CTNF 18/478,872 CTNF 69382 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment, filed on December 15, 2023, has been made of record and entered. In this amendment, claim 1 has been canceled, and new claims 2-17 have been added. Claims 2-17 are presently pending in this application. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because (a) it is less than 50 words, and (b) it is missing a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. Additionally, the abstract refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention. MPEP 608.01(b)(I)(B). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 2-17 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 2-17 are indefinite because these claims, while being directed to a method of making an electride-supported metal catalyst, appears to recite only steps of forming the support material. The remaining required steps to obtain the catalyst as claimed (e.g., reaction or impregnation with a metal precursor) are not recited in Applicants’ claims. Additionally, the claimed step of “converting at least a portion of the support material to an electrically conductive support material” is undefined; the required steps to effect conversion of the support material are also not recited in Applicants’ claims. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim 14 is rejected because this claim recites the claim limitation “temperature is about 1200°C”, which fails to further limit the claim limitation “temperature between about 600°C and about 1100°C”, as recited in claim 2 , from which claim 14 indirectly depends. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-6 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0184281) . Regarding claims 2 and 3 , Ito et al. teach the preparation of an electrically conductive mayenite compound (12CaO·7Al 2 O 3 , aka Ca 12 Al 14 O 33 ; “C12A7”), wherein a body including a mayenite compound or precursor thereof is prepared and subjected to a heat treatment under a reducing atmosphere including an aluminum compound and carbon monoxide gas within a range of 1080°C to 1450°C. See paragraphs [0017], [0022], and [0050] of Ito et al. The body including a mayenite compound or precursor thereof may be a compact body of a mayenite compound powder, or may be a sintered body of a mayenite compound; see paragraph [0052]. The compact body of a mayenite compound powder is prepared from a raw material powder, followed by holding the raw material powder at a high temperature to synthesize the mayenite compound. The synthesizing temperature may range from 1150°C to 1460°C to form a “mayenite compound including a large amount of C12A7 crystalline structure”. Further, the synthesizing temperature is held for a time ranging from 1 hour to 12 hours. See paragraphs [0054]-[0068] of Ito et al., as well as paragraph [0072], which teaches that the resultant mayenite compound “may be an electrically conductive mayenite compound”. The sintered body of a mayenite compound may be obtained by heat-processing the aforementioned compact body, wherein the compact body is subjected to heat treatment in air at a temperature range of 300°C to 1450°C, with a holding time at the maximum temperature ranging from about 1 hour to 50 hours. See paragraphs [0076], [0079], and [0080] of Ito et al. Further regarding claim 2 , and also regarding claims 4-6 and 8-11, and 15 , Ito et al. teach that after preparation of the aforementioned body, heat treatment is performed thereon, under a reducing atmosphere including carbon monoxide gas, e.g., a reduced pressure environment (vacuum environment whose pressure is less than or equal to 100 Pa). The carbon monoxide gas may be provided from outside to the environment where the body to be process is placed, or the body may be placed in a container containing carbon, where the carbon monoxide gas is provided from the container when the body to be processed is subjected to the heat treatment. The heat treatment temperature ranges from 1080°C to 1450°C, with a temperature holding time for the body to be process ranging from 30 minutes to 50 hours, or from, particularly preferably, 2 hours to 25 hours. See paragraphs [0102]-[0104], [0106], [0111], and [0112] of Ito et al. Because Ito et al. teach heat treatment in a carbon monoxide atmosphere, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect the content of carbon monoxide in said atmosphere to comprise at most 100 vol. %, thereby reading upon the reducing gas volume percentage ranges recited in Applicants’ claims 2 and 8-11 . Regarding claims 12-15 , it is considered that because Ito et al. teach the preparation of an electrically conductive mayenite compound (12CaO·7Al 2 O 3 , aka Ca 12 Al 14 O 33 ; “C12A7”), wherein a body including a mayenite compound or precursor thereof is prepared and subjected to a heat treatment under a reducing atmosphere including an aluminum compound and carbon monoxide gas, and further wherein the heat treatment temperature ranges from 1080°C to 1450°C, with a temperature holding time for the body to be process ranging from 30 minutes to 50 hours, or from, particularly preferably, 2 hours to 25 hours ( claims 14 and 15), the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect partial decomposition of the C12A7 to C5A3, as recited in claim 12, wherein the aforementioned preparation would result in weight percentage decomposition of C12A7 comparable to that recited in claim 13 , absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary. Regarding claims 16 and 17 , it is considered that since the aforementioned preparation of the body to processed prior to heat treatment in carbon monoxide gas involves a heat treatment step (i.e., formation of a compact body of a “mayenite compound powder including a large amount of C12A7 crystalline structure” from a raw material powder, or heat treatment of the compact body to form a sintered body of a mayenite compound), the subsequent heat treatment of the body to be processed in carbon monoxide reads upon Applicants’ “second annealing” in claim 16 . Further, because the subsequent heat treatment is performed under a reducing atmosphere (vacuum environment whose pressure is less than or equal to 100 Pa), and at a temperature ranging from 1080°C to 1450°C, with a temperature holding time for the body to be process ranging from 30 minutes to 50 hours, or from, particularly preferably, 2 hours to 25 hours (paragraphs [0102]-[0104], [0106], [0111], and [0112] of Ito et al.), the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect partial conversion of the C12A7 to C5A3, as recited in claims 16 and 17 , absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary. Ito et al. do not explicitly teach that the preparation disclosed therein produces an “electride-supported metal catalyst”, as recited in Applicants’ claim 2 . However, because the preparation disclosed in Ito et al. is comparable to Applicants’ recited step of annealing a material comprising C12A7 at temperatures, durations, and an environment comparable to that respectively recited in Applicants’ claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to reasonably expect the preparation disclosed in Ito et al. to successfully and effectively obtain an electride-supported metal catalyst. Further, it is noted that the temperatures and durations for heat treatment disclosed in Ito et al. overlap and/or encompass that respectively recited in Applicants’ claims. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari , 182 U.S.P.Q. 549. “A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prime facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 U.S.P.Q. 90 (CCPA 1976 ) . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 AIA Claim 7 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Ito et al. do not teach or suggest heat treatment of the body to be processed in a reducing atmosphere including carbon monoxide at a temperature of about 900°C. See, for example, paragraphs [0017] and [0110] of Ito et al., the latter of which teaches that if “the heat process temperature is less than 1080° C., there is a possibility that sufficient electrical conductivity is not given to the mayenite compound.” Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Beach et al., U. S. Patent Publication Nos. 2020/0231455 and 2017/0253492, are the published forms of Applicants’ parent and grandparent applications, respectively. 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 March 6, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/478,872 Page 2 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/478,872 Page 3 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/478,872 Page 4 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/478,872 Page 5 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/478,872 Page 6 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/478,872 Page 7 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/478,872 Page 8 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/478,872 Page 9 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/478,872 Page 10 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/478,872 Page 11 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/478,872 Page 13 Art Unit: 1732