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 .
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.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 1-5 were elected without traverse in the response dated 20 April 2026. As such claims 6-20 are withdrawn by the Examiner as non-elected. As such, THIS RESTRICTION REQUIREMENT IS MADE FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's request for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d). Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
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 5 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.
As to claim 5, it is indefinite as to what 1% to 99% is referring to, from review of “Example 1-1” in the Instant Specification it appears it is referring to the hydrogen content in the hydrogen+argon gas which is how it is being construed for the purposes of compact prosecution.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Two-Dimensional Effects on the Oxygen Reduction Reaction and Irreversible Surface Oxidation of Metallic Ru Nanosheets and Nanoparticles” to Takimoto et al. (hereinafter, “Takimoto at __”) in view of “Argon vs. Nitrogen Purging for Atmospheric Inerting” to Generon.
Regarding claim 1, Takimoto discloses a method of manufacturing an electrochemical catalyst (Takimoto at “Abstract”) comprising:
A step of preparing a metal oxide nanosheet precursor (ruthenium oxide nanosheet is prepared by exfoliation, Takimoto at “Synthesis of Metallic Ru Nanosheets Supported on Carbon Catalyst”); and
A step of heat-treating the metal oxide nanosheet precursor in a hydrogen and nitrogen atmosphere to manufacture a 2D metal nanosheet (in this case a ruthenium nanosheet. Takimoto discloses 10% H2 in N2).
However, Takimoto does not disclose that argon is used.
Generon discloses that in reaction environments that argon can be substituted for nitrogen (Generon at “Argon vs. Nitrogen Inert Atmosphere”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to substitute the nitrogen of Takimoto for the argon of Generon. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being preventing oxygen and moisture out more effectively than nitrogen and less dispersing of the Ar molecules than in nitrogen (Id.).
Concerning claim 2, “Figure S6” discloses voids in the nanosheet so the aspect of hole formation is considered to be met.
PNG
media_image1.png
684
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, the metal oxide nanosheet precursor is ruthenium oxide.
Turning to claim 4, heat treatment is done at 200 C (Takimoto at “Synthesis of Metallic Ru Nanosheets Supported on Carbon Catalyst”).
With respect to claim 5, 10% hydrogen (Id.). To the extent the Office’s statement regarding how the claim is being construed, in event of arguendo the hydrogen plus argon adds up to 100% which lies close to 99% such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Holey Ruthenium Nanosheets with Moderate Aluminum Modulation toward Hydrogen Evolution” to Zhang et al., is the closest piece of prior art to claim 2 and it discloses a ruthenium nanosheet having holes but it is obtained chemically via preparing a Ru3Al nanosheet via mixing Ru(acac)3, Al(acac)3, and a urea solution together which is then centrifuged and dried, there is no annealing of an oxide nanosheet in a hydrogen+argon atmosphere nor is there any motivation to utilize such present.
CN114749674 discloses a method of making a bismuth nanobelt (which is a 1D structure) by forming a bismuth oxide nanosheet which is then annealed at 600 C in a hydrogen/argon atmosphere.
“Topochemical Transformation of Two-Dimensional VSe2 into Metallic Nonlayered VO2 for Water Splitting Reactions in Acidic and Alkaline Media” discloses a method of making a holey vanadium oxide nanosheet (not vanadium nanosheet as required by the claim) by exfoliating vanadium diselenide which is then subjected to oxygen plasma treatment. No further reduction is performed.
Conclusion
Claims 1-5 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights