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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-10 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
1. Claim 2 is 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 2 recites “wherein each of the alkyls is substituted or unsubstituted”. However, claim 2 recites both the ketone and ether including alkyl groups and it is unclear if Applicant only intends for the alkyl groups of the ether to be substituted or unsubstituted or intends for the alkyls of both the ketone and ether being substituted or unsubstituted. Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim has been interpreted as the alkyl groups of the ketone and the alkyl groups of the ether can be substituted or unsubstituted.
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.
2. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsinghua University (CN 101327429, reference is made to the English translation provided by Applicant).
Regarding claims 1-4, Tsinghua teaches a method of supporting a metal catalyst on a carbon fiber comprising: providing a carbon carrier, such as carbon fiber (middle of page 4), impregnating (comparable to soaking) in a solution of a platinum group metal ion compound (bottom of page 5-top of page 6), such as palladium acetate (top of page 6), with a solvent, such as acetone (top of page 6); and then subjecting the carbon fiber after removing from soaking to a heat treatment at a temperature of 200 ºC (top of page 6). Tsinghua teaches all the limitations of the claims; therefore, Tsinghua anticipates claims 1-4.
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.
3. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsinghua in view of Toebes et al. (“Synthesis of supported palladium catalysts”).
Regarding claim 5, Tsinghua teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the heat treatment performed in an inert gas atmosphere.
However, Toebes teaches that it is conventional to prepare palladium catalysts on a support by wet impregnation (which is the same as Tsinghua’s process) followed by heat treating in an inert atmosphere after applying the palladium catalyst precursor to the support (see Section 3.1.5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsinghua’s process by conducting the heat treatment in an inert atmosphere as disclosed by Toebes. One would have been motivated to make this modification to avoid any contamination during the heat treating step that may interfere with the final catalytic activity of the supported catalyst.
4. Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsinghua in view of Suenaga et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2002/0177032).
Regarding claims 6-8, Tsinghua teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach the carbon fiber is a carbon fiber nanofilament having a cup-stacked structure that is grown on the surface of a different carbon fiber which is in the form of a carbon fiber paper or carbon fiber cloth.
However, Suenaga teaches preparing catalyst supported on carbon fiber (abstract). Suengaga further teaches that the catalyst is supported on a carbon fiber nanofilament having a cup-stacked structure (0125-0126) that is grown on the surface of another carbon fiber (0122 and Figure 5) in the form of a carbon fiber paper (0083). Suenaga teaches preparing the carbon nanofilament by supporting a nickel catalyst (0138) on a surface of the carbon fiber paper (0117-0118) and subjecting the carbon fiber paper to a contact reaction with a hydrocarbon gas at a temperature of 500-1000 ºC (0144, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify Tsinghua’s process by using a carbon nanofilament having a cup-stacked structure that is grown on a carbon fiber paper as the catalyst support prepared as disclosed by Suenaga in place of the generic carbon fiber in Tsinghua’s process. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Suenaga teaches that preparing a catalyst on this type of structure improves the catalyst carrying amount (0066).
5. Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsinghua in view of Suenaga and Shi et al. (CN 103000906, reference is made to the provided English translation).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, as outlined above, Tsinghua in view of Suenaga make obvious a method comprising: supporting a nickel catalyst precursor on a surface of a current collector, such as a carbon fiber paper; subjecting the carbon fiber paper to a contact reaction with a hydrocarbon gas at a temperature of 500-1000 ºC (and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness) to induce a carbon nanofilament to grow from the nickel catalyst; providing a palladium catalyst metal on the nanofilament support via steps (a) and (b) (see rejection above). Tsinghua in view of Suenaga fail to teach providing the nickel catalyst to the carbon fiber by soaking in an ethanol solution of nickel nitrate followed by heating under an inert gas atmosphere.
However, Shi teaches that nickel catalyst (0013) for growing carbon nanofibers (abstract) can be deposited by soaking a support in an ethanolic solution of nickel nitrate (0014) followed by heating under argon at a temperature of 200-400 ºC (0014, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness) and then contacting with a hydrocarbon gas (abstract and 0016). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsinghua in view of Suenaga’s process by depositing the nickel catalyst by a process as disclosed by Shi. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would simplify the process of depositing the nickel catalyst as it would simply require a soak in solution rather than using additional equipment to sputter or physically deposit the nickel.
Conclusion
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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 S WALTERS JR/
June 27, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights