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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicants’ Priority Document was filed on October 30, 2023.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention III, claims 6-12, in the reply filed on June 16, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-5 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected metal doped organic framework-based catalyst (claim 1) and to a nonelected composition for 3D printing, and to an oxygen-sensing electrode that is 3D printed from said composition (claims 2-5), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 16, 2026.
Claims 6-12 are presently under consideration by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In (a) lines 1 and 2 of claim 7, (b) line 1 of claim 8, and (c) line 1 of claim 11, “one or more types” should be amended to recite “one or more”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (CN 109046332; English translation provided and relied upon).
Regarding claims 6-11, Lu et al. teach the preparation of a catalyst, wherein polymer microspheres are formed from a mixture of 3-aminophenol (claim 7), formaldehyde (claim 8), and ammonia (as a catalyst) and mixed with deionized water to form a mixed slurry, followed by microwaving and drying the mixed slurry to form carbon dot modified polymer microspheres. A catalyst precursor is then formed by loading a metal salt onto the modified polymer microspheres by wet impregnation and drying, and the catalyst precursor is calcined and cooled under an inert atmosphere to form the catalyst, wherein the calcination involves raising the temperature from room temperature to 200-300°C and holding for 1-4 hours, and raising the temperature to 400-600°C and holding for 3-6 hours. See paragraphs [0012]-[0020] of Lu et al.; note that paragraph [0019] discloses salts of palladium and platinum as exemplary metal salts (claim 11).
Example 1 of Lu et al. depicts an embodiment in which a solution of ammonia water, ethanol, deionized water, 3-aminophenol, and formaldehyde is formed transferred to a hydrothermal reactor and hydrothermally reacted at 200°C for 24 hours (claim 9) to form polymer microspheres (“preparing a carbon precursor by adding an aldehyde solution to a compound solution containing nitrogen”; “performing hydrothermal synthesis”). The polymer microspheres are subjected to a microwave reaction to obtain quantum dot-loaded carbon microspheres (“…using a microwave”). The carbon microspheres are then mixed with deionized water, mixed with a palladium salt (“reacting…with a metal solution”), washed and dried to form a solid. The solid is then calcined in an N2 atmosphere in a heating process of 300°C for 2 hours, and at 600°C for 4 hours to obtain the catalyst (“calcining…under nitrogen conditions”; (claim 10).
Lu et al. do not explicitly teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding (i) the step of calcining the carbon precursor under nitrogen conditions to prepare a nitrogen-doped carbon framework, (ii) reacting the nitrogen-doped carbon framework with a metal solution using a microwave, or (iii) the aforementioned method preparing a metal doped organic framework-based catalyst, as recited in claim 6.
As stated above, Lu et al. perform a calcination step after the carbon microspheres are mixed with a palladium salt, and perform microwaving on the polymer microspheres.
However, because the method disclosed in Lu et al. is comparable to that instantly claimed, with respect to subjecting a solution comprising 3-aminophenol and formaldehyde to a hydrothermal reaction under conditions comparable to that instantly claimed, employing metal salts of palladium and platinum, employing the steps of microwaving and of calcination, wherein the calcination conditions are also comparable to that instantly claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to reasonably expect (a) the calcination step disclosed in Lu et al. to prepare a nitrogen-doped carbon framework ((i) above), and (b) the method disclosed in Lu et al. to result in the formation of a metal doped organic framework-based catalyst ((iii) above), absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Additionally, although the method disclosed in Lu et al. comprises the steps recited in Applicants’ claim 6, said steps are not performed in the order as recited in this claim.
However, it has been held that:
Reversing the order of steps in a process does not impart patentability when no unexpected result is obtained. Ex parte Rubin (POBA 1959) 128 U.S.P.Q. 440, Cohn v. Comr. Pats. (DCDC 1966) 251 F Supp 378, 148 U.S.P.Q. 486.
Further, it has been held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results, see MPEP 2144.04, section C, and also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946), and In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930).
Therefore, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the method disclosed in Lu et al. by performing the microwaving step on the mixture of carbon microspheres, deionized water, and palladium salt ((ii) above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While Lu et al., as stated above, teach a microwaving step, said microwaving is performed at a temperature of 165°C and for 15 minutes (paragraph [0039] of Lu et al.). Thus, this reference is silent with respect to the microwaving conditions as recited in Applicants’ claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
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.
/Patricia L. Hailey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights