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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10, 14, 16-17, 20-21, 23, 29-31, 36, 38, 41, 44-45, 47-48, 54 and 56 in the reply filed on December 4, 2025 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Accordingly, claims 2-3 (process), 26 (species) and 59 (apparatus) are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings were received on October 16, 2024 and December 16, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the
disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the word “said” is used in line 3. 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 Objections
Claims 16, 21, 31, 36, 38, 41, 44 and 47 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16
line 1, please insert the word -- species -- after the word “platinum”.
Claim 21
line 2, please inserted the word -- further -- before the word “comprises”.
This is an instance where the article should be further limiting in the claim terminology to ensure their relationship. See claim 1, line 6, reciting “wherein the oxygen atom transfer
electrocatalyst comprises”.
Claim 31
lines 3, please amend the word “non-aqueous” to the words -- polar aprotic --.
line 6, please insert the word -- the -- before the word “water”.
This is an instance where the article “the” should be added to ensure proper antecedent
basis for the claim terminology.
Claim 36
line 2, please deleted the word “or”.
Claim 38
line 1, please delete the “:” (colon).
line 2, please insert the word -- a -- before the word “concentration”.
line 3, please amend the words “the process is carried out at” to the words -- the electrolyte has --.
Claim 41
line 2, please insert the word -- the -- before the word “water”.
If the water is the same as the water generated at the cathode (claim 41, line 1) or the water in the electrolyte (claim 1, line 4).
This is an instance where the article “the” should be added to ensure proper antecedent
basis for the claim terminology.
Claim 44
line 1, please delete the “,” (comma) after the word “comprises”.
Claim 47
line 3, please insert the word -- further -- before the word “comprises” (first occurrence).
line 5, please insert the word -- further -- before the word “comprises” (second
occurrence).
line 4, please amend the word “ionomer” to the word -- membrane --.
line 7, please amended the word “imidazolim” to the word -- imidazolium --.
line 8, please amend the word “polylmide” to the word -- polyimide --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 14 and 31 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 14
lines 1-2, “the ratio of platinum in a metal valency of +2 to platinum in a metal valency of 0” lacks antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir.
1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,”
thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation.
lines 2-3, “the local coordination environment of platinum” lacks antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v.
Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,” thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation.
lines 3-4, “the local coordination environment of pure PtO” lacks antecedent basis. Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v.
Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,”
thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation.
Claim 31
line 6, “the substrate” lacks antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v.
Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent
mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,”
thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
I. Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-7, 10, 14, 16-17, 20-21, 23, 29-31, 36, 38, 41, 44-45, 54 and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (“Electrochemical Alkene Epoxidation Using Water as the Oxygen Source” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2023, pp. 1-183).
Regarding claim 1, Chung teaches a process for electrochemical epoxidation of an alkene (= direct electrochemical propylene epoxidation) [page 53, line 2] to generate an
epoxide (=
PNG
media_image1.png
59
128
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 56, Fig. 4-1A); and propylene oxide production (page 55, line 28)), the process comprising:
• contacting an anode (= anode) [page 56, Fig. 4-1A] comprising an oxygen atom
transfer electrocatalyst (= an oxidized palladium-platinum alloy catalyst (PdPtOx/C)) [page 53, line 4] with the alkene (= propylene =
PNG
media_image2.png
25
38
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) [page 56, Fig. 4-1(A)] in the presence of an electrolyte comprising water (=
PNG
media_image3.png
32
52
media_image3.png
Greyscale
) [page 56, Fig. 4-1A];
• applying a voltage (= half-cell potential) [page 56, Fig. 4-1E] to the anode (= anode) [page 56, Fig. 4-1A] and a cathode (= cathode) [page 56, Fig. 4-1A] to generate the epoxide (=
PNG
media_image1.png
59
128
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 56, Fig. 4-1A); and propylene oxide production (page 55, line 28));
wherein the oxygen atom transfer electrocatalyst comprises an at least partially oxidized
palladium-platinum alloy characterized by the formula FX1:
PdyPtzOx (FX1);
(= an oxidized palladium-platinum alloy catalyst (PdPtOx/C)) [page 53, line 4].
Chung does not teach wherein y is greater than 0 and less than 1; z is greater than 0 and less than 1; wherein the sum of y and z is equal to 1; and x is selected from the range of 0 to 2.
Chung teaches an oxidized palladium-platinum alloy catalyst (PdPtOx/C) [page 53, line 4].
In this study, we designed a Pd-Pt alloy catalyst containing both Pd and Pt oxide by
embedding and stabilizing Pt oxide species in Pd oxide. A series of alloys with varying ratios of Pd and Pt were synthesized using a co-reduction method87 on an amorphous carbon substrate and subsequently annealed in air before being tested for their activity in propylene epoxidation
(Appendix C.1, Figure A-C1, and A-C2). An equimolar composition of Pd and Pt annealed at 500 ℃ (PdPtOx/C) was most active toward propylene epoxidation and outperformed previously reported catalysts for direct anodic epoxidation under ambient conditions (Figure 4-1B and Table A-C1). The optimal performance of PdPtOx/C over other compositions suggests that the synergistic effect may be maximized when the two components are mixed in an equimolar ratio (page 55, lines 18-27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratios of Pd(y) and Pt(z) in the PdPtOx described by Chung with wherein y is greater than 0 and less than 1; z is greater than 0
and less than 1; wherein the sum of y and z is equal to 1; and x is selected from the range of 0
to 2. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because although Chung teaches an equimolar composition of Pd and Pt in PdPtOx, where y includes 1 and z includes 1,1 it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to halved these whole concentrations to where y is 0.5 and z is 0.5 because that is still an equimolar composition of Pd and Pt and because an equimolar composition of Pd and Pt annealed at 500 ℃ (PdPtOx/C) is most active toward propylene epoxidation and outperformed previously reported catalysts for direct anodic epoxidation under ambient conditions.
MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) states that “generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art
unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the
general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).”
Furthermore, there is no requirement that the presently claimed features be expressly articulated in one or more of the references. The teaching, suggestion or inference can be found not only in the references but also from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art. Ashland Oil v. Delta Resins 227 USPQ 657 (CAFC 1985). References are evaluated by what they collectively suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific
disclosures. In re Simon 174 USPQ 114 (CCPA 1972); In re Richman 165 USPQ 509, 514 (CCPA 1970).
Regarding claim 4, the method of Chung differs from the instant invention because Chung does not disclose wherein y is selected from the range of 0.25 to 0.75 and z is selected from the range of 0.25 to 0.75 or y is 0.5 and z is 0.5.
Chung teaches an oxidized palladium-platinum alloy catalyst (PdPtOx/C) [page 53, line 4].
In this study, we designed a Pd-Pt alloy catalyst containing both Pd and Pt oxide by embedding and stabilizing Pt oxide species in Pd oxide. A series of alloys with varying ratios of Pd and Pt were synthesized using a co-reduction method87 on an amorphous carbon substrate and subsequently annealed in air before being tested for their activity in propylene epoxidation
(Appendix C.1, Figure A-C1, and A-C2). An equimolar composition of Pd and Pt annealed at 500 ℃ (PdPtOx/C) was most active toward propylene epoxidation and outperformed previously reported catalysts for direct anodic epoxidation under ambient conditions (Figure 4-1B and Table A-C1). The optimal performance of PdPtOx/C over other compositions suggests that the synergistic effect may be maximized when the two components are mixed in an equimolar ratio (page 55, lines 18-27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratios of Pd(y) and P(z) in the PdPtOx described by Chung with wherein y is selected from the range of 0.25 to 0.75 and z is selected from the range of 0.25 to 0.75 or y is 0.5 and z is 0.5. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because although Chung teaches an equimolar composition of Pd and Pt in PdPtOx, where y includes 1 and z includes 1,2 it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to halved these whole concentrations to where y is 0.5 and z is 0.5 because that is still an equimolar composition of Pd and Pt and because an equimolar composition of Pd and Pt annealed at 500 ℃ (PdPtOx/C) is most active toward propylene epoxidation and outperformed previously reported catalysts for direct anodic epoxidation under ambient conditions.
MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) states that “generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).”
Furthermore, there is no requirement that the presently claimed features be expressly articulated in one or more of the references. The teaching, suggestion or inference can be
found not only in the references but also from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art. Ashland Oil v. Delta Resins 227 USPQ 657 (CAFC 1985). References are evaluated by what they collectively suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific
disclosures. In re Simon 174 USPQ 114 (CCPA 1972); In re Richman 165 USPQ 509, 514 (CCPA 1970).
Regarding claim 6, Chung teaches wherein the oxygen atom transfer electrocatalyst comprises palladium in an average metal valency greater than or equal to +2 (= while the
average valency of Pd remained at +2 in both PdOx/C and PdPtOx/C) [page 58, lines 11-12].
Regarding claim 7, Chung teaches wherein the oxygen atom transfer electrocatalyst
comprises platinum in an average metal valency greater than or equal to +0.5, greater than or equal to +1, or greater than or equal to +2 (= under anodic potentials, the average valency of Pt in PdPtOx/C increased from +1.62 to +1.75) [page 58, lines 10-11].
Regarding claim 10, Chung teaches wherein the oxygen atom transfer electrocatalyst is immobilized on a porous support substrate; the porous support substrate comprises a gas diffusion electrode, a carbon paper electrode, a hydrophobic carbon paper electrode, a hydrophilic carbon paper electrode, titanium, stainless steel; or any combination thereof (= using PdPtOx/C catalyst incorporated on carbon-paper based GDE (page 67, lines 4-5); and employing a porous GDE architecture (page 68, lines 3-4)).
Regarding claim 14, Chung teaches wherein the ratio of platinum in a metal valency of +2 to platinum in a metal valency of 0 is greater than 0.33; the local coordination environment of platinum is within 81-87.5% of the local coordination environment of pure PtO; or any
combination thereof (= the ratio of Pt(II):Pt(0) increased from 1.0 to 6.4 as the catalyst treatment temperature was increased from 400 ℃ to 500 ℃) [page 57, lines 27-28].
Regarding claim 16, Chung teaches wherein the oxidized platinum is characterized by coordination number greater than or equal to 2 (= the Pt-O and Pd-O coordination numbers were estimated to be 2.8±0.6 and 3.7±0.4, respectively) [page 57, lines 8-10].
Regarding claim 17, Chung teaches wherein the oxygen atom transfer electrocatalyst
comprises a homogeneous distribution of palladium and platinum; the oxidized platinum species are embedded in the oxidized palladium species; the oxidized platinum species are stabilized by the oxidized palladium species; or any combination thereof (= in this study, we
designed a Pd-Pt alloy catalyst containing both Pd and Pt oxide by embedding and stabilizing Pt
oxide species in Pd oxide) [page 55, lines 18-19].
Regarding claim 20, the method of Chung differs from the instant invention because
Chung does not disclose wherein the metal valency of platinum is stable under applied oxidative potentials in the range of 0.0 V to 3.0 V vs. SHE.
The subject matter would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Chung teaches the platinum as presently claimed, and under anodic potentials, the average valency of Pt in PdPtOx/C increased from +1.62 to +1.75 (page 58, lines 10-11).
Thus, the metal valency of the platinum of Chung is stable under applied oxidative potentials in the range of 0.0 V to 3.0 V vs. SHE.
MPEP § 2141.02(V) states that “from the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all
its properties are inseparable in In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963).”
Regarding claim 21, Chung teaches wherein the oxygen atom transfer electrocatalyst comprises platinum and palladium annealed at a temperature selected from the range of 300 degrees C to 700 degrees C. (= an equimolar composition of Pd and Pt annealed at 500 ℃ (PdPtOx/C)) [page 55, lines 22-23].
Regarding claim 23, Chung teaches wherein the oxygen atom transfer electrocatalysis annealed on an amorphous carbon substrate; is annealed under static air conditions or flowing air conditions; is annealed over the range selected from 1 hours to 5 hours; or any combination
thereof (=
PNG
media_image4.png
188
319
media_image4.png
Greyscale
) [page 56, Fig, 4-1(C)].
Regarding claim 29, Chung teaches wherein the voltage applied is selected from the range of 1.0 to 3.0 V vs. SHE (= progressively more oxidative potentials were applied from 0.45 V to 1.15 V vs. Fc/Fc+)3 [page 58, lines 3-4].
Regarding claim 30, Chung teaches wherein the epoxide is generated at a Faradaic efficiency greater than 20% (= we demonstrated continuous propylene oxide production with high Faradaic efficiency averaging 66±5% (propylene glycol; 1.3±0.3%) [page 55, lines 28-29].
Regarding claim 31, Chung teaches wherein: the electrolyte further comprises a non-
aqueous solvent; the non-aqueous solvent is a polar aprotic solvent; the non-aqueous solvent comprises acetonitrile, propylene carbonate, tetrahydrofuran, dimethylformamide, dimethylsulfoxide, or any combination of these; the non-aqueous solvent is characterized by an ability to improve the solubility of the substrate; the non-aqueous solvent is miscible with water; or any combination thereof (= acetonitrile solution) [page 60, Fig. 4-4A; and page 66, lines 21-25].
Regarding claim 36, Chung teaches wherein the electrolyte further comprises BF4-, PF6-, PO43-, or CIO4-, tetra-n-butylammonium+, Li+, Na+, H+, K+, Rb+, or any combination thereof (= tetrabutylammonium tetrafluoroborate (TBABF4)) [page 60, Fig. 4-4A; and page 66, lines 21-25].
Regarding claim 38, Chung teaches wherein: the water is present at concentration
selected over the range of 0.1 M to 20 M; the water is an oxygen atom transfer source; the process is carried out at a pH between 3.0 and 12.0; or any combination thereof (= 10 M water) [page 60, Fig. 4-4A].
Regarding claim 41, Chung teaches wherein hydrogen, water, or any combination of these is generated at the cathode (= the hydrogen evolution at the cathode) [page 54, line 10-11] and oxygen, water, carbon dioxide or any combination of these is reduced at the cathode (= in water electrolysis)4 [page 54, line 8].
Regarding claim 44, Chung teaches wherein the cathode comprises, Pt, Ni, Cu, Pd, Au, Ag, an alloy of any of these, or any combination of these (= Pt foil as a cathode) [page 183,
subscript a].
Regarding claim 45, Chung teaches wherein the process is carried out at a temperature selected over the range of 25 degrees C to 100 degrees C; at a pressure selected over the range of 1.0 bar to 1000.0 bar; or any combination thereof (= at ambient temperature and pressure) [page 53, lines 5-6].
Regarding claim 54, Chung teaches wherein the alkene is comprised of 2 to 100 carbon atoms (= C3 = propylene =
PNG
media_image2.png
25
38
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) [page 56, Fig. 4-1(A)]; a cycloalkene (= cyclooctene epoxidation) [page 55, line 30]; or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 56, Chung teaches wherein the epoxide comprises propylene oxide,
ethylene oxide, or epichlorohydrin; the selectivity for the epoxide is greater than or equal to 90; or any combination thereof epoxide (=
PNG
media_image1.png
59
128
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 56, Fig. 4-1A); and propylene oxide production (page 55, line 28)).
II. Claim(s) 47 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (“Electrochemical Alkene Epoxidation Using Water as the Oxygen Source” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2023, pp. 1-183) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10, 14, 16-17, 20-21, 23, 29-31, 36, 38, 41, 44-45, 54 and 56 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (“Recent Insights on Catalyst Layers for Anion Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells,” Advanced Science (2021 Aug), Vol. 8, No. 15, pp. 1-26).
Chung is as applied above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 47, the method of Chung differs from the instant invention because
Chung does not disclose wherein the oxygen atom transfer electrocatalyst further comprises an ionomer; the ionomer establishes gas diffusion channels; the ionomer comprises a hydrophobic backbone; the ionomer comprises an anion exchange membrane or a cation exchange membrane; the ionomer comprises at least one of poly(perfluorosulfonic acid), a functionalized polyphenylene, a partially fluorinated anion exchange membrane, a poly(aryl piperidinium) resin, an imidazolim-functoinalized polystyrene, a sulphonated poly(ether-ether-ketone), a sulfonated polylmide, a polybenzimidazole; or any combination.
Chung teaches that:
As a starting point, it is of interest to elucidate the benefits of employing a porous GDE
architecture in electrochemical direct alkene epoxidations. The porous catalyst layer in fully
flooded and partially wetted cases can be modeled to ascertain the effects of mass transfer and
reagent delivery on the epoxide synthesis reaction. Later, the effects of mass transfer in the gas
channel, the diffusion layer, the bulk electrolyte, as well as the effects of mass transfer and pH
changes resulting from cathodic hydrogen evolution can be incorporated into the model.
Building a more advanced model that considers ion-conducting binders and membrane electrode assembly configurations may lead to more accurate predictions of device performance (page 68, lines 3-11).
Zhang teaches a diagram of the electrode layer designs with a standard catalyst layer:
PNG
media_image5.png
183
649
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 6, Fig. 3(a)).
Representative alkaline stable AEI designs based on polyphenylenes for high-
performance fuel cells (page 17, Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the oxygen atom transfer electrocatalyst described by Chung with wherein the oxygen atom transfer electrocatalyst further comprises an ionomer; the ionomer establishes gas diffusion channels; the ionomer comprises a hydrophobic backbone; the ionomer comprises an anion exchange membrane or a cation exchange membrane; the ionomer comprises at least one of poly(perfluorosulfonic acid), a functionalized polyphenylene, a partially fluorinated anion exchange membrane, a poly(aryl
piperidinium) resin, an imidazolim-functoinalized polystyrene, a sulphonated poly(ether-ether-
ketone), a sulfonated polylmide, a polybenzimidazole; or any combination because a standard catalyst layer comprises an AEI (anion exchange membrane) based on polyphenylenes is an alkaline stable AEI design.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Furthermore, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).”
Regarding claim 48, the method of Chung differs from the instant invention because
Chung does not disclose wherein the anode and the cathode are in contact with an ionically
conductive membrane.
Chung teaches that:
As a starting point, it is of interest to elucidate the benefits of employing a porous GDE
architecture in electrochemical direct alkene epoxidations. The porous catalyst layer in fully
flooded and partially wetted cases can be modeled to ascertain the effects of mass transfer and
reagent delivery on the epoxide synthesis reaction. Later, the effects of mass transfer in the gas
channel, the diffusion layer, the bulk electrolyte, as well as the effects of mass transfer and pH
changes resulting from cathodic hydrogen evolution can be incorporated into the model.
Building a more advanced model that considers ion-conducting binders and membrane electrode assembly configurations may lead to more accurate predictions of device performance (page 68, lines 3-11).
Zhang teaches an AEMFC and PEMFC:
PNG
media_image6.png
218
404
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 3, Fig. 1(a)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode and the cathode described by Chung with wherein the anode and the cathode are in contact with an ionically conductive membrane because building membrane electrode assembly configurations of an AEMFC and PEMFC comprising an anode and a cathode in contact with an ionically conductive membrane leads to more accurate predictions of device performance.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known
methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Furthermore, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).”
Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Horwat et al. (“Deep Oxidation of Methane on Particles Derived from YSZ-Supported Pd-Pt-(O) Coatings Synthesized by Pulsed Filtered Cathodic Arc,” Catalysis Communications (2009 May 20), Vol. 10, No. 10, pp. 1410-1413) is cited to teach methane conversion tests performed on a Pd0.6Pt0.4Oy thin film deposited by dual cathode filtered cathodic vacuum arc on YSZ substrates (page 1413, left column, lines 12-14).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDNA WONG whose telephone number is (571) 272-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM- 3:30 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/EDNA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
1 Because Pd and Pt are present, and being that a 1:1 molar amount is universally known in chemistry. It represents a concentration of one mole of solute per liter of solution, which is a standard unit for measuring molar concentration.
2 Because Pd and Pt are present, and being that a 1:1 molar amount is universally known in chemistry. It represents a concentration of one mole of solute per liter of solution, which is a standard unit for measuring molar concentration.
3 E(Fc/Fc+) = 0.45 V vs. SHE.
4 At the cathode during water electrolysis, water molecules are reduced, gaining electrons to produce hydrogen gas (H2) and hydroxide ions (OH-).