DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission on 08/06/2026 has been entered. Upon entering the submission, claims 1-2 and 14 are amended. Claims 3-13, 15-17, 20, 24, 26, 30, 32 and 35 are cancelled. Claims 1-2, 14, 18-19, 21-23, 25, 27-29, 31, and 33-34 are pending. Claims 25, 27-29, 31, and 33-34 were withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 14, 18-19, and 21-23 are under examination on the merits.
Response to Amendment/Argument
The Amendment by Applicants’ representative, Mr. Michael A. Patané on 07/15/2026 has been entered.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§112(b)
Applicant’s amendments of claims 1-2 and 14 obviate the rejection. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§102/103(a)
Applicants amended claim 1 by further limiting the magnetic ferrite compound is selected from the group consisting of Ni0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4, Co0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4, and Y3Fe5O12. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the 102/103(a) rejections because the previously cited prior art documents do not teach and/or suggest the claimed catalyst composition comprising the magnetic ferrite compound selected from Ni0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4, Co0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4, or Y3Fe5O12, as being amended. The rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Rejection of claims under Obviousness-type Double Patenting
Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 overcomes all ODP rejections. The rejections are hereby withdrawn.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 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 1-2, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moeinpour et al., Chinese Chemical Letters, (2015), v.26, p.575-579, evidenced by Kharissova et al., Particulogy, (2025), v.96, p.203-217.
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a catalyst composition comprising: a catalytic material; and at least one magnetic component; wherein the magnetic component comprises at least one magnetic ferrite compound; wherein the magnetic ferrite compound is selected from the group consisting of Ni0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4, Co0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4, and Y3Fe5O12.
Moeinpour et al. (Abstract) discloses cesium carbonate supported on hydroxyapatite(Hap) coated Ni0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 magnetic nanoparticles as an efficient and green catalyst for the synthesis of pyrano[2,3-c]pyrazoles. It is well-known that hydroxyapatite is a catalytic material as described in the review article “hydroxyapatite-based material as catalysts: A review” by Kharissova et al. Therefore, Moeinpour et al. evidenced by Kharissova et al. anticipates claims 1-2.
In terms of claim 19, wherein the magnetic ferrite compound is in the form of nanoparticles, Moeinpour et al. (Fig. 2, p.576) discloses TEM image of Ni0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4@Hap-Cs2CO3 nanoparticles.
In terms of claim 21, wherein the catalytic material comprises a catalytic material for one or more of oxidation of carbon monoxide, oxidation of hydrocarbons, oxidation of Nox, oxidation of ammonia, selective catalytic reduction of Nox, and Nox storage/reduction, Moeinpour et al. discloses use HA (hydroxyapatite) for CO oxidation, see “2.1. CO oxidation” at p.204-205.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 14, 18-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dantas et al., Fuel, (2017), v.191, p.463-47 in view of Moeinpour et al. and Yahya et al., Defect and Diffusion Forum, (2013), vols. 334-335, pp.329-335 (Pub 2013-02-13).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
Dantas et al. (Abstract, p.463 and “2.1. Materials and methods” p.464) discloses magnetic nanocatalysts of Ni0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 doped with Cu for catalyzing transesterification reaction for biodiesel. The nanoferrites with Ni0.5-xCuxZn0.5Fe2O4 composition (0.0<x<0.4) were synthesized. Dantas et al. (Fig.1, p.465) discloses X-ray diffraction curves for the samples (a) x=0.0; (b) x=0.1; (c) x=0.2; (d) x=0.3; and (e) x=0.4. Dantas et al. (Table 2, p.466) discloses specific surface area values, particle size, volume and pore diameter of the samples Ni0.5-xCuxZn0.5Fe2O4 composition (0.0<x<0.4).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between claim 1 and Dantas et al. is that the prior art does not specifically teach a catalyst composition comprising a catalytic m material; and at least one magnetic component; wherein the magnetic component comprises at least one magnetic ferrite compound; wherein the magnetic ferrite compound comprises is selected from the group consisting of Ni0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4, Co0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4, and Y3Fe5O12. Instead, Dantas et al. teaches magnetic nanocatalysts of Ni0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 doped with Cu for catalyzing transesterification reaction for biodiesel. The doped Cu is a catalytic material.
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, claim 1 would have been obvious over Dantas et al. because the difference is further taught and/or suggested by the same prior art because Dantas et al. teaches magnetic nanocatalysts of Ni0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 doped with Cu for catalyzing transesterification reaction for biodiesel. The doped Cu is a catalytic material. In addition, Dantas et al. teaches magnetic nanocatalysts of Ni0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 doped with Cu for catalyzing transesterification reaction for biodiesel, and the nanoferrites with Ni0.5-xCuxZn0.5Fe2O4 composition (0.0<x<0.4) were synthesized. The synthesized Ni0.5-xCuxZn0.5Fe2O4 composition (0.0<x<0.4) would have rendered the claimed catalyst composition obvious by varying the amount of Ni0.5-xCuxZn0.5Fe2O4 composition (0.0<x<0.4). Therefore, Dantas et al. would have rendered claims 1-2 obvious.
In terms of claim 14, wherein the magnetic ferrite compound is Y3Fe5O12, Yahya et al. (Abstract p.329) the nanocatalyst Y3Fe5O12 (YIG) using magnetically induced reaction for ammonia synthesis.
In terms of claim 18, wherein the magnetic ferrite compound has a Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area of less than about 100 m2/g, Dantas et al. (Table 2, p.466) discloses the samples Ni0.5-xCuxZn0.5Fe2O4 composition (0.0<x<0.4) have the surface area (BET) values less than about 100 m2/g.
In terms of claim 19, wherein the magnetic ferrite compound is in the form of nanoparticles, Dantas et al. (Abstract, p.463 and “2.1. Materials and methods” p.464) teaches the catalysts are magnetic nanocatalysts.
In terms of claim 21, wherein the catalytic material comprises a catalytic material for one or more of oxidation of carbon monoxide, oxidation of hydrocarbons, oxidation of Nox, oxidation of ammonia, selective catalytic reduction of Nox, and Nox storage/reduction, it is inherited properties of the catalytic material, because a product is inseparable from its properties.
In terms of claims 22-23, Dantas et al. (Abstract, p.463 and “2.1. Materials and methods” p.464) discloses magnetic nanocatalysts of Ni0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 doped with Cu for catalyzing transesterification reaction for biodiesel. In addition, Moeinpour et al. (Abstract and Introduction at p.463) teaches using cesium carbonate (Cs2CO3) as a support on hydroxyapatite(Hap) coated Ni0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 magnetic nanoparticles as an efficient and green catalyst, and Cs2CO3 supported on Al2O3 gives excellent results for some base-catalyzed reactions, wherein the support is Al2O3, a refractory metal oxide.
Claim Objection
Claim 2 is objected to for the following informality: the phrase “wherein the magnetic ferrite compound is Ni0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4, Co0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4” should be replaced with ““wherein the magnetic ferrite compound is Ni0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4, or Co0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4”
Conclusions
Claims 1-2, 14, 18-19, and 21-23 are rejected.
Claim 2 is objected to.
Claims 25, 27-29, 31, and 33-34 are withdrawn.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Status Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights