DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 10 has been amended. Claims 11 and 18 are cancelled. Claims 1-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are pending in the instant application. Claims 1-9, and 19-20 remain withdrawn. Claims 10, and 12-17 are under examination on the merits.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment by Applicant’s representative Nicole Hackett on 07/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Specification
Applicant’s’ amendment to Specification [0064] overcomes the objection. The objection is withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§112(b)
Applicant cancels the rejected claim 18. The rejection is moot.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§102
Applicant amended claim 10 by further limiting the claimed nanocatalyst wherein the nanocatalyst is a nanocrystal.
In terms of the rejections over Su and Sun, Applicant argued both Su and Sun are totally silent on crystals. Applicant’s amendment and argument have been considered, but are not sufficient to overcome the rejections of Su and Sun. Su (left column, p.687) discloses the XRD patterns of NCPS@C@G in Figure 2(a) with distinct peaks demonstrating the presence of crystal structures. Further in view of Su et al. (Abstract at p.685) disclosure of a hollow bimetallic phosphosulfide Ni-Co-P/S nanoparticles in a CNT/rGO framework for battery-type supercapacitors, and a process of preparing the phosphosulfide Ni-Co-P/S nanoparticles having a porous and hollow nanostructure with a high specific surface area at p.686, it seems quite clear that the Ni-Co-P/S nanoparticles contain nanocrystals.
In terms of the rejection over Sun, Sun (left column, p.6972) discloses Cu-Ni-based catalysts, and nanosized catalytic particles have received much attention because of showing higher catalytic activities. Said nanosized catalytic particles of the Cu-Ni-based catalysts are indeed nanocrystals because of the XRD patterns of Cu-Ni/SiO2 catalyst hollow demonstrated in Figures 2-3 at page 6973. A Cu-Ni/SiO2 catalyst of nanosized catalytic particles showing XRD patterns indicates the presence of nanocrystals, which is further evidenced by Wu et al., RSC Adv., (2013), v.3, p.23976(1-4), see right column at p.23976. Therefore, the rejections over Su and Sun are maintained.
In terms of the rejection over Zhong, Applicant argued “Zhong does mention crystals, specifically noting that "[s]canning electron microscopy (SEM) images reveal that [the self-sacrificial template] HKUST-1 is octahedron-shaped nanocrystals." See Zhong, p. 8704. However, this disclosure implies nothing about the structure of the final alloy nanoparticles, which necessarily do not contain the self-sacrificial template. Indeed, per Zhong, "the characteristic diffraction peaks of HKUST-1 totally disappear in the XRD pattern of Pd- Cu@HO-ImIP, which further reveals that the HKUST-1 octahedral nanocrystals decompose after anion exchange." See Zhong, p. 8705.” (see page 7 of Applicant’s REMARK), it should be noted that Zhong disclosed the SEM image of Fig.(1c) Pd-Cu@HO-ImIP at p.8705, which demonstrates clean nanocrystal structures of Pd-Cu@HO-ImIP, probably before anion exchange. The Pd-Cu@HO-ImIP of Fig.(1c) Pd-Cu@HO-ImIP reads on the amended claim 10. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The following rejections are necessitated by the amendment filed 07/22/2026:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (revised)
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 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 10, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su et al., ACS Appl. Energy Mater., (2022), v.5, p.685-696 (Pub. Dec. 28 2021).
Applicant’s claim 10 is drawn to a nanocatalyst comprising: a first metal component, a second metal component, and a non-metal component, wherein the nanocatalyst is hollow, and wherein the nanocatalyst is a nanocrystal.
Su et al. (Abstract at p.685) discloses a hollow bimetallic phosphosulfide Ni-Co-P/S nanoparticles in a CNT/rGO framework for battery-type supercapacitors. Su et al. (left column, p.686) discloses a process of preparing the phosphosulfide Ni-Co-P/S nanoparticles having a porous and hollow nanostructure with a high specific surface area. Su (left column, p.687) discloses the XRD patterns of NCPS@C@G in Figure 2(a) with distinct peaks demonstrating the presence of crystal structures. Further in view of Su et al. (Abstract at p.685) disclosure of a hollow bimetallic phosphosulfide Ni-Co-P/S nanoparticles in a CNT/rGO framework for battery-type supercapacitors, and a process of preparing the phosphosulfide Ni-Co-P/S nanoparticles having a porous and hollow nanostructure with a high specific surface area at p.686, it would be clear that the Ni-Co-P/S nanoparticles contain nanocrystals.
In terms of the preamble “a nanocatalyst”, it is simply a statement of intend-to-use or purpose of the invention, not a separate claim limitation. [A] preamble simply stating the intended use or purpose of the invention will usually not limit the scope of the claim, unless the preamble provides antecedents for ensuring claim terms and limits the claim accordingly. Satisfaction of the claimed steps/elements necessarily results in satisfying the purpose of the invention or the intended use. Outdry Techs Corp. v. Geox S.P.A. 859 F.3d 1364, Fed. Cir. (2017). For the present case, Su et al. teaches the phosphosulfide Ni-Co-P/S nanoparticles has a porous and hollow nanostructure with a high specific surface area, it inherently can function as a nanocatalyst because a product is inseparable from its property. Therefore, Su et al. anticipates claims 10, 13-14, and 16, wherein first metal component is nickel, a second metal component is cobalt, and a non-metal component is phosphosulfide.
Claims 10, 12-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al., Chemistry Select, (2016), v.1, p.6972-6978.
Sun et al. (Abstract at p.6972) discloses a bimetallic Cu-Ni/SiO2 hollow spheres, and study on its catalytic property. In addition, Sun (left column, p.6972) discloses Cu-Ni-based catalysts, and nanosized catalytic particles have received much attention because of showing higher catalytic activities. Said nanosized catalytic particles of the Cu-Ni-based catalysts are nanocrystals because of the XRD patterns of the Cu-Ni/SiO2 catalyst hollow demonstrated in Figures 2-3 at page 6973. Therefore, Sun et al. teaches a catalyst comprising bimetallic Cu-Ni/SiO2 hollow spheres, which anticipates claims 10, 12-13, and 17.
Claims 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhong et al., Chem. Sci., (2018), v.9, p.8703-8710.
Zhong et al. (Abstract at p.8703) discloses Pd-Cu alloy nanoparticles (NP) embedded in hollow octahedral N-doped porous carbon (Pd-Cu@HO-NPC, “HO” means hollow octahedral). The hollow material is derived from HKST-1 coated by an imidazolium-based ionic polymer (ImIP). Zhong disclosed the SEM image of Fig.(1c) Pd-Cu@HO-ImIP at p.8705, which demonstrates clean nanocrystal structures of Pd-Cu@HO-ImIP, probably before anion exchange. The Pd-Cu@HO-ImIP of Fig.(1c) Pd-Cu@HO-ImIP reads on the amended claim 10, wherein first metal component is copper, a second metal component is palladium, and a non-metal component is HO-ImIP comprising N-doped porous carbon. Therefore, Zhong et al. anticipates claims 10, 12, and 15.
Conclusions
Claims 10, and 12-17 are rejected.
Claims 1-9 and 19-20 are withdrawn.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Status Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights