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.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "based on an electrode" is indefinite because it is unclear what requirements this adds to the claim. It is unclear if the carbon nanodots are made from an electrode, part of an electrode, derived from an electrode, etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (“Single Atomically Anchored Cobalt on Carbon Quantum Dots as Efficient Photocatalysts for Visible Light-Promoted Oxidation Reactions” 2020).
With respect to claim 1, the claim requires “a carbon quantum dot with transition metal atom adsorbed.” Wang teaches photocatalytic carbon quantum dots with anchoring sites for single cobalt atoms in a defined Co−N4 structures (Wang, abstract).
Claim 1 further requires “a carbon quantum dot support. ” Wang teaches carbon dots functioning as both light-harvesting antenna and support for the cobalt atom (Wang, abstract).
Claim 1 further requires “a single transition metal atom introduced into the carbon quantum dot support.” Wang teaches cobalt atoms as the single transition metal being introduced on the quantum dot (Wang, abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches Cobalt as the transition metal (Wang, abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches the diameter of the quantum dot to be less than 0.2 nm (Wang 735, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION, bright dots)
With respect to claim 4, the claim requires “a method for manufacturing a carbon quantum dot with transition metal atom adsorbed.” Wang teaches photocatalytic carbon quantum dots with anchoring sites for single cobalt atoms in a defined Co−N4 structures and a method of manufacturing (Wang, abstract).
Claim 4 further requires “preparing a carbon precursor; mixing the carbon precursor and a transition metal precursor; manufacturing a carbon quantum dot with transition metal atom adsorbed by hydrothermal synthesis of the mixed material.” Wang teaches B12 vitamin as the carbon precursor and Iron as the metal precursor (Wang, abstract). Wang further teaches hydrothermal synthesis of the carbon quantum dot with transition metal atom adsorbed (Wang 740; Synthesis of Cobalt and Carbon Quantum Dot Hybrid Photocatalysts)
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches cobalt as the transition metal precursor (Wang, abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the diameter of the quantum dot to be less than 0.2 nm (Wang 735, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION, bright dots).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches the carbon quantum dot comprising a transition-metal atom adsorbed thereon, as discussed above. The recitation of the claimed product as “an electrochemical catalyst” does not impart distinction over the product taught by Wang. A statement of intended use does not distinguish a claimed product from another identical prior-art product. Accordingly Wang teaches the limitations for claim 8.
Furthermore, “manufactured according to the method of claim 4” is product-by-process language. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moon ( KR20200104081A)(See translated doc attached).
With respect to claim 1, the claim requires “a carbon quantum dot with transition metal atom adsorbed.” Moon teaches fumaronitrile as the carbon precursor and Iron as the metal precursor to form a quantum dot (Moon, abstract).
Claim 1 further requires “a carbon quantum dot support. ” Moon teaches carbon quantum dots (Moon, abstract).
Claim 1 further requires “a single transition metal atom introduced into the carbon quantum dot support.” Moon teaches metal particles present on the surface of the quantum dots (Moon, abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Moon teaches Iron as the transition metal (Moon, abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Moon carbon dot particles within than the size of 20 nm (Moon 8, [0032]).
With respect to claim 4, the claim requires “a method for manufacturing a carbon quantum dot with transition metal atom adsorbed.” Moon teaches a nitrogen-doped carbon quantum dot manufacturing method (Moon, abstract).
Claim 4 further requires “ preparing a carbon precursor; mixing the carbon precursor and a transition metal precursor; and manufacturing a carbon quantum dot with transition metal atom adsorbed by hydrothermal synthesis of the mixed material.” Moon teaches fumaronitrile as the carbon precursor and Iron as the metal precursor(Moon, abstract). Moon further teaches the carbon quantum dot was synthesized using a hydrothermal method (Moon 17, [00100]).
Regarding claim 5, Moon teaches fumaronitrile as the carbon precursor (Moon 8, [0044]).
Regarding claim 6, Moon teaches Iron as the metal precursor (Moon 8, [0050]).
Regarding claim 7, Moon carbon dot particles within than the size of 20 nm (Moon 8, [0032]).
Regarding claim 8, Moon teaches the carbon quantum dot comprising a transition-metal atom adsorbed thereon, as discussed above. The recitation of the claimed product as “an electrochemical catalyst” does not impart distinction over the product taught by Moon. A statement of intended use does not distinguish a claimed product from another identical prior-art product. Accordingly Moon teaches the limitations for claim 8.
Furthermore, “manufactured according to the method of claim 4” is product-by-process language. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
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.
.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon ( KR20200104081A)(See translated doc attached) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Chang (“Single atomically anchored iron on graphene quantum dots for a highly efficient oxygen evolution reaction” 2020).
Regarding claim 9, the electrochemical catalyst of claim 8 has been discussed above.
Claim 9 further requires “a water electrolysis electrode comprising the electrochemical catalyst.” Moon does not explicitly teach a water electrolysis electrode comprising the electrochemical catalyst. However, Chang teaches three-electrode system (Chang 6, three-electrode system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the metal-containing nitrogen-doped carbon quantum dot catalyst of Moon, as modified by Chang, into the working electrode of Chang’s three-electrode oxygen-evolution system because Chang teaches that transition-metal species coordinated to nitrogen sites of graphene quantum dots exhibit efficient electrocatalytic activity for the oxygen evolution reaction when operated as an electrode. Such a modification would have predictably enabled application of an electrical potential to the catalyst to electrochemically oxidize water, thereby providing a water-electrolysis electrode comprising the electrochemical catalyst.
Regarding claim 10, the electrochemical catalyst of claim 8 has been discussed above.
Claim 10 further requires “a water electrolysis device comprising the water electrolysis electrode.” Moon does not explicitly teach a water electrolysis device comprising the water electrolysis electrode. However, Chang teaches a three-electrode setup comprising of the electrochemical catalyst.
It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the catalyst-containing water-electrolysis electrode discussed above in the three-electrode electrochemical system taught by Chang because the electrochemical cell provides the electrode arrangement and electrical circuit necessary to operate the oxygen-evolution electrode. Incorporating the electrode into Chang’s electrochemical system would have predictably permitted electrochemical water oxidation and evaluation of the catalyst’s oxygen-evolution activity, thereby providing a water-electrolysis device comprising the water-electrolysis electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0169. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM- 5 PM.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights