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 .
Priority
Applicant’s priority claim to US Provisional Application 63/125,918 filed December 15, 2020 is acknowledged. A copy of WO 2022/132883, the WIPO publication of PCT/US 21/63487 filed December 15, 2021 is attached.
Response to Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s election of Group I, drawn to a structure comprising one or more MEC nanoparticles, and Species I-MEI, directed to multi-element intermetallic (MEI) nanoparticles, in the reply filed on November 5, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I-MEI-1st/2nd in the reply filed on November 5, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that claims 21, 22, and 26 are related in the application and are not mutually exclusive as supported by 14:13 to 16:5 of the PCT application, such that restriction is improper (Remarks p. 6 para. 5).
This is found persuasive. Therefore, claims 21, 22, and 26 are examined as part of the election of Species I-MEI.
Claims 12, 13, 18, 28, 33, 37, 39, 44-45, 49, 50, 56-57, and 65 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventive group of multi-element compound (MEC) species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Restriction Election and Claim Amendments filed November 5, 2025.
Claims Filing Date
November 5, 2025
Amended
21
New
67-73
Cancelled
2-5, 7-8, 10-11, 14-17, 19-20, 23-25, 27, 29-55, 58-64, 66
Pending
1, 6, 9, 12-13, 18, 21-22, 26, 28, 56-57, 65, 67-73
Withdrawn
6, 9, 12-13, 28, 56-57, 65
Under Examination
1, 18, 21-22, 26, 67-73
Abstract Objection
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
It uses legal phraseology “comprise” and “comprising” in lines 1 and 3.
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).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims should be avoided.
Specification Objection
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
15:9 “(e.g., HEA nanoparticle 200_” is missing a closing parenthesis. It appears to have an underscore “_” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 21 and 73 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 21 lines 5-6 “the first sub-lattice has a random distribution of noble metal atoms, and the second sub-lattice has a random distribution of non-noble metal atoms” renders the claim indefinite. According to Merriam-Webster a lattice is a regular geometrical arrangement of points in space. The term random is defined as lacking a definite pattern. It is unclear how the atoms can both lack a definite pattern (i.e. random), but also have a regular geometrical arrangement (i.e. sub-lattice). For the purpose of examination claim 21 will be interpreted as the atoms being randomly distributed within the sub-lattice.
Claim 73 lines 1-2 “the structure is constructed for use as a catalyst…”renders the claim indefinite. Attempts to claim a process (use) without setting forth any steps in the process raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). MPEP 2173.05(q). For the purpose of examination claim 73 will be interpreted as the structure being a catalyst in a thermochemical reaction or electrochemical reaction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 18, 21, 22, 67-69, and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhu (Zhu et al. Copper-Induced Formation of Structurally Ordered Pt-Fe-Cu Ternary Intermetallic Electrocatalysts with Tunable Phase Structure and Improved Stability. Chemistry of Materials, 2018, 30, 5987-5995.).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses a structure (carbon-supported PtFexCu1-x/C nanoparticles) (Abstract, Experimental Sections: Catalysts Preparation, Fig. S5) comprising:
one or more multi-element compound (MEC) nanoparticles, each MEC nanoparticle having a plurality of sites comprising one or more elements, each site forming a compound bond with at least one other site of the compound nanoparticle (Pt-Fe-Cu/C samples annealed to obtain an ordered bct (body centered tetragonal)-type PtFe phase) (Abstract, Results and Discussion paras. 1-6, Conclusions, Fig. 1),
wherein one or more of the compound bonds comprises a covalent bond, an ionic bond, a metallic bond, or any combination of the foregoing (metallic bond) (Abstract, Results and Discussion paras. 1-6, Conclusions, Fig. 1), and
each MEC nanoparticle is formed of at least three different elements (PtFexCu1-x/C) (Abstract, Experimental Sections: Catalyst Preparation, Results and Discussion paras. 1-2).
Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim by the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. MPEP 2112(III).
Regarding claim 18, Zhu discloses at least one of the one or more MEC nanoparticles comprises a multi-element intermetallic (MEI) nanoparticle (Pt-Fe-Cu/C) (Abstract, Experimental Sections: Catalysts Preparation, Results and Discussion paras. 1-6, Conclusions), and the MEI nanoparticle comprises at least three metal elements in a single phase (ordered intermetallic bct-type PtFe phase) (Results and Discussion paras. 1-3, Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 21, Zhu discloses the MEI nanoparticle has first and second sub-lattices, one of the at least three metal elements is distributed in the first sub-lattice (Pt fcc structure), and another of the at least three metal elements is distributed in the second sub-lattice (incorporate smaller Fe and Cu atoms into the Pt fcc structure) (Abstract, Result and Discussion para. 2, Figs. 1, 3), and
the first sub-lattice has a random distribution of noble metal atoms (Pt), and the second sub-lattice has a random distribution of non-noble metal atoms (Fe and Cu) (Abstract, Results and Discussion para. 2, Figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 22, Zhu discloses the MEI nanoparticle has a geometrically closed-packed phase or a topologically closed-packed phase (bct, body-centered tetragonal, is a geometrically closed-packed phase) (Abstract, Results and Discussion paras. 1-5, Figs. 1, 3), and
the geometrically closed-packed phase comprises a lattice structure of Ll0, L11, Li2, or B2, and the topologically closed-packed phase comprises a Laves phase, a σ phase, or a µ phase (bct, body-centered tetragonal, has a lattice structure of L10) (Abstract, Results and Discussion paras. 1-5, Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 67, Zhu discloses a substrate (carbon support) (Experimental Sections: Catalysts Preparation),
wherein (i) the one or more MEC nanoparticles are formed on one or more surfaces of the substrate, (ii) the one or more MEC nanoparticles are coupled to one or more surfaces of the substrate, or (iii) both (i) and (ii) (carbon-supported PtFexCe1-x/C nanoparticles) (Experimental Sections: Catalysts Preparation).
Regarding claim 68, Zhu discloses the substrate comprises carbon (Experimental Sections: Catalysts Preparation).
Regarding claim 69, Zhu discloses the MEI nanoparticle has a maximum cross-sectional dimension of about 3-6 nm (up to 4.9 nm) (Results and Discussion para. 4, Fig. S5).
Regarding claim 73, Zhu discloses the structure is constructed for use as a catalyst in a thermochemical reaction or electrochemical reaction (for use in polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells) (Introduction).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 26 and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (Zhu et al. Copper-Induced Formation of Structurally Ordered Pt-Fe-Cu Ternary Intermetallic Electrocatalysts with Tunable Phase Structure and Improved Stability. Chemistry of Materials, 2018, 30, 5987-5995.).
Regarding claim 26, Zhu discloses the MEI nanoparticle exhibits a long-range ordering (LRO) (ordered phase, where annealing promotes phase transformation to an ordered phase) (Abstract, Results and Discussion paras. 1-6, Figs. 1-3).
With respect to the LRO of at least 90%, Zhu discloses that annealing temperature is a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable that achieves a recognized result) because higher annealing temperatures improves the level of ordering (Results and Discussion para. 3). The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable is characterized by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Regarding claim 72, Zhu discloses the MEI nanoparticle exhibits LRO (ordered phase, where annealing promotes phase transformation to an ordered phase) (Abstract, Results and Discussion paras. 1-6, Figs. 1-3).
With respect to the LRO of about 100%, Zhu discloses that annealing temperature is a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable that achieves a recognized result) because higher annealing temperatures improves the level of ordering (Results and Discussion para. 3). The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable is characterized by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (Zhu et al. Copper-Induced Formation of Structurally Ordered Pt-Fe-Cu Ternary Intermetallic Electrocatalysts with Tunable Phase Structure and Improved Stability. Chemistry of Materials, 2018, 30, 5987-5995.) as applied to 18 above, and further in view of Tsai (Tsai et al. Sputter Deposition of Multi-Element Nanoparticles as Electrocatalysts for Methanol Oxidation. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 47. No. 7, 2008, pp. 5755-5761.).
Regarding claim 70, Zhu is silent to the MEI nanoparticle comprising more than five metal elements.
Tsai discloses nanoparticle comprising more than five metal elements (Pt50Fe11Co10Ni11Cu10Ag8) (Abstract, 2. Experimental Procedure, Fig. 3, 4. Conclusions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the nanoparticles of Zhu to be Pt50Fe11Co10Ni11Cu10Ag8 for improved electrochemical performance in fuel cell applications (Tsai 1. Introduction). Further, both the nanoparticles of Zhu and Tsai are for use in direct methanol fuel cells (DMFC) (Zhu Introduction; Tsai 1. Introduction).
Furthermore, Zhu discloses manufacturing nanoparticles on carbon (Zhu Experimental Sections: Catalysts Preparation) with an fcc structure (Zhu Results and Discussion paras. 1-3). Similarly, Tsai also discloses manufacturing nanoparticles on carbon (Tsai Experimental Procedure) with an fcc structure (Tsai 3.1 Electrocatalyst preparations para. 2, Fig. 2).
Zhu also discloses annealing the nanoparticles (Experimental Sections: Catalysts Preparation) to form an ordered intermetallic bct-type phase (Results and Discussion paras. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to anneal the nanoparticles of Tsai to form an ordered intermetallic bct-type phase to enhance catalytic activity, durability, and stability as an electro-catalyst in fuel cell applications (Zhu Introduction, Conclusions).
Claims 70 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (Zhu et al. Copper-Induced Formation of Structurally Ordered Pt-Fe-Cu Ternary Intermetallic Electrocatalysts with Tunable Phase Structure and Improved Stability. Chemistry of Materials, 2018, 30, 5987-5995.) as applied to 18 above, and further in view of Yao (Yao et al. Carbothermal shock synthesis of high-entropy-alloy nanoparticles. Science 359. 1489-1494 (2018) 30 March 2018.).
Regarding claim 70, Zhu is silent to the MEI nanoparticle comprising more than five metal elements.
Yao discloses nanoparticles comprising more than five metal elements (senary (PtCoNiFeCuAu), septenary (PtPdCoNiFeCuAuSn), and octonary (PtPdCoNiFeCuAuSn)) (p. 3 col. 2, Table S3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the nanoparticles of Zhu to be senary (PtCoNiFeCuAu), septenary (PtPdCoNiFeCuAuSn), or octonary (PtPdCoNiFeCuAuSn) for more catalytically active metal combinations (Yao p. 4 cols. 2-3) with usefulness in catalysis (Yao p. 5 cols. 2-3) without compromising stability, such that they form active, durable, cost-effective catalysts (Yao p. 6 col. 1). Similarly, the nanoparticles of Zhu are also for use in catalysis (Zhu Introduction).
Furthermore, Zhu discloses manufacturing nanoparticles on carbon (Zhu Experimental Sections: Catalysts Preparation) with an fcc structure (Zhu Results and Discussion paras. 1-3). Similarly, Yao also discloses manufacturing nanoparticles on carbon (Yao p. 2 col. 2, Supplement p. 2) with an fcc structure (Yao p. 2 col. 3, Figs. 1, 2).
Zhu also discloses annealing the nanoparticles (Experimental Sections: Catalysts Preparation) to form an ordered intermetallic bct-type phase (Results and Discussion paras. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to anneal the nanoparticles of Yao to form an ordered intermetallic bct-type phase to enhance catalytic activity, durability, and stability as an electro-catalyst in fuel cell applications (Zhu Introduction, Conclusions).
Regarding claim 71, Zhu is silent to the MEI nanoparticle being octonary nanoparticles.
Yao discloses an octonary nanoparticle (PtPdCoNiFeCuAuSn) (p. 4 cols. 2-3; Supplement: p. 12, para. spanning pp. 13-14). With respect to a formula of (Pt0.8Pd0.1Au0.1)(Fe0.6Co0.1Ni0.1Cu0.1Sn0.1), generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the nanoparticles of Zhu to be octonary (PtPdCoNiFeCuAuSn) for more catalytically active metal combinations (Yao p. 4 cols. 2-3) with usefulness in catalysis (Yao p. 5 cols. 2-3) without compromising stability, such that they form active, durable, cost-effective catalysts (Yao p. 6 col. 1). Similarly, the nanoparticles of Zhu are also for use in catalysis (Zhu Introduction).
Furthermore, Zhu discloses manufacturing nanoparticles on carbon (Zhu Experimental Sections: Catalysts Preparation) with an fcc structure (Zhu Results and Discussion paras. 1-3). Similarly, Yao also discloses manufacturing nanoparticles on carbon (Yao p. 2 col. 2, Supplement p. 2) with an fcc structure (Yao p. 2 col. 3, Figs. 1, 2).
Zhu also discloses annealing the nanoparticles (Experimental Sections: Catalysts Preparation) to form an ordered intermetallic bct-type phase (Results and Discussion paras. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to anneal the nanoparticles of Yao to form an ordered intermetallic bct-type phase to enhance catalytic activity, durability, and stability as an electro-catalyst in fuel cell applications (Zhu Introduction, Conclusions).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 18, 21-22, 26, and 67-73 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 30-37 of copending Application No. 18/405,784 (App ‘784) in view of Zhu (Zhu et al. Copper-Induced Formation of Structurally Ordered Pt-Fe-Cu Ternary Intermetallic Electrocatalysts with Tunable Phase Structure and Improved Stability. Chemistry of Materials, 2018, 30, 5987-5995.).
App ‘784 discloses PtPdCoNiFeCuAuSn nanoparticles (claim 36) on a carbon-based support (claim 37) in a single-phase (claims 32-33) to form a (catalytic) structure (claim 30).
App ‘784 is silent to the nanoparticle being multielement intermetallic (MEI) with the claimed structure.
Zhu also discloses annealing the nanoparticles (Experimental Sections: Catalysts Preparation) to form an ordered intermetallic bct-type phase (structure that reads on the claims) (Abstract, Results and Discussion paras. 1-6, Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to anneal the nanoparticles of App ‘784 to form an ordered intermetallic bct-type phase to enhance catalytic activity, durability, and stability as an electro-catalyst in fuel cell applications (Zhu Introduction, Conclusions). Therefore, App ‘784 in view of Zhu renders obvious the claimed structure, nanoparticle composition, and nanoparticle structure.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 18, 21-22, 26, 67-73 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 29-32 of copending Application No. 18/783,558 (App ‘558) in view of Zhu (Zhu et al. Copper-Induced Formation of Structurally Ordered Pt-Fe-Cu Ternary Intermetallic Electrocatalysts with Tunable Phase Structure and Improved Stability. Chemistry of Materials, 2018, 30, 5987-5995.).
App ‘558 discloses octonary nanoparticles of Pd, Ni, Co, Au, Cu, Fe, Sn, and Pt (claim 32) on a carbon-based support (claim 29).
App ‘558 is silent to the nanoparticle being multielement intermetallic (MEI) with the claimed structure.
Zhu also discloses annealing the nanoparticles (Experimental Sections: Catalysts Preparation) to form an ordered intermetallic bct-type phase (structure that reads on the claims) (Abstract, Results and Discussion paras. 1-6, Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to anneal the nanoparticles of App ‘558 to form an ordered intermetallic bct-type phase to enhance catalytic activity, durability, and stability as an electro-catalyst in fuel cell applications (Zhu Introduction, Conclusions). Therefore, App ‘784 in view of Zhu renders obvious the claimed structure, nanoparticle composition, and nanoparticle structure.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Related Art
Jana (Jana et al. Facile solvothermal synthesis of highly active and robust Pd1.87Cu0.11Sn electrocatalyst towards direct ethanol fuel cell applications. Materials Research Express 3 (2016) 084001)
Jana discloses ordered intermetallic Pd1.87Cu0.11Cn ternary nanoparticles (Abstract) with an interconnected network type morphology to form a larger network type structure with an average particle size of about 9 nm and (2Ī0), (202), (300), and (2Ī4) crystallographic planes (3.1. Structural characterization).
Nguyen (Nguyen et al. Synthesis of carbon supported ordered tetragonal pseudo-ternary Pt2M’M’’ (M=Fe, Co, Ni) nanoparticles and their activity for oxygen reduction reaction. Journal of Power Sources 280 (2015) 459-466.)
Nguyen discloses ternary Pt-base transition metal intermetallics with particle sizes of 3-5 nm having compositions of Pt2FeCo, Pt2FeNi, and Pt2CoNi prepared by dispersing on a carbon support (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 4, Scheme 1, 4. Conclusions) in which an ordered tetragonal structure forms upon annealing (3.1. Synthesis and crystal structure analysis).
Chih-Fang Tsai (Tsai et al. Effect of platinum present in multi-element nanoparticles on methanol oxidation. Journal of Alloys and Compounds 478 (2009) 868-871.)
Chih-Fang Tsai discloses Pt-Fe-Co-Ni-Cu-Ag nanoparticles (Abstract) such as for use in direct methanol fuel cells (1. Introduction) fabricated on carbon cloth (2.1. Preparation of the multi-element nanoparticles).
Soltani (Soltani et al. Towards multi-component intermetallic nanoparticles as efficient and low-cost catalysts. Journal of Alloys and Compounds 956 (2023) 170254)
Soltani, available online 23 April 2023, discloses multicomponent intermetallic compounds of (NiCoFeCu)1-xSbx with a hexagonal structure (Abstract) with a single phase (3. Results and discussion para. 1).
Nakanishi (Nakanishi et al. In-situ HREM Observation of Phase Transformation Process in FePt and FePtCu Nanoparticles. Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. Vol. 907E © 2006 Materials Research Society. 0907-MM05-04.1-6)
Nakanishi discloses FePtCu nanoparticles heated to form a chemically ordered face-centered tetragonal phase (L10) (Abstract, HREM observation of FePtCu nanoparticles) with an average diameter of 6 nm dispersed on a carbon film (Experimental Details paras. 3-4).
Wang (CN 107511487 machine translation)
Wang discloses multi-principal-element alloy nanoparticles ([0002], [0007]) composed of five or more elements ([0004]) such as NiCoCrFePt ([0015]) with diameters of about 10 nm and elements evenly distributed ([0044]) for use in catalysis ([0018]).
Hagedorn (US 2013/0150231)
Hagedorn discloses intermetallic nanoparticles of two or more metals exhibiting long range superlattice crystal ordering ([0006], [0025], [0048]) in which elements occupy separate sub-lattices ([0026]) made smaller than 10 nm, including smaller than 5 nm ([0010], [0021]). In Hagedorn the nanoparticles are in a colloidal suspension with electrostatic repulsion ([0022]) that is stable ([0024]) and can be coated on carbon nanotubes ([0043]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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 WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735