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
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, 4, 5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He et al. (“High-performance alkaline hydrogen evolution of NiMoP2 nanowire boosted by bimetallic synergic effect,” 2019, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 44, pp. 23066-23073).
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9 and 10: He teaches a molybdenum-doped nickel phosphate catalyst for hydrogen evolution reaction (Abst.), comprising: a substrate (Fig. 2a, pp. 23068:Col. 2 through 23069:Col. 1); and a plurality of molybdenum-doped nickel phosphate nanowires aligned vertically on the substrate (Fig. 2a), wherein the whole nanowire is doped with molybdenum (pp. 23068:Col. 2 through 23069:Col. 1).
Claim 4: He teaches an interplanar distance of 0.28 nm (p. 23069:1).
Claim 8: He teaches that the nanowires have a diameter of 100 nm (23069:1).
Claim 11: He teaches an electrode comprising the catalyst (pp. 23069:2-23070:1).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in light of Hu et al. (“Nickel Phosphide Electrocatalysts for Hydrogen Evolution Reaction,” 2020, Catalysts 10, p. 188).
Claim 2: He fails to teach a nickel foil substrate. He teaches a hydrogen evolution reaction catalyst comprising nickel phosphides and explains that nickel foam is a suitable substrate for their formation (p. 7) The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected nickel foam as the substrate in Hu with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 3: He teaches NiP2, but fails to teach NiP or Ni2P as the nickel phosphate. He teaches a hydrogen evolution reaction catalyst comprising nickel phosphides and explains that NiP or Ni2P can be used in place of NiP2 (p. 4). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected NiP or Ni2P in Hu with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in light of Lee et al. (“Transition metal-doped nickel phosphide nanoparticles as electro- and photocatalysts for hydrogen generation reactions,” 2018, Appl. Catalysis B: Environmental 242, pp. 186-193).
Claim 6: He is not clear concerning the amount of dopant included. Lee teaches a transition metal doped nickel phosphide used for hydrogen evolution reactions (Abst.) and explains that the amount of dopant can be adjusted depending on the desired hydrogen production rates (p. 190:2). Where 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. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a doping concentration of 1-20 wt% depending on the desired hydrogen production rate.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in light of Wang et al. (US 2018/0087163).
Claim 12: While He teaches that the nickel phosphate catalyst is used in an electrode for a hydrogen evolution reaction (Abst.; pp. 23069:2-23070:1), He fails to clearly discuss the structure of the entire hydrogen evolution reaction device. Wang teaches a device for hydrogen evolution reactions and explains that such a device comprises the catalyst-containing electrode, a counter electrode and an electrolyte (¶ 0082). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have included a counter electrode and an electrolyte in order to have provided a functional hydrogen evolution reaction device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712