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 .
Election/Restrictions and Status of Claims
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 9/2/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination is the same for Inventions I-III. This is not found persuasive because in the restriction requirement dated 7/29/25 it was established that each of the inventions have different classifications, thereby requiring different search queries and strategies.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/2/25.
As such, claims 1-18 are examined in this office action of which claims 1, 3-4, 12-15, and 18 were amended in the reply dated 7/9/23.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/334655, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The '655 application fails to provide support for the claims in the instant application as instant claim 1 is directed to forming amorphous Pd-based nanoparticles where an other metal precursor is used and the mixtures are heated at a unrecited first and second heating temperature while the '655 application only discloses where the first and second heat treatment are at the temperature of 140 to 200 C and where the metal precursor is Ru precursor, Rh precursor, Ag precursor, Ir precursor, Ni precursor, or combinations thereof.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is 161 words long, exceeding the allowed 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The amendment filed 7/9/23 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Applicant has not shown how their extensive amendments to the specification have support in the original filing. Most importantly applicant has amended the specification and claim 3 to recite a concentration of Pd precursor to toluene of a range from 1 to 20 mg/ml. While the original specification discloses a specific example where 40.5 mg of Pd(OAc)2 was dissolved in 4.05 mL of toluene (a concentration of 10 mg/ml), this single example does not support a range of 1-20 mg/ml, nor where any Pd precursor is used rather than Pd(OAc)2.
Further, claim 13 and the specification has been amended to recite where the molar ratio of the other metal precursor to the Pd precursor is in a range of 1:10 to 5:1. As the original disclosed range was 1:10 to 1:1, this does not support the amended range.
Finally, claim 18 and the specification has been amended to recite where the volume ratio of the ethanol to the third solution is in a range from 1:1 to 10:1. As the original disclosed range was 1:1 to 5:1, this does not support the amended range.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a method for synthesizing amorphous Pd-based nanoparticles where the first solvent is a toluene, the second solvent is oleylamine, where the Pd precursor is Pd(II) acetylacetonate, Pd(II) acetate, or PdBr2, where the first heating temperature is in a range from 1400C to 200 "C; and the first heating time is in a range from 15 to 25 minutes, and the second heating temperature is in a range from 140 °C to 200°C; and the second heating time is in a range from45 to 75 minutes does not reasonably provide enablement for all precursors, all solvents, and all temperatures and times for heating. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 encompasses a method of synthesizing amorphous Pd-based nanoparticles using all Pd-precursors, using a first and second of any solvent and heating a second mixture at a first heating temperature and time and heating a third mixture at a second heating temperature for a second time. The specification discloses sufficient information for one of ordinary skill in the art to synthesize these particles using toluene as a first solvent, oleylamine as a second solvent, where the Pd precursor is Pd(II) acetylacetonate, Pd(II) acetate, or PdBr2, where the first heating temperature is in a range from 1400C to 200 "C; and the first heating time is in a range from 15 to 25 minutes, and the second heating temperature is in a range from 140 °C to 200°C. However, the specification does not provide direction on how to select Pd precursors, solvents, and heating times and temperatures. At the time of filing, the state of the art was such that forming nanoparticles using chemical reduction processes is known, however the chemicals that accomplish this process vary depending on the precursors used as well as the times and temperatures used to carry out the process. Thus, the disclosed Pd-precursor examples, two solvents disclosed, and singular time and temperature values for heating does not bear a reasonable correlation to the full scope of the claim. Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of the claim(s). A person of ordinary skill would be required to vary metal-precursors, a first and second solvent, times and temperatures for two heating steps all at the same time in relation to one another to achieve a palladium-based nanoparticles.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “adding other metal precursor” in step e). This recitation is grammatically incorrect as this should be written as either “an other metal precursor” or “other metal precursors” and given the terms used it is not clear whether this refers to a singular metal precursor, whether this refers to multiple metal precursors, or some other meaning. This issue is not cured by dependent claim 13 as this recites that the other metal precursor can be one singular metal precursor or “combinations thereof” meaning that multiple precursors can be included. Claims 2-12 and 14-18 are also rejected as they depend from claim 1 and do not solve the above issue.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Fabrication of Pd–Ni–P metallic glass nanoparticles and their application as highly durable catalysts in methanol electro-oxidation." Of Zhao.
As to claim 1, Zhao discloses a method of fabricating Pd-Ni-P metallic glass nanoparticles (Zhao, title), meeting the limitation of a method of synthesizing amorphous Pd-based nanoparticles as metallic glass is an amorphous material. Zhao discloses where a mixture of Palladium(II) acetylacetonate (meeting the limitation of a Pd precursor), nickel(II) acetylacetonate (meeting the limitation of other metal precursor) is mixed with triphenylphosphine (meeting the limitation of surfactant), tetrabutylammonium bromide , trioctylphosphine oxide (meeting the limitation of a first solvent), and oleylamine (meeting the limitation of a second solvent) (Zhao, pg. 1057, right column, 2nd paragraph). Zhao discloses deaerating this mixture at 50°C for 20 minutes, followed by heating at 220 °C for 30 min, and then the mixture is heated to 290°C and incubated for 15 min, 30 min, or 1 hr (Zhao, pg. 1057, right column, 2nd paragraph), meeting the limitation of heating at a first heating temperature for a first heating time and heating at a second heating temperature for a second heating time. Zhao discloses after cooling to room temperature, the mixture is diluted with ethanol (Zhao, pg. 1057, right column, 2nd paragraph), meeting the limitation of naturally cooling down the third solution to a room temperature and adding ethanol to the solution to form a fourth solution. Zhao discloses where the resulting solid materials were separated by centrifugation (Zhao, pg. 1057, right column, 2nd paragraph), meeting the limitation of collecting the amorphous Pd-based nanoparticles from the solution by centrifugation.
While Zhao does not disclose where the materials are added such that a first solution, first mixture, second mixture, and third mixture are formed, this is merely a difference in the sequence of adding ingredients and as the process in Zhao produces the same result of Pd-based nanoparticles the separated order of addition would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); and In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.) as cited in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C).
As to claim 2, Zhao discloses using Palladium(II) acetylacetonate (Zhao, pg. 1057, right column, 2nd paragraph).
As to claim 5, Zhao discloses where a second solvent is oleylamine (Zhao, pg. 1057, right column, 2nd paragraph) and where the purity is technical grade 70% (Zhao, pg. 1057, left column, first paragraph). While Zhao does not disclose a volume ratio of the oleylamine to the first solution, as Zhao discloses where the amount of oleyamine and other components are controlled, Zhao recognizes them as result effective variables and discovery of optimum ranges of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of art and selection of the optimum ranges within the general condition is obvious see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
As to claims 6-7, Zhao discloses using triphenylphosphine (Zhao, pg. 1057, right column, 2nd paragraph), meeting the limitations of being an organophosphorus compound of triphenylphosphine.
As to claims 8-9, Zhao discloses a ratio of 1.76 mmol of the surfactant triphenylphosphine to 0.2 mmol of Palladium(II) acetylacetonate (a ratio of 8.8:1) which is close to the claimed range of 1:2 to 2:1 in claim 8 or 1:1 in claim 9. Nevertheless, given the closeness of the purity in Zhao to the claimed range, a person of ordinary skill would expect these processes to produce patentably indistinct results. Also, the MPEP notes that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%), see MPEP § 2144.05 I. In the instant case, Zhao discloses that its method produces a Pd-Ni-P metallic glass nanoparticles (Zhao, title), which is structurally identical to the claimed product. Thus it is clear that despite the slight difference in parameters, the properties produced by these processes are patentably indistinct and thus the claimed process is obvious in view of Zhao.
As to claims 10-11, Zhao discloses heating at 220 °C for 30 min (Zhao, pg. 1057, right column, 2nd paragraph), which is close to the claim 10 range of first heating temperature is in a range from 140°C to 200°C; and the first heating time is in a range from 15 to 25 minutes, and the claim 11 limitations the first heating temperature is 155°C; and the first heating time is 20 minutes. Nevertheless, given the closeness of the purity in Zhao to the claimed range, a person of ordinary skill would expect these processes to produce patentably indistinct results. Also, the MPEP notes that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%), see MPEP § 2144.05 I. In the instant case, Zhao discloses that its method produces a Pd-Ni-P metallic glass nanoparticles (Zhao, title), which is structurally identical to the claimed product. Thus it is clear that despite the slight difference in parameters, the properties produced by these processes are patentably indistinct and thus the claimed process is obvious in view of Zhao.
As to claim 12, Zhao discloses using nickel(II) acetylacetonate (Zhao, pg. 1057, right column, 2nd paragraph), meeting the limitation where the other metal precursor is a Ni precursor.
As to claim 13, Zhao discloses where the molar ratio of the other metal to the palladium precursor is 3:1 (0.6mmol to 0.2 mmol) (Zhao, pg. 1057, right column, 2nd paragraph). Zhao discloses where the purity of the nickel(II) acetylacetonate is 95%, which is close to the claimed purity of 99.98% or greater. Nevertheless, given the closeness of the purity in Zhao to the claimed range, a person of ordinary skill would expect these processes to produce patentably indistinct results. Also, the MPEP notes that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%), see MPEP § 2144.05 I. In the instant case, Zhao discloses that its method produces a Pd-Ni-P metallic glass nanoparticles (Zhao, title), which is structurally identical to the claimed product. Thus it is clear that despite the slight difference in parameters, the properties produced by these processes are patentably indistinct and thus the claimed process is obvious in view of Zhao.
As to claim 14, Zhao discloses where the molar ratio of the other metal to the palladium precursor is 3:1 (0.6mmol to 0.2 mmol) (Zhao, pg. 1057, right column, 2nd paragraph), which is close to the claimed ratio of 1:2. Nevertheless, given the closeness of the molar ratio in Zhao to the claimed range, a person of ordinary skill would expect these processes to produce patentably indistinct results. Also, the MPEP notes that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%), see MPEP § 2144.05 I. In the instant case, Zhao discloses that its method produces a Pd-Ni-P metallic glass nanoparticles (Zhao, title), which is structurally identical to the claimed product. Thus it is clear that despite the slight difference in parameters, the properties produced by these processes are patentably indistinct and thus the claimed process is obvious in view of Zhao.
As to claim 15, While Zhao does not disclose where the other metal precursor is dissolved in a solvent before adding the other metal precursor into the second solution, this is merely a difference in the sequence of adding ingredients and as the process in Zhao produces the same result of Pd-based nanoparticles the separated order of addition would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); and In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.) as cited in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C).
As to claims 16-17, Zhao discloses the mixture is heated to 290°C and incubated for 15 min, 30 min, or 1 hr (Zhao, pg. 1057, right column, 2nd paragraph), which is close to the claim 16 limitation the second heating temperature is in a range from 140°C to 200°C; and the second heating time is in a range from 45 to 75 minutes and the claim 17 limitation wherein the second heating temperature is 155°C; and the second heating time is 60 minutes. Nevertheless, given the closeness of the purity in Zhao to the claimed range, a person of ordinary skill would expect these processes to produce patentably indistinct results. Also, the MPEP notes that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%), see MPEP § 2144.05 I. In the instant case, Zhao discloses that its method produces a Pd-Ni-P metallic glass nanoparticles (Zhao, title), which is structurally identical to the claimed product. Thus it is clear that despite the slight difference in parameters, the properties produced by these processes are patentably indistinct and thus the claimed process is obvious in view of Zhao.
As to claim 18, Zhao discloses after cooling to room temperature, the mixture is diluted with ethanol (Zhao, pg. 1057, right column, 2nd paragraph). Zhao discloses where 40 ml of ethanol is mixed with 20.4 ml of the mixture (Zhao, pg. 6 of Supporting Information, 1st paragraph) making a ratio of 1.96:1, failing within the claimed range of 1:1 to 10:1.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Fabrication of Pd–Ni–P metallic glass nanoparticles and their application as highly durable catalysts in methanol electro-oxidation." Of Zhao in view of US 2018/0221961 A1 of Bakr.
As to claims 3-4, Zhao discloses where the purity of Palladium(II) acetylacetonate is 99% (Zhao, pg. 1057, left column, 1st paragraph). However, Zhao does not disclose where toluene is used as the first solvent, nor where the concentration of the Pd precursor to the toluene is in the range of 1 to 20 mg/ml.
Bakr relates to the same field of endeavor of synthesizing nanoparticles (Bakr, paragraph [0002]). Bakr discloses where toluene is used as a solvent with precursors Ni(acac)2.2H2O and Pd(acac)2 along with oleylamine (Bakr, paragraph [0067]). In relation to Pt-Ni nanoparticles, Bakr teaches that a concentration of the precious metal to toluene is 4.68 mg/ml (Bakr, paragraph [0067]), meeting the claim 3 limitation of 1-20 mg/ml and being close to the claim 4 limitation of 10 mg/ml. While the purity of the toluene is not disclosed in Bakr, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a high purity of toluene of higher than 99.5% thereby having a more effective solvent.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add toluene in a concentration of 4.68 mg/ml as taught by Bakr into the method of forming a Pd-Ni nanoparticle disclosed in Zhao, thereby adding a known solvent that works in producing nanoparticles and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results as the only difference between the claims and Zhao is the inclusion of toluene as a solvent at 1-20 mg/ml, in this case toluene is merely performing as a solvent, and as both references relate to the formation of precious metal bi-metal nanoparticles, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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 Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights