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
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angell (US 3177131) in view of Mardilovich (US 2005/0006339 A1) in view of Yun (US 2008/0318421 A1).
Claims 1, 6-7, 12-13:
Angell teaches a method for manufacturing an anode component of an electrolyser (1:15-26) comprising platinum supported on titanium (Id.). The platinum is applied by solution such as chloroplatinic acid or bromoplatinic acid (i.e., an acidic solution of platinum cations) onto the titanium support followed by a conversion step to form the platinum metal layer on the titanium support (3-4:73-6).
Angell does not teach a two step process comprising a solution of platinum followed by a reducing agent.
However, Mardilovich teaches a method for electroless deposition, which is known to involve chemical baths which can be acidic, basic, or neutral and contain metal ions, which in the presence of a reducing agent, can be reduced to the metal [0014]. Mardilovich employs a two step process via inkjet where the metal salt composition is first applied to the substrate [0026-0028], followed by a reducing agent [0029-0035]. This process can be used to deposit platinum [0028].
Additionally, Yun teaches a similar electroless deposition process utilizing the two step procedure except rather than inkjet, the metal ion source is applied by spraying or dipping [0021] followed by the reducing agent is also applied by spraying or dipping [0028]. This process can be used to deposit platinum [0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Angell and plate platinum onto the titanium support by a two step electroless plating procedure of an acidic solution of platinum cations followed by a reducing agent as shown by Mardilovich and Yun as a known alternative process.
Claims 2-3:
Mardilovich does teach drying the metal salt composition [0030]. A specific temperature is not stated, but room temperature would have been obvious as well as elevated temperature in order to accelerate drying.
Claim 4:
A specific platinum loading is not disclosed. However, Angell makes it clear that a sufficient amount of platinum is required to be built up (5:23-38). In this respect, the platinum loading is a result effective variable linked to the performance of the anode and would have been obvious through routine optimization.
Claim 5:
Angell teaches an anode in an electrolytic cell or as an impermeable barrier provided with an anodic surface (i.e., anode compartment or chamber) (5:60-75).
Claim 11:
Mardilovich teaches the platinum solution can be acidic [0014] and can additionally contain a strong acid such as HCl which simultaneously provides a beneficial etching effect [0021]. The particular amount of HCl would have been obvious based on the amount necessary to achieve this effect.
Claims 14-15:
Mardilovich teaches sodium boron hydride and alkali metal borohydrides [0030].
Claims 16-18:
Mardilovich teaches a heating step after applying the reducing agent at temperatures up to 120°C using forced heated air [0034].
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nano3D Platinum spec sheet establishes platinum electroless plating solutions can be acidic or basic by simple addition of an acid or base to adjust pH.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Yun is not analogous art. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
In order for a reference to be "reasonably pertinent" to the problem, it must "logically have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem. " In re Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,658, 23 USPQ2 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 98 USPQ2d 1991 (Fed. Cir. 2011), is instructive as to the "reasonably pertinent" prong for determining whether a reference is analogous art. In determining whether a reference is reasonably pertinent, an examiner should consider the problem faced by the inventor, as reflected - either explicitly or implicitly - in the specification. In order to support a determination that a reference is reasonably pertinent, it may be appropriate to include a statement of the examiner's understanding of the problem. The question of whether a reference is reasonably pertinent often turns on how the problem to be solved is perceived. If the problem to be solved is viewed in a narrow or constrained way, and such a view is not consistent with the specification, the scope of available prior art may be inappropriately limited. It may be necessary for the examiner to explain why an inventor seeking to solve the identified problem would have looked to the reference in an attempt to find a solution to the problem, i.e., factual reasons why the prior art is pertinent to the identified problem.
Here the problem to be solved is how the acidic solution and reducing solution are to be applied to the substrate. There are several coating techniques that would have been immediately apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, but in the field of plating, dipping/immersion is by far the most common. This is admitted in Applicant’s spec. pg. 2, lines 1-2. The question is: when a normally one step immersion process is split into a two step process, is it obvious for each of the two steps to also be immersion? The above rejection is intended to demonstrate that yes, it would have been obvious for each of the two steps for applying an acidic solution and applying a reducing agent to be immersion, but in addition also renders obvious other coating techniques inkjet and spraying. Because plating is a widely used technique across multiple technologies for applying a metal layer onto a substrate, the prior art may encompass diverse substrates including semiconductors, automotive parts, etc. However, when analyzing plating at the fundamental level of applying an acidic solution of platinum cations followed by reducing by applying a reducing agent, the techniques for accomplishing these tasks are independent of the particular substrate.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights