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 .
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onuma et al. (JP 2020-015304 A, hereinafter Onuma).
Re Claim 9. Onuma teaches a supporting body (Fig. 2) comprising:
a nanocluster (P2, items 2 & 6) of an alloy containing Pt and Co (P2); and
a support (item 5) on which the cluster is supported,
wherein an amount of Pt supported is 1 x 10-14 ng/cm2 or more and 1 x105 ng/cm2 or less (P2).
Re Claim 12. Onuma teaches a supporting body (Fig. 2) comprising:
a sub-nanocluster (P2, items 2 & 6) of an alloy containing Pt and Co (P2); and
a support (item 5) on which the cluster is supported,
wherein an amount of Pt supported is 1 x 10-14 ng/cm2 or more and 1 x105 ng/cm2 or less (P2).
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.
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(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onuma.
Re Claim 1. Onuma teaches a supporting body (Fig. 2) comprising:
a cluster (items 2 & 6) of an alloy containing Pt and Co (P2); and
a support (item 5) on which the cluster is supported,
a mass activity of the supporting body having the cluster of the alloy supported on the support is 400 A/g to 2 x 104 A/g (P2),
the cluster is a nanocluster or a sub-nanocluster (P2), and
wherein an amount of Pt supported is 1 x 10-14 ng/cm2 or more and 1 x105 ng/cm2 or less (P2).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Re Claim 2. Onuma teaches wherein the support is made of a conductive material (P3).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onuma as applied to claims 1, 2, 9, and 12 above, respectively, and further in view of Paik et al. (US 2011/0020735 A1, hereinafter Paik).
The teachings of Onuma have been discussed above.
Onuma fails to specifically teach that a composition of the cluster is one or more selected from the group consisting of Pt4Co2, Pt5 Co, Pt6Co2, Pt7Co2, and Pt8Co.
The invention of Paik encompasses fuel cell catalyst. Paik teaches a composition of the cluster to be Pt----aCon, wherein a/n is between 1:10 to 10:1 (para. 38).
In view of Paik, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Onuma to employ a cluster having a composition of PtaCon, wherein a/n is between 1:10 to 10:1, since using a well-known composition of a cluster for catalyst is within purview of one skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 1 of remark, part of interview record of 4/20/26, applicant argued that Onuma fails to teach that a mass activity of the supporting body having the cluster of the alloy supported on the support is 500 A/g to 2 x 104 A/g, since Table 1 of Onuma shows a mass activity of less than 500 A/g.
The examiner disagrees with this because Onuma explicitly teaches that a mass activity of the supporting body having the cluster of the alloy supported on the support is 400 A/g to 2 x 104 A/g (P2).
On page 2 of remark, part of interview record of 4/20/26, applicant argued Paik does not disclose a cluster of an alloy as defined in the present application.
The examiner is relying on Onuma for its teaching of a nanocluster/sub-nanocluster (P2, items 2 & 6) of an alloy.
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.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
5/11/2026
Prosecution Insights