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
1. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 02/02/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search for both sets of claims overlaps and the issue regarding patentability are the same. This is not found persuasive because there would be serious search and examination burden if the restriction were not required as Group I would require a search in at least H01M4/88 as well as a unique keyword search different from that of Group II. Group II would not be searched the same as Group I and would require a search in at least H01M8/08 as well as a unique keyword search different from that of Group I. Further it is the Examiner’s position that the issues regarding patentability are not the same, however if the applicant is attempting to clearly admit on the record that the inventions are not patentably distinct and/or are obvious variants of one another the admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the other invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 17-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/02/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/17/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
3. Claims 5 and 10-16 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.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation “wherein after inducing the curvature of the active sites of the molecular catalyst further comprising: receiving CO.sub.2 at the active site; releasing CO from the active site; and releasing methanol from the active sites” in claim 5, lines 1-5 is indefinite because as the receiving CO.sub.2 happens after inducing curvature, it is unclear what is being further comprised as the method of claim 1 is a method for inducing degree of curvature so if the receiving CO.sub.2 takes place after inducing the curvature it is unclear how the receiving of CO.sub.2 is part of the method of claim 1 as it appears the applicant is attempting to recite process steps for a process of using the molecular catalyst produced in claim 1. For examination purposes the aforementioned recitation will be interpreted as “wherein after inducing the curvature of the active sites of the molecular catalyst the molecular catalyst is configured for: receiving CO.sub.2 at the active site; releasing CO from the active site; and releasing methanol from the active sites”.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation “the active sites” in claim 10, line 5 lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. For examination purposes the aforementioned recitation will be interpreted as “active sites”.
Regarding claim 14, the recitation “wherein after inducing the curvature of the active sites of the molecular catalyst further comprises: effecting an oxygen reduction reaction by the molecular catalyst” in claim 14, lines 1-3 is indefinite because the method of claim 11 is a method of inducing the curvature and the effecting an oxygen reduction reaction takes place after the curvature has been induced, therefore it is unclear what is being further comprised as the effecting an oxygen reduction reaction is not recited as part of the method of claim 1 and it appears the applicant is attempting to recite process steps for a process of using the molecular catalyst produced by claim 11. For examination purposes the aforementioned recitation will be interpreted as “wherein after inducing the curvature of the active sites of the molecular catalyst the molecular catalyst is configured for: effecting an oxygen reduction reaction by the molecular catalyst”.
Regarding claim(s) 11-13 and 15-16, the claim(s) is/are rejected as they depend from, and therefore incorporate the claimed subject matter from claims rejected under this statute.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
4. Claims 5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 5, the claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, as claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, which is a method of altering a degree of curvature of a molecular catalyst for CO.sub.2 reduction reaction, and claim 5 is related to a method of using the catalyst produced in claim 1 therefore it relates to a process of using the molecular catalyst produced by the method of claim 1 and not further limiting the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the claim fails to further the limit the subject matter of the claim upon which is depends as claim 14 is dependent from claim 11 which is a further limitation of claim 10 which is a method of altering a degree of curvature of a molecular catalyst, and claim 5 is related to a method of using the catalyst produced in claims 10 and 11, therefore it relates to a process of using the molecular catalyst produced in claim 11 and not a further limitation of a method of altering a degree of curvature of the molecular catalyst.
Regarding claim(s) 15, the claim(s) is/are rejected as they depend from, and therefore incorporate the claimed subject matter from claims rejected under this statute.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (Pub. No. CN 110911694 A) in view of Kishida et al. (Pub. No. US 20170117555 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liang teaches a method of altering a degree of curvature of a molecular catalyst for CO.sub.2 reduction reaction (CO.sub.2RR) for higher catalytic activity (method of preparing an electrocatalyst, see [0011]), comprising: providing a carbon nanotube (carbon nanomaterial, see [0011], see [0091] gives specific example of using carbon nanotubes); providing a molecular catalyst (metal phthalocyanine, see [0011], see [0091] gives specific example of cobalt phthalocyanine) having active sites for CO.sub.2RR (catalyzing reduction of carbon dioxide, see [0011], although the metal phthalocyanine is not specifically mentioned as having active sites, see [0057] the metal phthalocyanine have excellent electrocatalytic reduction of carbon dioxide, therefore it is the Examiner’s opinion that the metal phthalocyanine would exhibit active sites); dispersing the molecular catalyst (metal phthalocyanine, see [0011], see [0091] gives specific example of cobalt phthalocyanine) on the carbon nanotube (carbon nanomaterial, see [0011], see [0091] gives specific example of using carbon nanotubes, see [0011] the metal phthalocyanine is combined with carbon nanomaterials using π-π interaction, see [0091] the materials are mixed); but fails to explicitly teach wherein the carbon nanotube is single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT), and inducing a curvature of the active sites of the molecular catalyst.
However, Kishida teaches wherein the carbon nanotube (CNTs, see [0044]) is single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) (single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs), see [0044]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Liang such that the carbon nanotubes of the carbon nanomaterial are single walled carbon nanotubes as taught by Kishida as an art effective equivalent carbon nanotube for supporting redox catalyst (see [0046] of Kishida) and increasing electrical conductivity and mechanical properties (see [0044] of Kishida). Further Liang teaches that modifications can be made (see [00106] of Liang).
Liang in view of Kishida is silent to inducing a curvature of the active sites of the molecular catalyst.
However, Liang in view of Kishida teaches the same method and reactants as the present invention. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same method using the same reactants to produce the same product and would therefore expect the method as taught by Liang in view of Kishida to induce curvature of the active sites of the molecular catalyst.
Regarding claim 2, Liang in view of Kishida teaches wherein the dispersing the molecular catalyst (metal phthalocyanine, see [0011], see [0091] gives specific example of cobalt phthalocyanine) on the SWCNT (single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs), see [0044] of Kishida, see modifications above) comprises: providing a solution (solvent, see [0011]) having N,N-dimethylformamide (N, N-dimethylformamide, see [0064], see [0091] gives a specific example of solvent being N, N-dimethylformamide); adding the molecular catalyst (metal phthalocyanine, see [0011], see [0091] gives specific example of cobalt phthalocyanine) and the SWCNT (single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs), see [0044] of Kishida, see modifications above) into the solution (solvent, see [0011] where each of the materials is dispersed in N, N-dimethylformamide and mixed together into one mixture); performing a sonication (ultrasonicated, see [0011], see [0091] gives a specific example of the ultrasonication) to the solution (solvent, see [0011] where the mixture of solvent, metal phthalocyanine, and carbon nanomaterial is ultrasonicated, see [0091] gives an example showing the ultrasonication); and performing a magnetic stirring (magnetic stirring, see [0091]) to the solution (solvent, see [0011] where the mixture of solvent, metal phthalocyanine, and carbon nanomaterial are magnetically stirred).
Regarding claim 3, Liang in view of Kishida teaches, wherein the inducing the curvature of the active sites of the molecular catalyst comprises: initiating a non-parallel π-π interactions (see [0011] the metal phthalocyanine is combined with carbon nanomaterials using π-π interaction) between the molecular catalyst (metal phthalocyanine, see [0011], see [0091] gives specific example of cobalt phthalocyanine) and the SWCNT (single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs), see [0044] of Kishida, see modifications above), but is silent to wherein the inducing the curvature of the active sites of the molecular catalyst comprises: initiating a non-parallel π-π interactions.
However, Liang in view of Kishida teaches the same method and reactants as the present invention. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same method using the same reactants to produce the same product and would therefore expect the method as taught by Liang in view of Kishida to exhibit wherein the inducing the curvature of the active sites of the molecular catalyst comprises: initiating a non-parallel π-π interactions.
Regarding claim 4, Liang in view of Kishida is silent to wherein the inducing the curvature of the active sites of the molecular catalyst comprises: bending the active sites of the molecular catalyst from a flat configuration to a curved configuration.
However, Liang in view of Kishida teaches the same method and reactants as the present invention. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same method using the same reactants to produce the same product and would therefore expect the method as taught by Liang in view of Kishida to exhibit wherein the inducing the curvature of the active sites of the molecular catalyst comprises: bending the active sites of the molecular catalyst from a flat configuration to a curved configuration.
Regarding claim 7, Liang in view of Kishida teaches wherein the molecular catalyst (metal phthalocyanine, see [0011], see [0091] gives specific example of cobalt phthalocyanine) is a macrocyclic molecule (see [0013] wherein the metal phthalocyanine is represented by Fig. 1 which is a macrocyclic molecule) selected from a metal phthalocyanine (metal phthalocyanine, see [0011], see [0091] gives specific example of cobalt phthalocyanine), a metal porphyrin, a metal tetraphenylporphyrin, or a metal quaterpyridine.
Regarding claim 8, Liang in view of Kishida teaches wherein the metal (metal of metal phthalocyanine, see [0011]) comprises cobalt (Co) (cobalt phthalocyanine, see [0017], see [0091] gives specific example), nickel (Ni) (nickel phthalocyanine, see [0017], see [0078] gives a specific example), manganese (Mn) (manganese phthalocyanine, see [0017]), and iron (Fe) (iron phthalocyanine, see [0017]).
Regarding claim 9, Liang in view of Kishida teaches wherein the molecular catalyst (metal phthalocyanine, see [0011], see [0091] gives specific example of cobalt phthalocyanine) is a cobalt phthalocyanine (cobalt phthalocyanine, see [0017], see [0091] gives specific example) or a nickel phthalocyanine (nickel phthalocyanine, see [0017], see [0078] gives a specific example).
Regarding claim 10, Liang teaches a method of altering degree of curvature of a molecular catalyst comprising: comprising: providing a carbon nanotube (carbon nanomaterial, see [0011], see [0091] gives specific example of using carbon nanotubes); providing a molecular catalyst (metal phthalocyanine, see [0011], see [0091] gives specific example of cobalt phthalocyanine); dispersing the molecular catalyst (metal phthalocyanine, see [0011], see [0091] gives specific example of cobalt phthalocyanine) on the carbon nanotube (carbon nanomaterial, see [0011], see [0091] gives specific example of using carbon nanotubes, see [0011] the metal phthalocyanine is combined with carbon nanomaterials using π-π interaction, see [0091] the materials are mixed); but fails to explicitly teach wherein the carbon nanotube is single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT), and inducing a curvature of the active sites of the molecular catalyst. See 112 rejection above for interpretation.
However, Kishida teaches wherein the carbon nanotube (CNTs, see [0044]) is single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) (single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs), see [0044]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Liang such that the carbon nanotubes of the carbon nanomaterial are single walled carbon nanotubes as taught by Kishida as an art effective equivalent carbon nanotube for supporting redox catalyst (see [0046] of Kishida) and increasing electrical conductivity and mechanical properties (see [0044] of Kishida). Further Liang teaches that modifications can be made (see [00106] of Liang).
Liang in view of Kishida is silent to inducing a curvature of the active sites of the molecular catalyst.
However, Liang in view of Kishida teaches the same method and reactants as the present invention. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same method using the same reactants to produce the same product and would therefore expect the method as taught by Liang in view of Kishida to induce curvature of the active sites of the molecular catalyst.
Regarding claim 11, Liang in view of Kishida teaches wherein the molecular catalyst (metal phthalocyanine, see [0011], see [0091] gives specific example of cobalt phthalocyanine) is a macrocyclic molecule (see [0013] wherein the metal phthalocyanine is represented by Fig. 1 which is a macrocyclic molecule) selected from a metal phthalocyanine (metal phthalocyanine, see [0011], see [0091] gives specific example of cobalt phthalocyanine), a metal porphyrin, a metal tetraphenylporphyrin, or a metal quaterpyridine.
Regarding claim 12, Liang in view of Kishida teaches wherein the metal (metal of metal phthalocyanine, see [0011]) comprises cobalt (Co) (cobalt phthalocyanine, see [0017], see [0091] gives specific example), nickel (Ni) (nickel phthalocyanine, see [0017], see [0078] gives a specific example), manganese (Mn) (manganese phthalocyanine, see [0017]), and iron (Fe) (iron phthalocyanine, see [0017]).
Regarding claim 13, Liang in view of Kishida fails to specifically teach wherein the molecular catalyst is an iron phthalocyanine.
However, Liang further teaches wherein the molecular catalyst (metal phthalocyanine, see [0011]) is an iron phthalocyanine (iron phthalocyanine, see [0017]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Liang in view of Kishida such that the metal phthalocyanine is iron phthalocyanine as Liang teaches it is known in the art to do so. Further Liang in view of Kishida teaches that modifications can be made (see [00106] of Liang).
Regarding claim 16, Liang in view of Kishida is silent to wherein the inducing the curvature of the active sites of the molecular catalyst comprises: bending the active sites of the molecular catalyst from a flat configuration to a curved configuration.
However, Liang in view of Kishida teaches the same method and reactants as the present invention. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same method using the same reactants to produce the same product and would therefore expect the method as taught by Liang in view of Kishida to exhibit wherein the inducing the curvature of the active sites of the molecular catalyst comprises: bending the active sites of the molecular catalyst from a flat configuration to a curved configuration.
7. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (Pub. No. CN 110911694 A) in view of Kishida et al. (Pub. No. US 20170117555 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (Pub. No. US 20150340117 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Liang in view of Kishida fails to teach, wherein the SWCNT has a diameter of 1-6 nm.
However, Cho teaches wherein the SWCNT (carbon nanotube, see [0045], see [0002] where carbon nanotubes include/can be SWCNT) has a diameter of 1-6 nm (3 to 10 nm, see [0045]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Liang in view of Kishida such that the diameter of the SWCNTs is 3-10 nm as taught by Cho to improve dispersion of the carbon nanotubes (see [0045] of Cho). Further it would have been obvious to modify the diameter to stay within 3-6 nm as Cho teaches the diameter is a result effective variable of improving dispersion of carbon nanotubes, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I). Further Liang in view of Kishida teaches that modifications can be made (see [00106] of Liang).
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights