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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xing et al. (US 2002/0177525) (Xing).
Regarding claim 1, Xing discloses an electrocatalyst for hydrogen fuel cell anodes (title; [0002]; [0014]; [0018]-[0031]), comprising a conductive carrier (active carbon) and a noble metal supported on the conductive carrier ([0003]; [0013]), wherein the noble metal includes ruthenium and platinum (abstract; [0005]; [0010]), and a molar ratio Ru/Pt of the ruthenium relative to the platinum is 0.20 mol/mol ([0021]; [0026]), reading on the claimed range of 0.04 mol/mol or more and 0.20 mol/mol or less.
Regarding claim 3, Xing discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Xing further discloses that the platinum has a particle size of 4±0.5 nm ([0019]), reading on the claimed range of 2.0 nm or more and 5.0 nm or less.
Regarding claim 7, Xing discloses that the electrocatalyst is an anode catalyst of a proton-exchange membrane fuel cell (title; [0003]-[0004]; [0015]; [0017]-[0018]).
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bock et al. (US 2004/0087441) (Bock).
Regarding claim 1, Bock discloses an electrocatalyst for hydrogen fuel cell anodes (title; abstract), comprising a conductive carrier (support/substrate) and a noble metal supported on the conductive carrier (abstract; [0010]; [0037]), wherein the noble metal includes ruthenium and platinum (abstract; [0010]-[0023]). Bock further discloses that the electrocatalyst can include particles consisting essentially of a PtRu alloy phase with a Pt:Ru molar ratio of 85:15 ([0017]-[0018]; [0020]-[0021]; [0032]; [0034]; [0053]; [0055]), which is equal to a Ru/Pt molar ratio of about 0.18 mol/mol (15/85), reading on the claimed range of 0.04 mol/mol or more and 0.20 mol/mol or less.
Regarding claim 2, Bock discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Bock further discloses that a lattice constant of the platinum is 3.9059±0.015 angstrom ([0053]), reading on the claimed range of 3.900 angstrom or more and 3.921 angstrom or less.
Regarding claim 3, Bock discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Bock further discloses that the platinum alloy has a particle size of 2.5±0.5 nm ([0017]; [0031]-[0032]; [0053]), reading on the claimed range of 2.0 nm or more and 5.0 nm or less.
Regarding claim 4, Bock discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Bock further discloses that a supported amount of the platinum based on a mass of the electrocatalyst can be 20% by mass ([0047]), reading on the claimed range of 10% by mass or more and 45% by mass or less.
Regarding claim 5, Bock discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Bock further discloses that the conductive carrier is a carbon black (abstract; [0037]; [0047]-[0049]; [0051]-[0054]; [0056]; [0059]; [0060]).
Regarding claim 7, Bock discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Bock further discloses that the electrocatalyst can be an anode catalyst of a proton-exchange membrane fuel cell (abstract; [0005]; [0059]).
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing et al. (US 2002/0177525) (Xing).
Regarding claim 4, Xing discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Xing further discloses that an amount of the noble metal in the electrocatalyst is in the range of 0.5-10 g/l, and the amount of the conductive carrier (active carbon) is in the range of 0.05-2 g/l (abstract; [0005]). Thus, given that the molar ratio Ru/Pt in the noble metal component can be 0.20 mol/mol ([0021]; [0026]), it is clear that a mass ratio of Ru/Pt in the noble metal component is 0.10:1 (0.2*(101.07/195.08), making an amount of platinum in the electrocatalyst be in the range of 0.45 g/l (0.5*(1/1.10)) to 9.09 g/l (10*(1/1.10)). Thus, it is clear that a supported amount of platinum based on a mass of the electrocatalyst is between 18% ((0.45/2.45)*100) and 99% ((9.09/9.14)*100), overlapping the claimed range of 10% by mass or greater than 45% by mass or less. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Xing to have satisfied the claimed range based on the overlapping range disclosed by Xing.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bock et al. (US 2004/0087441) (Bock) in view of Yamamoto (US 2005/0075240).
Regarding claim 6, Bock discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Bock further discloses that the conductive carrier can be carbon black and preferably has a high surface area ([0037]). Bock fails to disclose, however, a value for the specific surface area of the conductive carrier.
However, common specific surface areas for conductive carriers are known in the art. For instance, Yamamoto teaches a similar electrocatalyst for a fuel cell (title), comprising a conductive carrier and a noble metal supported on the conductive carrier (abstract), wherein the conductive carrier is carbon black and has a specific surface area in the range of 200 to 1,400 m2/g ([0030]), overlapping the claimed range of 30 m2/g or more and 700 m2/g or less. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Yamamoto further teaches that configuring the carbon black to have this specific surface area enables the catalyst component to be highly dispersed on the conductive carrier ([0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the carbon black conductive carrier disclosed by Yamamoto to have a specific surface area within the claimed range, as suggested by Yamamoto, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would enable the catalyst component to be highly dispersed on the conductive carrier.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguri (JP 2002222655 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Oguri discloses an electrocatalyst (title). Examiner notes that the limitation in the preamble “for hydrogen fuel cell anodes” is merely an intended use limitation that does not require additional structure to the claimed electrocatalyst. Furthermore, Oguri discloses that the electrocatalyst can be used in a hydrogen fuel cell cathode (title; [0016]; [0032]), and the same electrocatalyst material used in cathodes can also be used in anodes ([0002]-[0003]). Thus, the electrocatalyst disclosed by Oguri would clearly be capable of serving as an anode catalyst in a hydrogen fuel cell. Oguri further discloses that the electrocatalyst comprises a conductive carrier (conductive carbon) and a noble metal supported on the conductive carrier ([0006]-[0007]; [0009]), wherein the noble metal includes ruthenium and platinum ([0006]-[0007]; [0009]). Oguri further discloses that the weight ratio of platinum to ruthenium in the electrocatalyst is from 99.99:0.01 to 90.0:10.0 ([0013]; [0018]), which leads to a molar ratio Ru/Pt in a range of 1.93x10-4 mol/mol ((0.01/99.99)*(195.08/101.07)) to 0.21 mol/mol ((10.0/90.0)*(195.08/101.07)), encompassing the claimed range of 0.04 mol/mol or more and 0.20 mol/mol or less. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality for the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Oguri to have satisfied the claimed range based on the encompassing range disclosed by Oguri.
Regarding claim 2, Oguri discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Oguri further discloses that a lattice constant of the platinum in the platinum-ruthenium alloy is in the range of 3.883 angstrom to 3.923 angstrom ([0007]; [0019]), encompassing the claimed range of 3.900 angstrom or more and 3.921 angstrom or less. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality for the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Oguri to have satisfied the claimed range based on the encompassing range disclosed by Oguri.
Regarding claim 3, Oguri discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Oguri further discloses that an average particle size of the platinum-ruthenium alloy particles is in a range of 2 to 4 nm ([0017]), suggesting the claimed range of 2.0 nm or more and 5.0 nm or less.
Regarding claim 4, Oguri discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Oguri further discloses that a supported amount of the platinum based on a mass of the electrocatalyst is 10% by mass (see Examples 1 and 2, Table 1; [0013]), suggesting the claimed range of 10% by mass or greater and 45% by mass or less.
Regarding claim 5, Oguri discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Oguri further discloses that the conductive carrier is carbon black ([0014]).
Regarding claim 7, Oguri discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Examiner notes that the limitation “wherein the electrocatalyst is an anode catalyst of a proton-exchange membrane fuel cell” is merely an intended use limitation that does not require additional structure to the claimed electrocatalyst. Furthermore, Oguri discloses that the electrocatalyst can be used as a cathode catalyst in a proton-exchange membrane fuel cell ([0032]), and the same electrocatalyst material used in cathodes can also be used in anodes ([0002]-[0003]). Thus, the electrocatalyst disclosed by Oguri would clearly be capable of serving as an anode catalyst of a proton-exchange membrane fuel cell. Thus, Oguri satisfies all of the limitations in claim 7.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguri (JP 2002222655 with English Machine Translation) in view of Yamamoto (US 2005/0075240).
Regarding claim 6, Oguri discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Oguri further discloses that the conductive carrier can be carbon black ([0014]). However, Oguri fails to explicitly disclose a specific surface area for the conductive carrier.
However, common specific surface areas for conductive carriers are known in the art. For instance, Yamamoto teaches a similar electrocatalyst for a fuel cell (title), comprising a conductive carrier and a noble metal supported on the conductive carrier (abstract), wherein the conductive carrier is carbon black and has a specific surface area in the range of 200 to 1,400 m2/g ([0030]), overlapping the claimed range of 30 m2/g or more and 700 m2/g or less. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Yamamoto further teaches that configuring the carbon black to have this specific surface area enables the catalyst component to be highly dispersed on the conductive carrier ([0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the carbon black conductive carrier disclosed by Oguri to have a specific surface area within the claimed range, as suggested by Yamamoto, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would enable the catalyst component to be highly dispersed on the conductive carrier.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights