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 I invention (claims 1, 3-5, 8, 11, 17-18, 21 and 23) in the reply filed on 11/19/2025 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)).
Claims 28-29, 31, 34, 36-38, 40-41 and 46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/19/2025.
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.
Claim 1, 3-5, 8, 11, 17-18, 21 and 23 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. In this case, claim 1, 8 and 17-18 respectively recite “conductive”, but one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what “conductive” is exactly referring hereof, such as electrically conductive, or thermally conductive, magnetically conductive, or ionically conductive etc. Therefore, such term renders confusion for one of ordinary skill in the art. Secondly, claim 1, 17 and 23 recites “nanofiber”, but does not give a clear explanation what kind of nano material (or material with what type of dimensions), such as what diameter range together with what length ratio or aspect ratio can be considered as nanofiber, for example material having diameter range being 1 to 100 nm or 500 to 1000 nm and length range in micron ranges or in 100 nm range etc., the specification does not give any clear explanation what can be considered as nanofiber either. Therefore, the metes and bounds of such claimed nanofiber is indefinite. For examination on merit, given broadest and reasonable interpretation, any nanomaterial having length much larger than the diameter and diameter within nano meter size range would be considered to meet such claimed nanofiber. All claim 1’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 21 is 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. In this case, claim 21 recites “appears free of clusters or nanoparticles of the metal(s)”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain the exact metes of bounds of such limitation, or what can be considered as the catalyst appears or seems being free of clusters or nanoparticles of the metal(s), or the catalyst is actually being free of clusters or nanoparticles of the metal(s)? Therefore, such limitation renders claim indefiniteness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8 and 21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ((a) (1)) as being anticipated by Dong et al.( Electrospun single iron atoms dispersed carbon nanofibers as high performance electrocatalysts toward oxygen reduction reaction in acid and alkaline media, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 564 (2020) 134–142).
Dong et al. teaches a catalyst comprising carbon nanofibers (CNFs) (noted CNF is conductive) and a plurality of single-atom iron adhered (i.e. adsorbed) onto the CNF (page 135 section 2. Experimental-page 137 first para., Fig. 1-2) wherein Fig 2 c showing single atom state of iron (bright dots size) evenly distributed onto the CNF. Dong et al disclosed such single atom iron site contain the same iron metal.
Regarding claim 1, Dong et al. teaches every and each limitation of claim 1, therefore, claim 1 is anticipated by Dong et al.
Regarding claim 3-4 and 8, Dong et al. already teaches such limitations.
Regarding claim 21, Dong et al. shows the HRTEM image only showing presence of single atom of iron, but no iron clusters or nanoparticles (Fig. 2 (b), page 136 2nd para.-page 137 first para.).
Regarding claim 23, Dong et al. also teaches the iron anchored on nitrogen atoms at the surface of the nanofibers (Fig. 2 d, 2e, page 136 2nd para.-page 137 third para.).
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.
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.
2. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, 11, 17-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN113249739) (For applicant’s convenience machine translation has been used for citations hereof).
Wang et al. teaches a single atom metal (specifically Ru, Pt catalyst comprising metal phosphide (specifically cobalt phosphide) nanowire and single atom metals anchored (i.e. adsorbed) onto the metal phosphide nanowire (claims 1-10, bridging page 2 contents of invention section-page 5 third para. to embodiment 1-3), wherein the single atom metal site contains the same metal (Fig.1 -Fig 1-6). It is noted that cobalt phosphide is electrically conductive.
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al does not expressly teach the single atom metal being evenly dispersed onto the nanowire surface.
However, Wang et al. already teaches noble metal single atom being accurately anchored onto the metal phosphide surface by anion vacancy of such metal phosphide (page 2 2nd para., page 4 2nd last para., embodiment 1-3). It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to evenly disperse the noble metal single atom onto the metal phosphide nanowire for help obtaining a uniform catalytic performance over all the nanowire catalyst during the intended application of water electrolyzing as shown suggested by Wang et al (page 2 first para.).
Regarding claim 3-4 and 8, Wang et al. already teaches such limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Wang et al. also teaches the noble metal being Pt (embodiment 2, Fig. 5), which apparently has an oxidation state being greater than 0 but less than 4.
Regarding claim 11, the recited conductive polymer is not necessary presented in the instant method if metal, or oxide based porous material, or conductive carbon material being used as conductive material because claim 11 does not further limit the embodiment of conductive material being metal, or conductive oxide based porous material, or conductive carbon material and thus does not further limit those embodiments because the dependent claim is not positively limited to the conductive polymer material.
Regarding claim 17-18, Wang et al further teaches the catalyst being supported onto a conductive substrate selected from nickel foam, carbon cloth, carbon paper (claim 2, claim 10).
Regarding claim 21, Wang et al. disclosed catalyst comprising single atom noble metal being anchored onto metal phosphide material, no presence of cluster or nanoparticles of such metal (Fig. 1-6, embodiment 1-3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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 (Coris) 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.
/JUN LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights