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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 7-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-6 are examined herein.
Priority
The instant application claims no benefit of priority. As such, the effective filing date of the claims is 05 May 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 05 May 2023, is acknowledged and considered. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, with traverse, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 11 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the examiner has not provided sufficient reason to support the conclusion of patentable distinction.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Conclusions were not merely presented, examples were cited. For example, Groups I and II are related as process of making and product made. The cited work Le et al. (Chemosphere.2021;270:129417) demonstrates the instant process as claimed can be used to make another materially different product. The instant process comprises mixing Fe3O4 nanoparticles with a MOF and then heating. Le teaches a process of mixing Fe3O4 nanoparticles with a MOF and then heating to produce a magnetically recoverable catalyst. The same process is used, the product is materially different as the instant invention is directed to an Fe/Co alloy and the reference is directed to Fe/Cu.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-20 are withdrawn from consideration for not reading on the elected group.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4, recites the relative term “about,” this term is explicitly defined on page 13, line 18 of the specification. No 112(b) rejection is set forth.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al. (Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers.2020;108:64-70) in view of Hunter et al. (J. Mater. Chem. A, 2022, 10, 4489-4516).
Regarding claim 1, Tong teaches a magnetically recoverable catalyst comprising an Fe/Co alloy core and a nitrogen doped graphitized carbon shell (Abstract).
Tong does not teach a non-doped graphitized carbon shell.
Hunter teaches that graphitized carbon shells offer high electronic conductivity and chemical stability.
It would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the N-doped graphitic carbon shell of Tong with a non-dope graphitic shell. After 5 catalytic cycles the catalyst degrades to 89.3% efficiency, in order to prevent rapid degradation the skilled artisan would be motivated to substitute the shell of Tong for a non-doped graphitic shell as Hunter teaches the high chemical stability. The skilled artisan would know the introduction of nitrogen atoms into the graphitic carbon shell alters its structure and can increase the risk of oxidation.
Regarding claims 2-4, Tong is not explicit regarding core and particle diameters. Figure 2(c) of Tong depicts TEM images of FeCo@NGC with particle diameters between approximately 60 nm and 100 nm.
However, adjustment of the catalyst size would be routine optimization in the absence of criticality. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. The skilled artisan would know a smaller particle size increases surface area compared to volume of the catalyst; in turn this increases active sites for reaction.
Regarding claim 6, Tong teaches the IG/ID ratio is 1.21, the inverse (ID/IG) is 0.83.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al. (Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers.2020;108:64-70) in view of Hunter et al. (J. Mater. Chem. A, 2022, 10, 4489-4516) and in further view of Peng et al. (iScience.2022;25(5):104252).
Regarding claims 2-4, Tong and Hunter are not explicit regarding core and particle diameters. Figure 2(c) of Tong depicts TEM images of FeCo@NGC with particle diameters between approximately 60 nm and 100 nm.
Peng et al. teaches the effect of particle size on Fe/Co alloy nanoparticles wrapped in N-doped graphitic carbon and demonstrates adjustment of the particle size can promote catalytic selectivity.
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to fine-tune the size of the catalyst as taught by Tong and Hunter to optimize its catalytic activity, as taught by Peng.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al. (Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers.2020;108:64-70) in view of Hunter et al. (J. Mater. Chem and in further view of Jurca et al. (ACSAppl.Mater. Interfaces2021,13,36976−36981).
The teachings of Tong and Hunter are disclosed above and incorporated by reference herein.
Regarding claim 5, Tong is not explicit on the core of the catalyst as having a body-centered cubic crystal structure.
Jurca teaches a magnetically recoverable catalyst comprising an Fe/Co alloy core and a nitrogen doped graphitized carbon shell (Abstract) as having a body-centered cubic crystal structure.
As both Jurca and Tong teach Fe/Co on n-doped graphitized carbon catalysts it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the material would be or could be made to have a body-centered cubic crystal structure.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alshorifi et al. (ACS Omega 2022, 7, 27, 23421–23444) in view of Le et al. (Chemosphere.2021;270:129417).
Regarding claim 1 Alshorifi teaches recoverable Fe/Co-MOF nanocatalysts at an equal molar ratio.
Alshorifi does not tach a carbon shell surrounding the Fe/Co core.
Le teaches a magnetically recoverable catalyst with an iron and copper core and a carbon shell.
In KSR International Vo. V. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d (U.S. 2007), the Supreme Court particularly emphasized “the need for caution in granting a patent based on a combination of elements found in the prior art,” (Id. At 1395) and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious.
In this case at least prong B of KSR applies – substitution of one known element for another. It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the Fe/Co nanocatalyst taught by Alshorifi for the Fe/Cu catalytic core taught by Le. Alshorifi is focused on a greener approach to catalytic chemistry by the removal of heavy metals in industrial development. As Alshorifi teaches copper to be one of the worst heavy metals for humans and animals the skilled artisan would be guided to substituting the copper MOF of Le with the cobalt MOF of Alshorifi. Alshorifi demonstrates the reusability of the Fe/Co nanocatalyst, however a steady decrease in catalytic activity is observed over reuse of the catalyst four times (Figure 27). To stabilize the catalytic activity of the Fe/Co catalyst the skilled artisan would be guided to the carbon framework employed by Le, which can shield the degradation of the catalytic core. Le reports a maintained high catalytic performance of 92% after 5 consecutive uses, where Alshorifi reports a drop to 76.8% after 4 uses. Therefore to create a greener catalyst the skilled artisan would be guided to the Fe/Co core of Alshorifi, but to stabilize the catalyst the skilled artisan would be motivated to surround the core with a carbon shell, as taught by Le, to prevent degradation and maintain catalytic performance.
Thus, all of the elements of claims were known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claim 2, Alshorifi teaches the catalyst to be 3.0-23.6 nm.
Conclusion
Claims 1-6 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jerica K Wilson whose telephone number is (703)756-4690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Clinton Brooks can be reached at (571)270-7682. 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.
/J.K.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1621
/CLINTON A BROOKS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1621
Prosecution Insights