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 .
Applicant’s arguments, see amendments/remarks, filed on November 18, 2025, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,277,895 to Zhou et al and the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Zhou et al (6,277,895) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The aforesaid claim rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because it depends on a cancelled claim.
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al (US 2016/0333452 A1).
Johnson discloses a method of alloying metals having a phase form dependent upon temperature is provided. The method may include the steps of: obtaining a plurality of dissimilar materials configured to provide large areas of contact between the plurality of materials; layering the dissimilar materials in an alternating pattern; heating the dissimilar materials; melting the dissimilar materials; mixing the melted dissimilar materials; and cooling the mixed dissimilar materials to form an ingot [0016].
Johnson discloses he formation of alloys of CuAlNi is of particular interest herein, and has been developed with great success. Stacking alternating layers of the more reactive metal such as Al, with other metals (such as Cu and Ni) in thin layers before heating may allow and even enhance diffusion of the reactive metal (e.g., Al) into the other metals (e.g., into the Cu and into Ni), and the energy of the reaction may further elevate the temperature of the mixture over the entire surface of contact, avoiding the violent explosive-type events that may occur if difference in temperatures occur in nearby regions [0011].
When a claim is directed to a catalyst per se (the physical substance itself), the intended use typically does not distinguish it from prior art if the chemical structure or physical properties are identical. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Federal Circuit held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make the claim patentable. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, the use itself does not provide a patentable distinction.
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 23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudoff et al (US 3,950441) alone or in view of Johnson et al (US 2016/0333452 A1).
Rudoff teaches a flask was connected to a rotating evaporator and the alumina was degassed at 0.1 mm Hg vacuum. 166 g of a concentrated salt solution containing 61% Ni(NO.sub.3).sub.2, 14% Cu(NO.sub.3).sub.2, 3% Mn(NO.sub.3)2 was siphoned into the flask containing the aluminum oxide balls and the mixture heated at 1000C for one hour with slow rotation. After cooling to room temperature, the catalyst was filtered through a Buchner funnel, washed twice with 100 cc of water, dried at 110 0C for 1 hour, and then at 170 0C for 4 hours. Under a stream of air, the catalyst was calcined at 4600C for 16 hours. The entire procedure was repeated two more times to give a catalyst having a total metals content of 15.1% nickel, 5.27% copper and 0.46% manganese. The catalyst was placed in an autoclave and was reduced at 3000C with hydrogen at 1,000 psig. Thereafter, partially hydrogenated 1,4-butynediol was charged to the autoclave together with hydrogen under a pressure of 2,500 psig. The butynediol solution had an initial carbonyl number of 34. On completion of hydrogenation, the 1,4-butanediol obtained exhibited a carbonyl number of less than 1.0 and the physical appearance of the catalyst was excellent. See Examples.
While Rudoff teaches an alloy metal made of CuAlNi metal it would be beneficial to prepare the CuAlNi according to Johnson in order the energy of the reaction may further elevate the temperature of the mixture over the entire surface of contact, avoiding the violent explosive-type events that may occur if difference in temperatures occur in nearby regions [0011].
Rudoff discloses that treating the aluminum alloy with caustic soda (NaOH)to dissolve the aluminum and leave the nickel in a highly divided form. See col. 1, lines 40-45.
However, it would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a catalyst metal proportion could be changed to optimize the catalyst performance through routine experimentation.
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 JAFAR F PARSA whose telephone number is (571)272-0643. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM-6:30PM.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/JAFAR F PARSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights