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. Claims 1-4 and 6-13 were elected without traverse in the response dated 11 December 2025. Claims 14-23 were cancelled. As such, THIS RESTRICTION REQUIREMENT IS MADE FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “between” should read --about--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Magnetic micro scavengers: highly porous Ni1−xCoxFe2O4 microcubes for efficient disintegration of nitrophenol” to Pervaiz et al. (hereinafter, “Pervaiz at __”) in view of “One-step synthesis of Co–Ni ferrite/graphene nanocomposites with controllable magnetic and electrical properties” to Chen et al. (hereinafter, “Chen at __”).
Regarding claims 1 and 7-10, Pervaiz discloses an electrochemical catalyst (Pervaiz at 2 R col) comprising:
A trimetallic oxide of CoxNi1-xFe2O4 wherein x is 0.5 (Pervaiz at 2 L col) wherein the catalyst is in the form of a nanocube having a size of 90-110 nm (Pervaiz at 3 R col).
However, Pervaiz does not disclose the addition of a carbon layer.
Chen also in a cobalt doped nickel ferrite (Chen at “Abstract”) discloses decorating said particles on a layer of graphene (Chen at 1069 R col and this meets the adjacency requirement for claim 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the graphene of Chen in the catalyst of Pervaiz. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being improvement in electrical and magnetic properties (Chen at 1071 R col).
As to claims 2, 3 and 6, x can be 0.2, 0,4, 0.6, or 0.8 (Chen at 1068 R col).
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Cobalt and nickel ferrites based graphene nanocomposites for electrochemical hydrogen evolution” to Nivetha et al. (hereinafter, “Nivetha at __”) in view of Chen and “Modulating CoFe2O4 nanocube with oxygen vacancy and carbon wrapper towards enhanced electrocatalytic nitrogen reduction to ammonia” to Wang et al. (hereinafter, “Wang at __”).
Regarding claims 1 and 7-10, Nivetha discloses an electrocatalyst comprising nickel or cobalt ferrite supported on graphene (166 R col, meeting “layer adjacent to the nano-cube” for cliam 9) having a total size of 140-160 nm (Nivehta at 167 R col).
However, Nivetha does not disclose nanocubes of Co1-xNixFe2O4.
Chen in an electrocatalyst discloses doping of cobalt ferrite with 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, or 0.8 of Ni (Chen at 1068 L col).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to dope the structure of Nivetha with the nickel of Chen. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being superiority in saturated magnetization (Chen at 1070 R col).
Wang, also in a CoFe2O4 structure discloses morphology of nanocubes for it (Wang at “Abstract”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to form nanocubes per Wang for the ferrite of Nivetha. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being superior ammonia yield and Faradale efficiency (Id.).
As to claims 2, 3 and 6, x can be 0.2, 0,4, 0.6, or 0.8 (Chen at 1068 R col).
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Wang in view of Chen.
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 9, Wang discloses an electrocatalyst comprising nanocube of CoFe2O4 which is wrapped with carbon (Wang at “Abstract”).
However, Wang does not expressly state that the cobalt ferrite is doped with nickel.
Chen in an electrocatalyst discloses doping of cobalt ferrite with 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, or 0.8 of Ni (Chen at 1068 L col).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to dope the structure of Wang with the nickel of Chen. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being superiority in saturated magnetization (Chen at 1070 R col).
As to claims 2, 3 and 6, x can be 0.2, 0,4, 0.6, or 0.8 (Chen at 1068 R col).
Turning to claim 10, the structure has a size of 200 nm (Wang at 3 R col).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 4, none of the cited prior art either alone or in combination discloses an electrocatalyst of carbon composited with Co1-xNixFe2O4 x<=0.1<=0.9 with a XRD with 2 theta peaks at 18.28, 26.15, 35.69, and 43.36. Pervaiz is a close piece of prior art and it discloses different peaks, especially not one below 20 degrees two-theta. Wang is the closest piece of prior art and it discloses peaks at 18.1, 30.1, 35.4, 43.1, 56.9 and 62.7 but does not disclose 26.15.
As to claims 11-13, none of the cited prior art either alone or in combination discloses or reasonably suggests an electrocatalyst of carbon composited with Co1-xNixFe2O4 x<=0.1<=0.9 wherein the electrocatalyst wherein the electrocatalyst has a size of 500-700 nm. Pervaiz is the closest piece of prior art and it only goes up to 100 nm. Wang is also close and discloses ~200 nm.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected. Claims 4 and 11-13 are objected to.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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