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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II invention, claims 30, 33, 35, 40, 42-43, and 50-56 in the reply filed on February 23, 2026 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)).
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 30, 33, 35, 40, 42-43, and 50-56 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 30 is indefinite. A broad limitation together with a narrow limitation that falls within the broad limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 30 recites the broad recitation metal oxide, and the claim also recites silica, titania and ceria, which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claim 55, the term “short” in “short range order” renders the claim indefinite because “short” is a relative term. The term “short” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Other claims are deemed indefinite in view of their dependence on claim 30.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 30, 33, 35, 40, 50, 51-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HU (US-2018/0369771)
Claim 30: Hu teaches a structure comprising multi-metallic nanoparticles and a substrate supporting the metallic glass nanoparticle thereon, wherein the substrate is a carbon-based substrate or comprises a metal oxide (Hu, para. 0027-0028). The multi-metallic nanoparticles are formed by uniformly depositing salt precursors onto a matrix and tehe precursor-loaded is treated with a rapid thermal shock leading to decomposition aof the precursors and nucleation of uniform nanoparticles (Hu, para. 0036). Therefore, the metal nanoparticles are a homogeneous mixture that forms a single amorphous solid.
Claim 33: Hu exemplifies a homogeneous mixture of (Pt,Pd, Au, and Fe), (PtPdNi, (FeCoNi), (PdSn-CoFeNiCu) and (PdNiCoAuCuFeSnPt) (para. 0042) which inherently has a standard molar entropy that is in a range of 25-45 J/mol-K
Claims 35 and 40: Hu exemplies a metallic glass nanoparticle wherein at least two metals are transition metals and the mixture is composed of at least seven metals (para. 0042).
Claim 50: Because the mixture is formed by thermal shock as discussed in claim 30 above, it is expected that wherein each element in the homogeneous
mixture has a standard molar entropy measured in J/mol-K that differs from an average of standard molar entropies for all elements in the homogeneous mixture by no more than 20%.
Claims 51-54: Hu exemplifies homogeneous metal mixture comprising
group 8-11 transition metals; or comprising Co, Ni, Pd, Pt, Cu, Fe, wherein at least two metals are selected from Co, Ni, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Ir, and Pt (Hu, para. 0027, 0042 and 0050).
Claim 55: In light of the transition metals that form a homogenous mixture by rapid thermal shock as discussed in claim 30 above, it is expected that the resulted homogeneous mixture exhibits short-range order.
Claim 56: Hu teaches the substrate of the structure comprises a plurality
of carbon nanofibers (para. 0042, and claims 7-8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 42-43 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art references of record, teach or suggest, a homogeneous mixture of metals composed of the specific elements as required in claims 42 and 43..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOA (Holly) LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00 am to 7:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
HOA (Holly) LE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/HOA (Holly) LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights