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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 20 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 17-20 were previously withdrawn, being directed to a non-elected invention. The previous rejection of claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims; new rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) are presented herein, necessitated by amendment. All prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of arguments filed 20 July 2026 and the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 7, para. 2, filed 20 July 2026, with respect to claim 9 as originally filed and claims 1 and 13 as currently amended have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The phrase "including" renders the claims indefinite because the members of a Markush group (a list of alternatives which define a limitation) must be defined as a closed group with terms such as “selected from the group consisting of.” See MPEP § 2173.05(h); Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196; and In re Kiely, 2022 USPQ2d 532 at 2* (Fed. Cir. 2022). See also MPEP § 2111.03(I): “comprising” is synonymous with “including.”
Examiner suggests amending claims 7 and 16 to remove the phrase “including Ru, Rh, Pd, Os, and/or Ir.” The specification adequately defines these PGM metals as they are relevant to the claims and would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The interpretation of these indefinite claim limitations is unchanged from the previous Office Action mailed on 20 March 2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are allowed.
Claims 7 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art of record, Shimazaki (US 7,659,224 B2) and Zhu et al. (US 11,981,815 B2), fail to teach or suggest, alone or in combination, silica-encapsulated catalytic particles including a carbon film with or without silica forming on an outer surface portion of the silica encapsulation. Zhu suggests that additives may be included in the silicon-carbon copolymer (col. 22, lines 20-23) but fails to teach or suggest specific additives which would result in formation of a carbon film.
Claims 2-12 depend on and further limit the allowable claim 1. Claims 14-16 depend on and further limit the allowable claim 13.
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
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colton B. Forry whose telephone number is (571)272-8873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/CBF/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights