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
Applicant’s election of Group III and Species 2 (Claims 47-58) in the reply filed on 07/06/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 30-36 and 38 are withdrawn. Claims 47-58 are examined herein.
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.
Claims 47-58 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.
Claims 47 and 49-50 recites “NOx” in line 3 and line 2, respectively. However, “x” is not defined in the claim. It’s unclear what “x” represents. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “high entropy” in claim 58 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high entropy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 47-55 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer (Journal of Catalysis, 301(2013)210-216) in view of Hu (Platinum Metals Rev., 2012, 56(1), 40-46), and further in view of Carpenter (US 2013/0053239).
Regarding claims 47, 52, 54 and 55, Schaffer teaches a method comprising: subjecting ammonia to a reaction temperature of 773-1073 (i.e. 500-800 ºC) in the presence of a catalytic structure so as to convert the ammonia to NO products, wherein the catalytic structure comprises a support member and plurality of separate nanoparticles disposed on the support member, and the mean size of the nanoparticle is 1.6 nm (Page 211, 2nd column, last paragraph to Page 213, 1st column, 1st paragraph). Chaffer does not disclose that the nanoparticles contain more than three elements homogeneously mixed.
Hu teaches a catalyst for ammonia oxidation and discloses that Pt-4Pd-3.5Rh-0.1Ce alloy has high conversion rate for the oxidation of NH3 to oxide of nitrogen, a low Pt loss rate and high corrosion resistance (Page 45, Conclusion). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Pt-4Pd-3.5Rh-0.1Ce alloy as catalyst as taught by Hu in the process of Schaffer in order to achieve high conversion rate from NH3 to oxide of nitrogen and low Pt loss rate as disclosed by Hu. The Pt-4Pd-3.5Rh-0.1Ce alloy disclosed by Hu meets the recited limitations in claims 52, 54 and 55.
Schaffer in view of Hu does not teach that each nanoparticle has a single-phase solid solution of the elements homogeneously mixed. Carpenter teaches a method of making particles containing platinum alloy, comprising preparing salt solutions of platinum, palladium, nickel and cobalt, heating the solution mixture containing a reducing solvent, and cooling to form nanoparticles containing these elements (Abstract; [0020] to [0059]). Carpenter discloses that the method is efficient in making platinum-alloy nanoparticles with increased catalytic activity ([0005]; [0006]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make platinum alloy nanoparticles by mixing salt solution, heating the solution mixture containing a reducing solvent, and cooling to form nanoparticles as taught by Carpenter in the process of Schaffer in view of Hu in order to efficiently make platinum-alloy nanoparticles with increased catalytic activity as disclosed by Carpenter. Since the platinum nanoparticles disclosed in Carpenter are formed by first mixing the salt solution followed by a reducing reaction, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the nanoparticles disclosed in Carpenter are a single-phase solid solution of the elements homogeneously mixed as recited in claim 47.
Regarding claims 48 and 51, Hu discloses that the catalyst is Pt-4Pd-3.5Rh-0.1Ce alloy (Abstract), which does not contain Co. Carpenter discloses that the platinum alloy may contain Co ([0026]). Thus, claims 48 and 51 are obvious over Schaffer in view of Hu and Carpenter.
Regarding claims 49 and 50, Hu discloses that Pt-4Pd-3.5Rh-0.1Ce alloy has high conversion rate of 98.5% (Page 43, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph), which is close to the recited conversion rate. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claims 49-50 are obvious over Schaffer in view of Hu and Carpenter.
Regarding claim 53, Carpenter discloses that the reaction mixture contains metallo-organic precursor, formamide reducing agent and capping agent ([0023] to [0029]), which all contain C, N and O. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the nanoparticles produced in Carpenter contain small amount of C, N and O.
Regarding claim 57, Schaffer discloses that the support member comprises Al2O3 or CeO2-TiO2 (Abstract), which meets the limitation that the support member comprises a ceramic as recited in claim 57.
No art rejection of claim 58 is applied, because the term of “high entropy” is not defined in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 56 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights