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 § 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.
Claim(s) 15-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10844502 by Khaled et al., hereinafter Khaled taken with CN 105884576 A hereinafter CN 576, CN 108404919, hereinafter CN 919 and Zhao et al. (Dual Carbon-Supported ZnO/CuO Nanocomposites as an Anode with Improved Performance for Li-Ion Batteries).
Claim 1: Khaled discloses a method for electrocatalytically reducing carbon dioxide (CO.sub.2)(abstract), comprising:
applying a potential of less than 0 V to −2.0 V vs RHE to an electrochemical cell, wherein the electrochemical cell is at least partially submerged in an aqueous solution comprising carbon dioxide (Figure 2A, 2B and accompanying text, Example 2, “A 20 ml 0.5 M NaHCO.sub.3 (Sigma Aldrich, ≥99.5%) aqueous solution was used as electrolyte, Prior to the electrolysis, the electrolyte was saturated with CO.sub.2 (99.99%)), wherein on applying the potential the carbon dioxide is reduced to a conversion product (abstract, column 13, lines 10-30), wherein the electrochemical cell comprises: an electrode; and a counter electrode (Figure 2A and 2B and accompanying text);
wherein the electrode is made by using a copper salt and zinc salt and conductive carbon in solution and heating to form the ZnO/CuO particles and mixing the particles with a binder, conductive carbon compound and solvent and coating a substrate with the suspension and drying to form the electrode (column 10, lines 10-20, “Once the coating precursor is prepared, the conductive substrate may be coated by drop-casting at least a portion of the coating precursor on the conductive substrate, followed by a drying step to form the electrode 100.”)
Khaled discloses ZnO/CuO particles for the formation of the catalyst including porosity (Column 7,lines 10-20) and using Zinc nitrate and Copper nitrate with carbon based material to form the catalyst particles; however, fails to disclose the specifics of the process for making the catalyst particles as claimed. However, CN 576, also in the art of a CuO/ZnO catalyst for carbon dioxide hydrogenation discloses mixing a copper nitrate and zinc nitrate with BTC in a solvent to form a framework and thereafter heat treating in air at 400C to obtain the CuO/ZnO catalyst (see embodiments). Therefore, taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified Khaled to use the CuZn double-metal organic framework material as precursor for CuO/ZnO catalyst as Khaled desires to use the CuO/ZnO catalyst and CN 576 discloses that for CO2 hydrogenation using the CuZn double-metal organic framework material as precursor would have led to predictable results.
Khaled with CN 576 generally discloses CuZn BTC; however, fails to disclose the specifics of the claimed sequence to form the Zn-Cu-MOF. However, CN 919, also in the art of forming Zn-Cu-MOF based materials, using similar metal salt materials as that of Khaled and CN 576 (using Zinc nitrate and Copper nitrate) and CN 919 discloses forming a Cu-MOF by mixing copper nitrate with BTC and heating to a temperature of (100-140C, overlapping the claimed range) to form the Cu-BTC precursor and then mixing such with zinc nitrate and thermally decomposing the formed material at e.g. 350-500C for 2-10 hrs to decompose the MOF into a carbon (see pages 2-3). Therefore, as Khaled with CN576 makes obvious the formation of Zn/Cu MOF precursor for thermal decomposition in air to CnO/ZnO and CN 919 discloses formation of the Zn/Cu MOF precursors for thermal decomposition including the use of BTC as the MOF with copper nitrate and heating to 100C and thereafter adding zinc nitrata via the claimed sequence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Khaled with CN 576 to provide Cu nitrate and BTC precursor, followed by annealing at 100C, followed by addition of the zinc nitrate to the Cu-BTC precursor will lead a thermally decomposable Cu-Zn MOF to form the active material. CN 576 discloses the thermal decomposing the Zn-Cu-MOF will be decomposed to ZnO/CuO when decomposed in air (versus nitrogen).
Additionally, Zhao, also in the art of electrode formation using ZnO/CuO/carbon electrodes discloses a method for making the active material particles including ZnO/CuO particles that produces good contact and a porous structure (abstract) for inclusion into a coating material similar to that of Khaled for the formation of the electrode (mixing the ZnO/CuO nanoparticles, a binding compound, and a conductive carbon compound to form a suspension (Section 2.3); and coating a substrate with the suspension and drying to form the electrode). To form the electrode nanoparticle Zhao discloses dissolving a copper salt in a solvent and heating to a temperature to form a framework; mixing a zinc salt and the framework to form a zinc doped framework; heating the zinc doped framework to a temperature of 300 °C to 600C (overlapping claim 500) under air to form ZnCuO nanoparticles (experimental, see heating Zu-Cu-MOF in air at 450C to form ZnOCuO). Therefore, taking the references collectively, as Khaled, CN 576 and CN 919 discloses a ZnO/CuO electrode material to be added to the solution for deposition and discloses using zinc and copper salts to make such a particle with MOF precursor and Zhao, also in the art of forming an ZnO/CuO particle for electrode formation using metal salt solution as claimed, it would have been obvious to have modified Khaled to use the formation process of Zhao as such would be expected to provide nanoparticles for electrode and provide for an electrode active material that produces good contract.
As for the requirement that the formed ZnCuO nanoparticles have an oval shape with an average size of 50 nm to 200 nm. Zhao, also in the art of forming electrode materials, discloses that the particles are about 200 nm in size (see page 5486 stating “the size of the single particle is about 200 nm”) and thus overlaps and makes obvious the claimed size. Additionally, the SEM image of Figure 4 appears to illustrate that the process would include nanoparticles that can reasonably be considered “an oval shape” as instantly claimed (see Figure 4). Additionally, the examiner notes that the prior art formation of the ZnCuO particles is made obvious by the prior art and the shape of the formed nanoparticles is merely a function of the formation process and as such, since the prior art makes obvious the formation process, the prior art must necessarily meet the claimed “oval shaped” unless the applicant is performing additional process steps or limitations that are not claimed nor disclosed as required to form the claimed oval shape.
Claim 16: Khaled discloses the conversion product is selected from ethane (column 13, lines 16-20).
Claim 17: Khaled discloses aqueous solution further comprises a base selected from at least one of sodium bicarbonate and potassium bicarbonate (see column 11, lines 40-45, “the electrolyte 206 contains an aqueous sodium bicarbonate solution with a concentration.”)
Claim 18-19: Khaled discloses a faradaic efficiency and the examiner notes that this is a property of the electrode and thus the prior art, which discloses all the features of the claims as set forth above would necessarily have the same properties, i.e. the claimed faradic efficiency, as such is taught by the applicant’s specification as a property of the claimed process steps and thus as the prior art discloses and/or makes obvious the claimed requirements, the prior art will necessarily have the same properties unless the applicant is performing other process steps or using other process parameters that are neither disclosed or claimed as being required to achieve the claimed results.
Claim 20: Khaled discloses the aqueous solution is saturated with the carbon dioxide (Example 2, “Prior to the electrolysis, the electrolyte was saturated with CO.sub.2 (99.99%).”
Claims 21: Khaled discloses the amount of ZnO and CuO in amounts that overlap the range as claimed and thus makes obvious such (column 6, lines 20-25, “ a weight ratio of the zinc oxide to the copper (I) oxide is in the range of 5:1 to 1:5, preferably 4:1 to 1:4, preferably 3:1 to 1:3, preferably 2:1 to 1:2”).
Claims 22-23: Zhao discloses the heat treatment will convert the MOF into carbon with the Cn and Zn converted to metal oxide and thus forming a thin carbon layer onto the metal oxide, thus resulting in the ZnCuO nanoparticles comprise Cu, C, Zn, and O (see introduction, experimental). Zhao discloses the amount of the ZnO and CuO and carbon relative to each other will directly affect the properties of the electrode active material and therefore it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum amount of Zn, Cu, O, and C to reap the benefits as outline by Zhao (see e.g. introduction, ZnO provides high theoretical specific capacity, CuO improves the electrical conductivity, introducing carbon buffers the volume expansion)
Claim 24: Zhao discloses the ZnCuO nanoparticles comprise CuO and ZnO; however, fails to disclose the crystal structure of the CuO and ZnO; however a full review of the instant claims and the specification illustrates that such structure is merely a function of the process steps and wherein the CuO has a monoclinic crystal structure and the ZnO has a hexagonal crystal structure. the prior art formation of the ZnCuO particles is made obvious by the prior art and the crystal structure of the formed ZnO and CuO is merely a function of the formation process and as such, since the prior art makes obvious the formation process, the prior art must necessarily meet the claimed crystal structure unless the applicant is performing additional process steps or limitations that are not claimed nor disclosed as required to form the claimed crystal structure.
Claim 25: Khaled discloses the conductive carbon compound is at least one selected from the group consisting of graphite, activated carbon, reduced graphene oxide, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, and carbon black (Column 2, lines 45-53, “the carbon nanomaterial is at least one selected from the group consisting of graphene, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide, carbon nanotube, fullerene, nanodiamond, and nanohorn.”)
Claim 26: Khaled discloses nafion (Column 3, lines 1-5, “mixing the electrocatalyst with a nafion solution”).
Claim 27: Khaled discloses the substrate is made from at least one material selected from the group consisting of conductive carbon, stainless steel, aluminum, nickel, copper, platinum, zinc, tungsten, and titanium (Column 7, lines 38-45, “the conductive substrate 104 is a copper substrate or a copper alloy substrate. In some alternative embodiments, the conductive substrate 104 comprises at least one element selected from the group consisting of gold, titanium, platinum, silver, palladium, ruthenium, rhenium, iron, nickel, indium, lead, tin, and zinc.”).
Conclusion
Pertinent art to the instant claims is cited on the PTO 892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights