. 12353);
obtaining the C/SiC composite particles by heat-treating the silica/carbon composite B and graphitizing the carbon and simultaneously reacting the silica with a part of the carbon and generating SiC (pg. 12353, 12355-12356).
Regarding the Si mass rate of the C/SiC composite particles, You teaches:
Data:
Specific surface area (SSA) = 568 m2/g
Density of SiC ≈ 3.21 g/cm3 (Canadian Abrasive, n.d.)
Range to check: 0 mg/in2 - 6.8 mg/in2
Convert m2/g to cm2/g
1 m2 = 10,000 cm2
568 m2/g = 568 x 10,000 = 5,680,000 cm2/g
Convert cm2/g to cm2/mg
1 g = 1000 mg
5,680,000 cm2/g = 5,680,000/1000 = 5,680 cm2/mg
Convert cm2 to in2
1 in = 2.54 cm => 1 in2 = 6.3504 cm2
5,680 cm2/mg / 6.3504 = 894.4 in2/mg
Invert to get mg/in2
1/894.4 ≈ 0.001118 mg/in2
You fails to teach removing a part of the silica from the silica/carbon composite A and obtaining a silica/carbon composite B.
Cai teaches removing a part of the silica from the silica/carbon composite and obtaining a silica/carbon composite ([0040], [0005-0006]).
You and Cai are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of porous carbon-based composite materials containing silica. Cai describe carbon-silica composites having highly ordered mesoporous structures and expressly identifies their usefulness in catalyst applications and fuel-cell electrodes. Cai further teaches that the content and dispersion of silica within the carbon network is important to the performance of a carbon-based electrode and that excessive ceramic content can substantially reduce the electrical conductivity of the carbon.
You teaches C/SiC composite particles comprising porous carbon particles and SiC distributed in association with the porous carbon structure. You further teach preparing the composite using a mesoporous silica template, introducing a carbon source into the silica structure, and subsequently heat treating the resulting material to from the OMC-SiC composite. You also teaches the resulting material for use as a catalyst support.
Cai teaches forming a silica-carbon composite by incorporating silica into a carbon matrix or network and subsequently removing silica from the silica-carbon composite by etching. Cai explains that the amount and dispersion of silica should be controlled because excessive silica/ceramic content can substantially reduce electrical conductivity. Cai further teaches that removal of silica produces additional pores and substantially increases the surface area and pore volume of the carbon material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the silica/carbon precursor of You by removing a portion of the silica, as taught by Cai, prior to the heat treatment used to form the C/SiC composite. The motivation for doing so would have been to control the content and dispersion of silica remaining within the carbon network and thereby obtain a desired balance of electrical conductivity, surface area, and pore volume. Cai expressly recognizes that silica content and dispersion are important to carbon-electrode performance and that excessive ceramic content can substantially reduce electrical conductivity. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to remove a portion of the silica from the silica/carbon composite of You to control the amount of silica remaining in the carbon network while retaining silica for subsequent reaction with carbon during the heat treatment. The modification would have been no more than the application of a known silica-removal technique to a known silica/carbon composite for the predictable purpose of controlling the silica content and resulting properties of the carbon-based material.
Regarding claim 2, You and Cai teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. You further teaches a diameter of the pores of the porous carbon particles is 2.7 nm (Abstract, pg. 12358). You and Cai are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of porous carbon-based composite materials containing silica. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a diameter within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You, in view of Cai, and in further view of Dawes et al. (US 7910082), hereinafter Dawes.
Regarding claim 3, You and Cai teach the limitations of claim 2, as stated above. You teaches the C/SiC composite particles of claim 1 and further teaches that the porous carbon particles have pores with a controlled pore diameter (Abstract, pg. 12358). Dawes teaches forming a carbon/silica precursor mixture and explains that the composition and chemistry of the precursor mixture, including the relative amounts of the carbon and silica precursors and the conditions used to form the precursor structure, can be used to control the resulting pore structure and pore diameter (col. 4, line 12-20).
You and Dawes are analogous in the art of porous carbon/silicon carbide composite materials. Both references recognize that the characteristics of the resulting porous carbon/SiC material can be controlled through the selection and processing of the precursor materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the precursor composition and processing conditions of You in accordance with the teachings of Dawes to obtain desired pore diameter. The motivation would have been to control the pore structure of the resulting C/SiC composite, since pore diameter directly affects properties such as accessible surface area, pore volume, mass transport, and the resulting performance of the composite when used a catalyst support or electrode material. Selecting the precursor composition and chemistry to obtain a desired pore diameter would have been a predictable optimization of a result-effective variable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You, in view of Cai, and in further view of Li et al. (Li & Xue, 2012), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 5, You and Cai teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. You teaches the C/SiC composite particles of claim 1. Li teaches the porous carbon particles having an average particle diameter within the claimed 50-200 nm range (pg. 170, MCN-S50, MCN-S200).
You and Li are analogous in the art of porous carbon/silicon carbide composite materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to select the particle diameter of the porous carbon/C/SiC composite particles of You within the 50-200 nm range taught by Li because particle size is a known parameter affecting the surface area, pore accessibility, and mass-transport characteristics of porous carbon materials. Such selection would have been a predictable optimization of result-effective variable to obtain a desired porous structure and electrochemical performance.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You, in view of Cai, and in further view of Wiesner et al. (US 20150041708), hereinafter Wiesner.
Regarding claim 6, You and Cai teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. You teaches the C/SiC composite particles of claim 1. Wiesner teaches porous carbon materials having a pore volume ranging from 0.78-2.01 cm3/g which is equivalent to 0.78-2.01 cc/g (Table 2, pore volume ranging from 0.78-2.01 cm^3/g).
You and Wiesner are analogous in the art of porous carbon materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the porous structure of the C/SiC composite particles of You to provide a pore volume as taught by Wiesner. The motivation would have been to obtain a desired pore structure and accessible surface area for the carbon-based material. Pore volume is a known result-effective variable that affects the amount of accessible surface area, catalyst loading and transport of reactants through a porous electrode or catalyst support. Thus, selecting a pore volume within the claimed range would have been an optimization of a known result-effective variable and would have been reasonable expected to provide the desired electrochemical properties.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You, in view of Cai, and in further view of Liu et al. (Liu et al., 2016), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 7, You and Cai teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. You teaches the C/SiC composite particles of claim 1. Liu teaches introducing oxygen-containing functional groups, including -OH and or -COOH groups onto the surface of porous carbon materials (pg. 27996).
You and Liu are analogous in the art of porous carbon electrode and catalyst-support materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to introduce -OH and/or -COOH groups onto the surfaces of the porous carbon particles of You as taught by Liu. The motivation would have been to modify the surface chemistry of the porous carbon, including its wettability, interaction with catalyst particles and interactions with the electrolyte, thereby improving the suitability of the C/SiC composite for use as an electrode catalyst support. Such surface functionalization represents a known technique for modifying the properties of porous carbon materials for electrochemical application, and applying the technique to the porous carbon component of You would have yielded predictable results.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You, in view of Cai, and in further view of Joo et al. (US 7776779), hereinafter Joo.
Regarding claim 13, You and Cai teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. As stated above, You teaches:
the C/SiC composite particles according to Claim 1 (Abstract, taught in Claim 1 above);
catalyst particles supported on the surfaces of the C/SiC composite particles (Abstract).
You teaches an ordered mesoporous carbon/silicon carbide (OMC-SiC) composite having well-defined mesoporosity and further teaches supporting highly dispersed Pt nanoparticles on the OMC-SiC composite. You identifies the resulting Pt/OMC-SiC material as a promising support for electrochemical catalysts in fuel cells (Abstract). Joo teaches supporting catalyst particles on mesoporous carbon for use as an electrode catalyst in a polymer electrolyte fuel cell (Abstract).
You and Joo are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of porous carbon catalysts supports and electrode catalysts for fuel cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to use the C/SiC composite of You as the catalyst support in the electrode catalyst of Joo because You expressly teaches that Pt-loaded OMC-SiC is useful as an electrochemical catalyst support for fuel-cell applications. The combination would have predictably provided a catalyst having the durability and electrochemical activity associated with the OMC-SiC support.
Regarding claim 14, You and Cai teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Joo further teaches use of porous-carbon-support catalyst as an electrode catalyst in a polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell, including use at the fuel-cell electrode (Abstract). You likewise recognizes the OMC-SiC composite as a promising support for electrochemical catalysts in fuel cells (Abstract).
You and Joo are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of porous carbon catalysts supports and electrode catalysts for fuel cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the Pt-loaded C/SiC catalyst support of You into the polymer electrolyte fuel cell of Joo. Such modification would have predictably provided a durable catalyst support having the desired electrochemical activity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571)431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 /Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights