CTNF 18/226,704 CTNF 96377 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 were subjected to restriction requirement mailed on 02/12/2026. Applicants filed a response, and elected Group I, claims 1-9, and withdrew claims 10-20, with traverse on 02/12/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending, and claims 10-20 are withdrawn after consideration. Claims 1-9 are rejected. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 04/06/2026 is acknowledged. This is not found persuasive because the reason set forth below. Applicants primarily argue: “ In the present case, Applicant submits that claims corresponding to Inventions I and II are related to similar subject matter and as a result are classified in HO1M 4/9**. Due to the similar classifications, separate searches would likely identify the same references. Therefore, the claims and figures should be examined together. ” Remarks, p. 6 The examiner respectively traverses as follows: While applicant argues that it is not an undue burden for the Examiner to search Inventions I and II together, applicants have provided no evidence to support this position. Therefore, the examiner’s position remains that Inventions I and II have a separate status in the art for the reasons set forth on pages 6 of the Office Action mailed on 02/12/2026. Further, as set forth on page 2 of the Office Action mailed on 02/12/2026, the examiner has established that the two groups have a different classification. Specifically, Invention I, classified in H01M 4/926, and Invention II, classified in H01M 4/96. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 08-05 AIA Claim s 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/06/2026 . Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 10, it is suggested to amend “Group” to “the Group” to ensure proper antecedent basis and clarity. Claim 1, line 11, it is suggested to amend “Group” to “the Group” to ensure proper antecedent basis and clarity . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 7-8 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 7, line 1, recites a phrase “70%”. However, it is unclear what the phrase refers to., i.e., 70% based on molar amount, 70% based on mass etc. The examiner interprets that the phrase refers to 70% based on molar amount. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested. Claim 8, line 1, recites a phrase “85%”. However, it is unclear what the phrase refers to., i.e., 70% based on molar amount, 85% based on mass etc. The examiner interprets that the phrase refers to 70% based on molar amount. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., Composition-dependent oxygen reduction reaction activity of Pt-surfaced PtNi dodecahedral nanoframes, ACS Appl. Energy Mater., 2020 (Wang) in view of Ye et al., High catalytic performance and stability of Pt/C using acetic acid functionalized carbon, Journal of Power sources, 2009 (Ye) . Regarding claims 1 and 4-5 , Wang discloses Pt-based bimetallic nanoframes with high activity for a number of electrochemical reactions (Wang, Abstract); the synthetic routes of PtNi rhombic dodecahedral nanoframes include forming PtNi rhombic dodecaheron (reading upon a bimetallic structure) from Pt 4+ (reading upon a first precursor comprising platinum (Pt) ), HAD and Ni 2+ (reading upon a second precursor comprising a Group 8-11 metal, wherein the Group 8-11 metal is free of Pt) at 200˚C (Wang, Figure 1, also shown below), wherein solid PtNi dodecaheron undergo oxidative etching to form dodecaheron PtNi nanoframes (Wang, page 769, left column, 3 rd paragraph); the etching comprises adding PtNi polyhedral nanoparticles, and acetic acid (reading upon an acid) in ethanol (Wang, page 769, right column, 3 rd paragraph). PNG media_image1.png 241 595 media_image1.png Greyscale Figure 1 of Wang Wang further discloses after the acid etching process bulk Ni is completely removed (Wang, page 4, left column), therefore, the dodecaheron PtNi nanoframes would have a higher molar ratio of Pt to Ni than a molar ratio of Pt to Ni of the solid PtNi dodecaheron. Wang does not explicitly disclose that the dodecaheron PtNi nanoframes are carbon supported, and when the dodecaheron PtNi nanoframes are formed, a carbon source is also added. With respect to the difference, Ye teaches platinum supported on acetic acid functionalized carbon (Ye, Abstract). Ye specifically teaches acetic acid modified carbon was added to Pt precursor to prepare Pt supported on acetic acid (Ye, page 684, section 2.1). As Ye expressly teaches, carbon plays critical function as supports of Pt in proton exchange membrane fuel cell because the activity, selectivity and stability of electrocatalysts are greatly influenced (Ye, 683, left column); highly dispersed Pt is prepared on acetic acid modified carbon; better oxygen reduction activity and stability can be achieved, indicating that acetic acid modification is one of effective ways to enforce the interaction between Pt and carbon support (Ye, page 688, conclusion). Ye is analogous art as Ye is drawn to platinum supported on acetic acid functionalized carbon. In light of the motivation of the critical function of carbon support of Pt, and specifically, acetic acid modified carbon as a support, as taught by Ye, and Ye’s teaching that acetic acid modification is one of effective ways to enforce the interaction between Pt and carbon support, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add acetic acid modified carbon, or carbon, with PtNi polyhedral nanoparticles, and acetic acid, in order to produce dodecaheron PtNi nanoframes supported on acetic acid modified carbon, in order to achieve high dispersion of the dodecaheron PtNi nanoframes, stability and better oxygen reduction activity, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 2 , as applied to claim 1, Wang in view of Ye further teaches 40 wt.% dodecaheron PtNi nanoframes on acetic acid modified carbon (Ye, page 685, left column, 1 st paragraph), which corresponds to a weight ratio of 40:60 (i.e., 1:1.5) of the dodecaheron PtNi nanoframes to the acetic acid modified carbon, which is within the claimed range. Regarding claims 6-8 , as applied to claim 1, Wang in view of Ye further teaches the hollow nature of the nanoframes increases platinum utilization by removing inactive platinum content at the core of the structure (Wang, page 769, left column, 2 nd paragraph); the nanoframes fabricated via oxidative etching possesses a Pt skin, and the surface consist of Pt (111) and some high index facets. Wang in view of Ye further teaches Pt% increases to 65.4% with 24 hr of etching (i.e., the bulk content of Pt% increases to 65.4%) (Wang, page 769, left column, 3 rd paragraph), and the nanoframes contain a Pt skin, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the Pt skin would meet the claimed limitations of wherein about 70% or more of the metal atoms are Pt; or wherein about 85% or more of the metal atoms are Pt. Regarding claim 9 , as applied to claim 1, Wang in view of Ye further teaches the mass activity of the particles ranges from 0.72 to 0.92 A mg -1 (i.e., A/mg(Pt)) (Wang, page 769, left column, 3 rd paragraph); for electrochemical analysis, a reversible hydrogen electrode is used as reference (Wang, page 768, right column, bottom paragraph); the specific activity was determined at 0.9 V (Wang, page 772, right column, bottom paragraph) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 3 is 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. Regarding claim 3, neither Wang nor Ye teaches or suggests the use of an inorganic acid. On the contrary, both Wang and Ye teaches the use of acetic acid, which is an organic acid. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST. 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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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. /KELING ZHANG/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/226,704 Page 2 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/226,704 Page 3 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/226,704 Page 4 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/226,704 Page 5 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/226,704 Page 6 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/226,704 Page 7 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/226,704 Page 8 Art Unit: 1732
Prosecution Insights