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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 6 May 2024 has been considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because "AID" should read "ALD". A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 18 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, line 1, recites “the conductive polymers comprise…”. It is unclear if the conductive polymers are required, as claim 6 does not require the conductive substrate comprise conductive polymers. This limitation is interpreted as requiring the conductive substrate comprises conductive polymers.
Claim 18, line 1, recites “the conductive polymers comprise…”. It is unclear if the conductive polymers are required, as claim 6 does not require the conductive substrate comprise conductive polymers. This limitation is interpreted as requiring the conductive substrate comprises conductive polymers.
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.
Claims 1-2, 11-13, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hards (US 2015/0086902) in view of Sathasivam (“Tungsten Doped TiO2 with Enhanced Photocatalytic and Optoelectrical Properties via Aerosol Assisted Chemical Vapor Deposition”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hards discloses a method of applying a thin film catalyst coating (applying a thin film catalyst coating meets the limitation of depositing an active catalyst composition) on a support [0036], the method comprising: providing a support material (support material meets the limitation of a supporting substrate) comprising a fibre, wherein the fibre comprises doped titanium oxide [0044]. Hards further discloses the fibres may be produced by electrospinning [0044], and the greatest cross-sectional dimension of the fibre support material is in the range of 30 to 500 nm [0044], such that the electrospun fibres of Hards meet the limitation of electrospun fibrous nanowires. Hards further discloses applying the thin film catalyst coating onto a surface of the support via atomic layer deposition [0036]-[0037]. Hards further discloses the thin film catalyst coating comprises iridium oxide [0015].
Hards is silent to the electrospun fibrous nanowire comprising tungsten doped titanium dioxide.
Hards, however, discloses the support material comprises doped titanium oxide [0044].
Sathasivam discloses tungsten (W) is an ideal dopant that is soluble in a TiO2 matrix because it commonly occurs in the 6+ oxidation state and in that state has a smaller ionic radius than Ti4+; hence, there is potential to obtain better conductivity and transparency compared to Nb and Ta (pg. 2 par. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hards to incorporate the teachings of Sathasivam wherein the doped titanium oxide is tungsten doped, because tungsten is an ideal dopant that is soluble in a TiO2 matrix because it commonly occurs in the 6+ oxidation state and in that state has a smaller ionic radius than Ti4+; hence, there is potential to obtain better conductivity and transparency compared to Nb and Ta, as recognized by Sathasivam (pg. 2 par. 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Hards discloses the support material is a fibre comprising a conductive metal oxide [0044], such that the supporting substrate of Hards is a conductive substrate.
Regarding Claim 11, Hards discloses the thin film catalyst coating exists as elements that may be of various different geometries, wherein the elements may be discrete, with no contact between neighbouring elements [0040], such that the active catalyst composition of Hards is deposited in islands comprising separate catalyst locations on the surface of the supporting substrate.
Regarding Claim 12, Hards discloses the thin film catalyst coating has a mean thickness of ≤ 8 nm [0013], which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1-100 nm such that the range taught by Hards obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 13, Hards discloses a catalytic material (a catalytic material meets the limitation of a catalyst composition) comprising a support material (support material meets the limitation of a substrate) comprising a fibre, wherein the fibre comprises a conductive metal oxide such as doped titanium oxide [0044], such that the supporting substrate of Hards is a conductive substrate. Hards further discloses the fibres may be produced by electrospinning [0044], and the greatest cross-sectional dimension of the fibre support material is in the range of 30 to 500 nm [0044], such that the electrospun fibres of Hards meet the limitation of electrospun fibrous nanowires. Hards further discloses applying the thin film catalyst coating (thin film catalyst coating meets the limitation of an active catalyst) onto a surface of the support [0036]. Hards further discloses the thin film catalyst coating comprises iridium oxide [0015].
Hards is silent to the electrospun fibrous nanowire comprising tungsten doped titanium dioxide.
Hards, however, discloses the support material comprises doped titanium oxide [0044].
Sathasivam discloses tungsten (W) is an ideal dopant that is soluble in a TiO2 matrix because it commonly occurs in the 6+ oxidation state and in that state has a smaller ionic radius than Ti4+; hence, there is potential to obtain better conductivity and transparency compared to Nb and Ta (pg. 2 par. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hards to incorporate the teachings of Sathasivam wherein the doped titanium oxide is tungsten doped, because tungsten is an ideal dopant that is soluble in a TiO2 matrix because it commonly occurs in the 6+ oxidation state and in that state has a smaller ionic radius than Ti4+; hence, there is potential to obtain better conductivity and transparency compared to Nb and Ta, as recognized by Sathasivam (pg. 2 par. 1).
Regarding Claim 22, Hards discloses the thin film catalyst coating exists as elements that may be of various different geometries, wherein the elements may be discrete, with no contact between neighbouring elements [0040], such that the active catalyst composition of Hards is deposited in islands comprising separate catalyst locations on the surface of the supporting substrate.
Regarding Claim 23, Hards discloses the thin film catalyst coating has a mean thickness of ≤ 8 nm [0013], which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1-100 nm such that the range taught by Hards obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claims 6-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hards (US 2015/0086902) in view of Sathasivam (“Tungsten Doped TiO2 with Enhanced Photocatalytic and Optoelectrical Properties via Aerosol Assisted Chemical Vapor Deposition”) and Yang (CN 108193500).
Regarding Claim 6, Hards and Sathasivam teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 2.
Hards discloses carbon nanofibres produced by the carbonisation of electrospun polymer nanofibres are used as the support material [0082].
Hards is silent to the conductive substrate comprising the doped titanium oxide and carbon nanotubes, silicon nanowires, nanofibers of conductive polymers, or combinations thereof.
Hards, however, discloses the catalytic material is used as an electrode of a fuel cell [0059].
Yang discloses a composite fiber electrocatalyst for fuel cells [0002], wherein the catalyst uses a composite nanofiber as a carrier (carrier meets the limitation of substrate; [0007]). Yang further discloses the composite nanofiber is a metal oxide nanofiber with a conductive polymer deposited on its surface (metal oxide-conductive polymer composite nanofibers meets the limitation of nanofibers of conductive polymers; [0008], [0022], [0032]), wherein the conductive polymer is polyaniline and the metal oxide is TiO2 [0009]. Yang further discloses the electrocatalyst for fuel cells overcomes the insufficient conductivity of metal oxide supports [0032], and improved performance of the electrocatalyst with a polymer-modified TiO2 nanosupport due to the increased conductivity of the support [0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hards to incorporate the teachings of Yang, wherein the conductive substrate further comprises nanofibers of conductive polymers, because polymer-modified TiO2 nanosupport have an improved electrocatalyst performance for fuel cells and overcome the insufficient conductivity of metal oxide supports due to the increased conductivity of the support, as recognized by Yang ([0032], [0049]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yang discloses the conductive polymer is polyaniline [0009].
Regarding Claim 17, Hards and Sathasivam teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 13.
Hards discloses carbon nanofibres produced by the carbonisation of electrospun polymer nanofibres are used as the support material [0082].
Hards is silent to the conductive substrate comprising the doped titanium oxide and carbon nanotubes, silicon nanowires, nanofibers of conductive polymers, or combinations thereof.
Hards, however, discloses the catalytic material is used as an electrode of a fuel cell [0059].
Yang discloses a composite fiber electrocatalyst for fuel cells [0002], wherein the catalyst uses a composite nanofiber as a carrier (carrier meets the limitation of substrate; [0007]). Yang further discloses the composite nanofiber is a metal oxide nanofiber with a conductive polymer deposited on its surface (metal oxide-conductive polymer composite nanofibers meets the limitation of nanofibers of conductive polymers; [0008], [0022], [0032]), wherein the conductive polymer is polyaniline and the metal oxide is TiO2 [0009]. Yang further discloses the electrocatalyst for fuel cells overcomes the insufficient conductivity of metal oxide supports [0032], and improved performance of the electrocatalyst with a polymer-modified TiO2 nanosupport due to the increased conductivity of the support [0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hards to incorporate the teachings of Yang, wherein the conductive substrate further comprises nanofibers of conductive polymers, because polymer-modified TiO2 nanosupport have an improved electrocatalyst performance for fuel cells and overcome the insufficient conductivity of metal oxide supports due to the increased conductivity of the support, as recognized by Yang ([0032], [0049]).
Regarding Claim 18, Yang discloses the conductive polymer is polyaniline [0009].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLONE ELZABETH SIMKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/S.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights