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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are pending and presented for examination. Claim 13 was amended via the instant amendment dated 28 April 2026 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) which are acknowledged and entered. Claims 4 and 11-13 remain objected to for reasons already of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks dated 28 April 2026 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) are acknowledged and entered.
The objection to claim 13 is WITHDRAWN as “about” is now recited instead of “between”.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Wang in view of Chen is MAINTAINED.
The traversal is that “Wang is directed to an electrocatalyst for the nitrogen reduction reaction (NRR)” It disclose a hollow CoFe2O4 nanocube derived form Prussian blue analogue (PBA) precursor. This bimetallic oxide nanocube is then wrapped wit a carbon layer derived from the carbonization fo dopamine. The key inventive concept in Wang is the modulation of the CoFe2O4 nanocube with oxygen vacancies and a carbon wrapper to enhance NRR activity. Wang does not teach or suggest incorporating anickel (Ni) into its structure . .. Chen does not use a PBA precursor and does not teach a structure where a carbon layer wraps in individual particle . .. “dope the structure of Wang iwht the nckel fo Chen” oversimplifies the matter and ignores critical distinctions . . . Wang’s synthesis beigns with a bimetallic CoFe PBA precursor. To incorporate nickel, a person of skill in the art could not simply ‘add’ nickel tot eh final product.” (Remarks at 11-12). Both Wang and Chen are drawn to production via metal salts, the addition of an additional metal salt to dope Ni into the structure of Wang for the reasons motivated by Chen is certainly within the level of ordinary skill as this is how doping is commonly performed (especially as it is performed in Chen). The nature of the type of support precursor does not seem to matter as the concern here is the inclusion of metal salts. The “specific pathway” traversal (Remarks at 13) is also noted, but again does not seem to differentiate as metal salts are the source of precursor in both Wang and Chen, Wang does not disclose a “template” explicitly.
While the traversal continues in that Ni is added for “superiority in saturated magnetization”, , EPR values are a concern n Wang (see Wang at “2.4. Material characterization”), though modification of magnetic aspects is still something one of ordinary skill in the art would find something to modify as the magnetic moments can serve as electron mediators/active sites.
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Nivetha in view of Chen and Wang is MAINTAINED.
The response to the traversal against Chen and Wang above is hereby cited to show rationale for why Chen and Wang still make obvious over the instant claims.
The traversal against Nivetha is that it synthesizes either cobalt or nickel ferrite (Remarks at 8) for HER but there is no nanocube morphology nor that the ferrite is Co/Ni trimetallic. Nivetha mixes salts of iron chloride and nickel or cobalt chloride. Chen mixes metal salts of nickel and cobalt, and Wang discloses cobalt chloride and an iron metal salt. While the reaction pathways may differ some (Nivetha does not have carbon/graphene present), they all ultimately produce their material via treating metal salts.
The traversal continues arguing that the instantly claimed invention “is an integrated catalyst wher an N-doped carbon layer is formed in-situ and warps the nanocube” (Remarks at 9), but this is not claimed. If Applicants feel this is a patentable distinction then they should have claimed it. The method of making may have some aspects of patentability but to imbue that to the product is improper as the product is claimed, not the process nor a product-by-process. The argues with respect to advantages vis a vis the N-doped carbon layer are immaterial as they are arguing something not claimed.
The traversal continues in that there would be no motivation to modify Nivetha with Chen such that Nivetha has “saturated magnetic” properties, but one of ordinary skill in the art in HER would also know that saturated magnetic fields improve HER such that modifying Nivetha to have superior saturated magnetic properties would improve the material’s usability in HER.
The discussion of “in a sense the references teach away” (Remarks at 13), is immaterial as there is no direct statement of teaching away. Applicants have not presented evidence on why one of ordinary skill in the art would not look at HER/OER from NRR or vice versa as all are electrocatalysts.
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Pervaiz in view of Chen is WITHDRAWN over the instant traversal in that Pervaiz is not drawn to an electrocatalyst.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The rejection of claims 1-36, 7, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Wang in view of Chen from the Non-Final Office Action dated 28 January 2026 is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Nivetha in view of Chen and Wang from the Office Action dated 28 January 2026 is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are finally rejected. Claims 4 and 11-13 are objected to but would be allowable if re-written in independent form.
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 RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights