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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 8 December 2025. Claims 1-3, 7-13 and 17-29 are currently pending of which claims 12, 13, 23 and 24 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 25, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 109112567 A to Pan et al. (Pan).
As to claim 25, 26 and 29, Pan teaches a process comprising exposing an iron catalyst forming an anode for an oxygen evolution reaction to an external magnetic field of 10 mT to 5,000 mT (0.01 to 5 T) during an oxygen evolution reaction (Paragraphs 0006, 0022, 0030, 0031, 0033 and 0035). Iron being a specifically disclosed embodiment by the applicant and thus a process which, as evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure, enhance the catalytic efficiency of the catalyst wherein the catalyst exhibits an increased Berry phase induced by the exposure of the catalyst to the external magnetic field and a non-zero Berry phase at 25°C (MPEP 2112).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan as applied to claim 25 above and further in view of US 2018/0223438 A1 to Staser et al. (Staser).
As to claims 27 and 28, Pan teaches the method of claim 25. Pan teaches that the catalyst can comprise additional metals beyond iron, such as nickel; however fails to teach that this nickel is provided as an intermetallic. However, Staser also discusses electrocatalysts and teaches that by providing nickel with another metal such as platinum in a 1:1 ratio, NiPt, the lifetime of the catalyst can be extended (Paragraphs 0011 and 0012). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the nickel catalyst of Pan with NiPt in order to extend the lifetime of the catalyst as taught by Staser. NiPt being a specifically disclosed embodiment by the applicant and thus a process which, as evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure, enhance the catalytic efficiency of the catalyst wherein the catalyst exhibits an increased Berry phase induced by the exposure of the catalyst to the external magnetic field and a non-zero Berry phase at 25°C (MPEP 2112).
Claims 1-3, 7-11 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109594098 A by Peng et al. (Peng) in view of “Hierarchical Porous Ni3S4 with Enriched High-Valence Ni Sites as a Robust Electrocatalyst for Efficient Oxygen Evolution Reaction” to Wan et al. (Wan).
As to claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 17 and 18, Peng teaches a process for enhancing catalytic efficiency of a catalyst within an oxygen evolution reaction cell, the process comprising exposing a catalyst comprising a metal oxide such as nickel, iron or cobalt oxides, to an external magnetic field of, for example, 125 mT during an oxygen evolution reaction (Paragraphs 0009, 0051 and 0052). The process of Peng performing the OER at 25°C (room temperature) (Paragraph 0057) However, Peng fails to teach a sulfide catalyst.
However, Wan also discusses enhancing catalytic efficiency for an oxygen evolution reaction and teaches that in comparison to a metal oxide such as nickel, iron or cobalt, a Ni3S4 catalyst has an enhanced efficiency (Abstract; Section 1. Introduction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the improved catalyst materials of Ni3S4 with the magnetic method of Peng in order to utilize multiple methods of enhancing the catalytic performance of the oxygen evolution reaction.
Ni3S4 being a specifically disclosed embodiment by the applicant and thus a process which, as evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure, enhance the catalytic efficiency of the catalyst wherein the catalyst exhibits an increased Berry phase induced by the exposure of the catalyst to the external magnetic field and a non-zero Berry phase at 25°C (the process temperature of the combination) (MPEP 2112).
As to claims 8, 19 and 20, the combination of Peng and Wan teaches the process of claim 1. The remaining limitations of the claims relate to a non-required alternative wherein the catalyst is a metal carbide; however, the combination teaches an alternative embodiment of a metal sulfide, and thus meet the limitations of the claims.
As to claims 9 and 21, the combination of Peng and Wan teaches the process of claim 1. The remaining limitations of the claims relate to a non-required alternative wherein the catalyst is a Heusler alloy; however, the combination teaches an alternative embodiment of a metal sulfide, and thus meet the limitations of the claims.
As to claim 10, the combination of Peng and Wan teaches the process of claim 1. Peng further teaches that the anode catalyst has a plate like form with a planar surface (Paragraph 0032; Figure 1).
As to claims 11 and 22, the combination of Peng and Wan teaches the process of claim 10. Peng further teaches that the magnetic field that is applied to the plate like catalyst is arranged so that the field lines can be modified, and includes an embodiment with an angle of 90 degrees to the plate like catalyst, and thus field lines that run perpendicular to the catalyst (Paragraphs 0052 and 0070; Table 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights