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 without traverse of Group II claims 7-18 in the reply filed on May 12, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 12, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 7-18 recite a single-atom catalyst structure. The Examiner has interpreted “single-atom catalyst structure” as a catalysts structure where single atoms are dispersed on or linked with suitable supports [Gawande et al., Carbon-Based Single-Atom Catalysts for Advanced Applications, ACS Catalysis 2020 10 (3), 2231-2259 (Year: 2020) pg. 2252, section 4]. Gawande reference is provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 8 and 9 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the three or more nitrogen elements is bonded to the transition metal element” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these underlined limitations in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 8 as “three or more nitrogen elements are bonded to a transition metal element”. Further, claim 8 recites “the nitrogen element bonded to the transition metal element forms a heterocycle with a plurality of carbons” in lines 4-5. Lines 2-3 of the claim, as described above, reference three nitrogen elements. Thus, it is unclear if only one of the nitrogen elements bonded to the transition metal is required to meet the limitation or if all of the three or more nitrogen elements bonded to the transition metal is required to meet the limitation, making the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 8 as “the nitrogen elements bonded to the transition metal element form a heterocycle with a plurality of carbons”. Correction is required.
Claim 9 recites in lines 3-4 "the three or more nitrogen elements and the one or more silicon elements is bonded to the transition metal element” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these underlined limitations in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 9 as “three or more nitrogen elements and one or more silicon elements are bonded to a transition metal element”. Further, claim 9 recites “the nitrogen element and the silicon element bonded to the transition metal element form a heterocycle with a plurality of carbons” in lines 6-7. Lines 3-4 of the claim, as described above, reference three nitrogen elements and one or more silicon element. Thus, it is unclear if only one of the nitrogen element and one silicon element bonded to the transition metal is required to meet the limitation or if all of the three or more nitrogen elements and one or more silicon elements bonded to the transition metal is required to meet the limitation, making the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 9 as “the nitrogen elements and the silicon elements bonded to the transition metal element form a heterocycle with a plurality of carbons”. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 7-8, 11-12, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee e al [US20180175395A1 as provided on the IDS dated 11/7/2023], hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses a single-atom catalyst structure [Lee’s catalyst structure as discussed throughout] comprising:
a three-dimensional ordered mesoporous carbon structure [Lee abstract 0011, 0058-0059, 0063-0068, and throughout, Fig. 2, Lee’s teaching of a uniform structure (0058) and network structure of porous carbon (0063) reads on “ordered” and Lee’s pore sizes of 5 to 100 nm (abstract, 0064-0068) read on mesoporous.]; and
a single-atom catalyst doped inside the three-dimensional ordered mesoporous carbon structure [Lee 0058-0059, 0062, 0069-0072, 0077-0085, Figs. 2, 8-10, 21 and throughout, Lee’s non-noble metal-based catalyst as described or provided in the above paragraphs and Figs. reads on single-atom catalyst. which is inside the mesoporous carbon as taught by Lee throughout.], wherein the single-atom catalyst includes transition metal, nitrogen, and carbon [Lee 0011-0014, 0017 and throughout, Figs. 2, 8-10, Lee teaches transition metals M such as Fe, Co, Mn, Ni, and Cr as catalyst of formula 1, which includes nitrogen, and carbon as shown in Figs. 2 and 8-10.].
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the single-atom catalyst structure of claim 7, wherein the single-atom catalyst is configured in which each of three or more nitrogen elements is bonded to a transition metal element, and the nitrogen elements bonded to the transition metal element form a heterocycle with a plurality of carbons of the three-dimensional ordered mesoporous carbon structure [Lee 0077-0085, Figs. 8-10, and formula 1 where nitrogen is up to four].
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses a cathode electrode comprising the single-atom catalyst structure according to claim 7 [Lee 0059, 0135, and throughout].
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses a cathode electrode comprising the single-atom catalyst structure according to claim 8 [Lee abstract, 0059, 0135, and throughout].
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses a fuel cell comprising the single-atom catalyst structure according to claim 7 [Lee abstract, 0059, 0135, and throughout].
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses a fuel cell comprising the single-atom catalyst structure according to claim 8 [Lee abstract, 0059, 0135, and throughout].
Claim(s) 7, 10-11, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang et al [Nanotechnology 31, 165708, 2020, as provided on the IDS dated 11/7/2023, and supporting information as provided herein], hereinafter Liang.
Regarding claim 7, Liang discloses a single-atom catalyst structure [Liang’s catalyst structure as discussed throughout] comprising:
a three-dimensional ordered mesoporous carbon structure [Liang pg. 2, experimental, Liang teaches a mesoporous carbon synthesized by nano casting using rod-like mesoporous silica (SBA-15), which reads on the claimed structure.]; and
a single-atom catalyst doped inside the three-dimensional ordered mesoporous carbon structure [Liang abstract, conclusions, and throughout, Fe-N-C supported doped mesoporous carbon catalyst as taught], wherein the single-atom catalyst includes transition metal, nitrogen, and carbon [Liang abstract, introduction, conclusions, and throughout, specifically p. 2, Fig. 1a as described in section 1, Fe-N-C supported doped mesoporous carbon catalyst as taught throughout.].
Regarding claim 10, Liang discloses the single-atom catalyst structure of claim 7, wherein the single-atom catalyst structure has no peak corresponding to transition metal particles and transition metal oxide particles shown in XRD analysis [Liang pg. 4, section 3, Figs. S3, S5, Liang teaches no peaks of transition metal particles and further provides Figs. S3 and S5 showing no evidence of the recited peaks. Thus, Liang meets the limitations of the claim.].
Regarding claim 11, Liang discloses a cathode electrode comprising the single-atom catalyst structure according to claim 7 [Liang abstract, section 1, 2.3, 2.4, 3 and throughout, Liang teaches electrocatalysts for oxygen reduction reactions throughout, which reads on a cathode electrode, and further teaches their use in fuel cells (section 3). Further per MPEP 2114, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Claim 11 requires no additional structural limitations; thus, the prior art applies.].
Regarding claim 14, Liang discloses a cathode electrode comprising the single-atom catalyst structure according to claim 10 [Liang abstract, section 1, 2.3, 2.4, 3 and throughout, Liang teaches electrocatalysts for oxygen reduction reactions throughout, which reads on a cathode electrode, and further teaches their use in fuel cells (section 3). Further per MPEP 2114, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Claim 11 requires no additional structural limitations; thus, the prior art applies.].
Regarding claim 18, Liang discloses a fuel cell comprising the single-atom catalyst structure according to claim 10 [Liang abstract, section 1, 2.3, 2.4, 3 and throughout, Liang teaches electrocatalysts for oxygen reduction reactions throughout, which reads on a cathode electrode, and further teaches their use in fuel cells (section 3). Further per MPEP 2114, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Claim 11 requires no additional structural limitations; thus, the prior art applies.].
Claim(s) 7-8, 10-12, 14-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mun et al [Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, Volume 222, 2018, Pages 191-199, as provided herein], hereinafter Mun.
Regarding claim 7, Mun discloses a single-atom catalyst structure [Mun catalyst structure as discussed throughout] comprising:
a three-dimensional ordered mesoporous carbon structure [Mun pgs. 192-194 and throughout, Fig. 1, Mun’s discussion of a soft-template combined with Fig. 1 reads on three-dimensional. Ordered mesoporous carbon is discussed throughout.] ; and
a single-atom catalyst doped inside the three-dimensional ordered mesoporous carbon structure [Mun pgs. 192-194 and throughout, Fig. 1 shows the single-atom catalyst structure within the mesopores], wherein the single-atom catalyst includes transition metal, nitrogen, and carbon [Mun pgs. 192-194 and throughout, Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 8, Mun discloses the single-atom catalyst structure of claim 7, wherein the single-atom catalyst is configured in which each of three or more nitrogen elements is bonded to a transition metal element [Mun pgs. 192-196, FeNx-C sites discussed throughout with bonding described and Fig. 1 shows Fe with four nitrogen bonded to Fe], and the nitrogen elements bonded to the transition metal element form a heterocycle with a plurality of carbons of the three-dimensional ordered mesoporous carbon structure [Mun pgs. 195-196 and throughout].
Regarding claim 10, Mun discloses the single-atom catalyst structure of claim 7, wherein the single-atom catalyst structure has no peak corresponding to transition metal particles and transition metal oxide particles shown in XRD analysis [Mun p. 195, Fe metal or Fe-oxide phase were not observed.].
Regarding claim 11, Mun discloses a cathode electrode comprising the single-atom catalyst structure according to claim 7 [Mun pgs. 191-193, 197-198] .
Regarding claim 12, Mun discloses a cathode electrode comprising the single-atom catalyst structure according to claim 8 [Mun pgs. 191-193, 197-198] .
Regarding claim 14, Mun discloses a cathode electrode comprising the single-atom catalyst structure according to claim 10 [Mun pgs. 191-193, 197-198] .
Regarding claim 15, Mun discloses a fuel cell comprising the single-atom catalyst structure according to claim 7 [Mun pgs. 191-193, 197-198, use in a fuel cell is discussed throughout] .
Regarding claim 16, Mun discloses a fuel cell comprising the single-atom catalyst structure according to claim 8 [Mun pgs. 191-193, 197-198, use in a fuel cell is discussed throughout] .
Regarding claim 18, Mun discloses a fuel cell comprising the single-atom catalyst structure according to claim 10 [Mun pgs. 191-193, 197-198, use in a fuel cell is discussed throughout] .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee or alternatively Mun in further view of Su et al. [International Journal of Hydrogen Energy pg. 28792-28799, 2020, as provided on the IDS dated 11/07/2023], hereinafter Su.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee or Mun discloses the single-atom catalyst structure of claim 7 and further teaches wherein the single-atom catalyst is configured in which each of three or more nitrogen elements is bonded to a transition metal element, and the nitrogen elements bonded to the transition metal element form a heterocycle with a plurality of carbons of the three-dimensional ordered mesoporous carbon structure [Lee 0077-0085, Figs. 8-10, formula 1 where nitrogen is up to four; Mun pgs. 192-196, FeNx-C sites discussed throughout with bonding described and Fig. 1 shows Fe with four nitrogen bonded to Fe and with plurality of carbons as claimed] but Lee and Mun are silent to wherein the single-atom catalyst further comprises silicon.
Su teaches Fe-N-Si tri-doped carbon nanofibers as 3D networked catalysts [Su abstract and throughout] wherein the single-atom catalyst further comprises silicon, in which each of three or more nitrogen elements and one or more silicon elements are bonded to the transition metal element [Su Fig. 1, The broadest reasonable interpretation of Su Fig. 1 is that three or more nitrogen elements and 1 or more silicon element is bonded to the transition metal element Fe. The silicon element would be considered bonded to the Fe element via carbon and nitrogen bonds, and thus meets the limitation.], and the nitrogen elements and the silicon elements bonded to the transition metal element form a heterocycle with a plurality of carbons [Su Fig. 1 shows this structure where nitrogen and silicon (bonded as interpreted above) form heterocycles (at least one atom in an organic ring is not carbon) with a plurality of carbons.]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to combine Su’s teaching of tri-doping carbon including silicon doping with Lee or Mun’s teaching of doped single-atom catalysts as described in claim 7 and above such that the silicon element, like the transition metal element as described above, is bonded to form a heterocycle with the plurality of carbons of the three-dimensional ordered mesoporous carbon structures taught by Lee or Mun. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Su with Lee or Mun as described for the predictable result of improved utilization of Fe precursors [Su p. 28795] and higher catalytic activity [Su p. 28797].
Regarding Claim 13, Lee or Mun modified by Su discloses a cathode electrode comprising the single-atom catalyst structure according to claim 9 [Lee 0059, 0135, and throughout; Mun pgs. 191-193, 197-198]. Claim 13 is obvious for the same reasons provided for claim 9 and further Su’s catalyst is for a cathode [Su p. 28796] for a fuel cell [Su p. 28793].
Regarding Claim 17, Lee or Mun modified by Su discloses a fuel cell comprising the single-atom catalyst structure according to claim 9 [Lee 0059, 0135, and throughout; Mun pgs. 191-193, 197-198, use in a fuel cell is discussed throughout]. Claim 17 is obvious for the same reasons provided for claim 9 and further Su’s catalyst is for a cathode [Su p. 28796] for a fuel cell [Su p. 28793].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday 9:00-5:00 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/M. T. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights