DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the amendment filed 3 November 2025 for the 18/080,463 application, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment to claim 1 and the cancellation of claim 6 are noted.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
Response to Amendment
Claim Interpretation
Applicant is reminded that “[u]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327. In the instant case, intermetallic has been interpreted as “a substance in which metal elements constituting an alloy have an ordered structure” [see paragraph 0003 of the published application].
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 20190086941).
With respect to claims 1-2, Lee et al discloses “a catalyst comprising an alloy in which two kinds of elements are mixed, and the elements include palladium (Pd) and nickel (Ni)” [abstract]. The reference further discloses the “Pd-Ni alloy according to the invention are L10 type (FCT; face centered tetragonal)” [page 2] with the following structure [figure 1 of the Korean reference]:
PNG
media_image1.png
363
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Consequently, the Pd-Ni alloy has an ordered structure and corresponds to the intermetallic compound of nickel and a noble metal of the instant application. The reference further discloses “[t]he catalyst composition comprising the Pd-Ni alloy according to the present invention may be applied as an active ingredient to be supported on a predetermined carrier” [page 4].
With respect to the average diameter limitation and the XRD pattern of claim 7, Lee et al does not disclose said diameter or pattern of the catalyst disclosed therein. However, since the catalyst of Lee et al is the same or similar to the claimed catalyst, it is expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that the average diameter and XRD pattern are the same or similar as well.
With respect to claim 3, Lee et al discloses “the molar ratio (Pd:Ni) of the two dissolved elements may be 5:95 to 90:10” [page 2], which subsumes the recited range and renders it obvious.
With respect to claim 4, the face centered tetragonal structure corresponds to the recited tetragonal crystal structure.
With respect to claim 5, the top and bottom horizontal planes of the face-centered tetragonal structure corresponds to the (001) crystal plane.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued “[t]he cited Lee reference does not disclose, teach, or inherently possess this limitation. Indeed, Lee does not explicitly disclose any ‘average diameter’ of the Pd-Ni alloy particles. Rather, the only size information that can be gleaned from Lee comes from its transmission electron microscopy (TEM) image (identified by the Examiner as Figure 4 of Lee), from which the approximate particle size of the synthesized Pd-Ni alloy is readily observed to be on the order of approximately 350 nm. That value is at least thirty-five (35) times larger than the 4-10 nm range required by amended claim 1. The dramatic, order-of-magnitude difference is also plainly seen when Lee's image is compared with the nanoscale particle shown in Applicant's own Figure 4, which are within the 4-10 nm range” [see last paragraph on page 5 and first paragraph on page 6 of remarks].
With respect to applicant’s argument, first the Examiner notes that it is not clear what the statement “identified by the Examiner as Figure 4 of Lee” is meant to suggest. The Examiner does not appear to have directed applicant’s attention to Figure 4 in the prior Office action. Moreover, Figure 4 does not appear to represent the catalyst of Lee et al comprising a carrier (i.e., support); Figure 4 appears to be an alloy without a support. Therefore, comparing Figure 4 of Lee et al to Figure 4 of the instant application is meaningless. Applicant further argues “particle size in supported alloy catalysts is not dictated by elemental identity alone; it is governed by nucleation and growth kinetics, support interactions, reducing/complexing agents, surfactants, thermal history and other synthesis variables. It is…method dependent…it is well known that the average particle size of a catalyst is affected by the method used to prepare it…[t]he allowed, inventive preparation route-employing urea-directly bears on, and enables, the formation of the claimed 4-10 nm intermetallic particles.” The bolded “particle size…is governed by…support interactions” supports the meaninglessness of applicant’s earlier argument. With respect to the method dependency, while applicant’s assertion may be true, although no evidence for the assertions has been provided, it does not appear to be the case that applicant’s inventive preparation route employing urea is the only method that enables the formation of the claimed 4-10 nm intermetallic particles. For example, Zhao et al in ACS Catalysis (2020, vol 10, pp. 10637-10645) discloses “synthesis of N-doped ordered intermetallic PtNi nanocatalysts supported by Ketjenblack (denoted as Int-PtNiN/KB)” wherein “[t]he diameter of this nanoparticle is 10.8 nm” [2nd paragraph on page 10638 and last paragraph of the same]. Note that the synthesis of Zhao et al does not include urea and that 10.8 nm is about 10 nm, as required by instant claim 1. Indeed, it may be the case that Zhao et al is prior art for at least instant claim 1. Regardless, synthesis with urea does not appear to be necessary to produce the claimed about 4-10 nm intermetallic particles. Consequently, Lee et al is not necessarily excluded as prior art for claims 1-5 and 7 because said reference does not teach the required urea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art does not teach the preparing step of instant claim 8 with urea.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
7 January 2026