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
Claims 10-19 and 23-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/9/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, there is a redundant “the” stating “the the”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 and 20-22 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 1 contains the limitation, “i.e., obtaining the titanate nanofilm material containing embedded A nanoparticles”. This language is indefinite because it is confusing as to how it further limits step 3 or the final product of claim 1.
Claim 2 contains the limitation “the product prepared according to claim 1 or the titanate nanofilm material containing embedded A nanoparticles prepared according to claim 1”. This claim is indefinite because it is confusing whether the two products are different or merely reference two ways of stating the same product.
Claim 2 contains the limitation, “i.e., obtaining the titanate nanofilm material containing embedded A nanoparticles”. This language is indefinite because it is confusing as to how it further limits step 3.
Claim 3 contains the limitation, “the as-prepared product prepared according to claim 1 or the titanic acid nanofilm material containing embedded A nanoparticles prepared by the method according to claim 2”. This claim is indefinite because it is confusing whether the two products are different or merely reference two ways of stating the same product.
Claim 4 contains the limitation, “the product or the titanate nanofilm containing embedded A nanoparticles prepared according to claim 1”. This claim is indefinite because it is confusing whether the two products are different or merely reference two ways of stating the same product.
Claim 5 contains the limitation, “the product prepared according to claim 4 or the titanate nanotube material containing embedded A nanoparticles prepared according to claim 4”. This claim is indefinite because it is confusing whether the two products are different or merely reference two ways of stating the same product.
Claim 6 contains the limitation, “the as-prepared product according to claim 5 or the titanate nanotube containing embedded A nanoparticles prepared according to claim 5”. This claim is indefinite because it is confusing whether the two products are different or merely reference two ways of stating the same product.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the alkaline solution" in Line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 contains the limitation, “i.e., obtaining the titanate nanotubes containing embedded A nanoparticles”. This language is indefinite because it is confusing as to how it further limits step 3 or the final product of claim 1.
Claim 8 contains the limitation, “the product prepared according to claim 7 or the titanate nanotube material containing embedded A nanoparticles prepared according to claim 7”. This claim is indefinite because it is confusing whether the two products are different or merely reference two ways of stating the same product.
Claim 9 contains the limitation, “the as-prepared product according to claim 8 or the titanate nanotube containing embedded A nanoparticles prepared according to claim 8”. This claim is indefinite because it is confusing whether the two products are different or merely reference two ways of stating the same product.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the matrix" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 21-22 depend on claim 20 and therefore are indefinite for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 20-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art do not teach or suggest a method comprising all of the cumulative limitations of independent claims 1 or 7.
Song et al (Nanoporous Pd/TiO2 composites prepared by one-step dealloying and their electrocatalytic performance for methanol/ethanol oxidation, Materials Chemistry and Physics, 161 (2015) 153-161).
Song teaches a method for preparing a nanoporous Pd/TiO2 composites, the method comprising:
Synthesizing Al-Pd-Ti precursor alloys;
Dealloying in a 20 wt% NaOH solution at room temperature then subsequently dealloying continuously in the same solution at 60°C for 48 hours;
Washing and drying the dealloyed samples (see Experimental).
Regarding claim 1, Song does not teach that the reaction interface advances inwards from the surface of the initial alloy at an average rate of greater than 2 µm /min. Further it is noted that a 20 wt% NaOH solution has a molarity of about 6.10 M which is significantly less than the 10 to 15 M solutions used for step b in the examples and the temperature of 60°C is significantly less than the temperature of 119°C used in the examples. Therefore, since the reaction conditions are different, there is no reason for an artisan to expect that the reaction interface advances inwards from the surface of the initial alloy at an average rate of greater than 2 µm /min as required in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Song does not teach sealing the initial alloy with alkaline solution in a closed vessel and subsequently heating the closed reaction system to the temperature of T2 and holding it for a certain period of time; wherein 100°C < Tfsolution < T2 and the pressure at the temperature of T2 is higher than the ambient pressure as required in claim 7.
Liu et al (Highly dispersive Au nanoparticles on TiO2 nanofibers as a supported catalyst synthesized form Al-Ti-Au intermetallic compound, Chemical Engineering Science 211 (2020) 115249, pp. 1-9). Liu teaches a method comprising:
Preparing an Al-Pd-Ti mother alloy;
Leaching the mother alloy in a 20 wt% NaOH solution for 3 h at 80°C;
Washing and drying the dealloyed samples (see Experimental).
Regarding claim 1, Liu does not teach that the reaction interface advances inwards from the surface of the initial alloy at an average rate of greater than 2 µm /min. Further it is noted that a 20 wt% NaOH solution has a molarity of about 6.10 M which is significantly less than the 10 to 15 M solutions used for step b in the examples and the temperature of 80°C is significantly less than the temperature of 119°C used in the examples. Therefore, since the reaction conditions are different, there is no reason for an artisan to expect that the reaction interface advances inwards from the surface of the initial alloy at an average rate of greater than 2 µm /min as required in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Liu does not teach sealing the initial alloy with alkaline solution in a closed vessel and subsequently heating the closed reaction system to the temperature of T2 and holding it for a certain period of time; wherein 100°C < Tfsolution < T2 and the pressure at the temperature of T2 is higher than the ambient pressure as required in claim 7.
Shi et al (Improving the photocatalytic performance of a sea cucumber-like nanoporous TiO2 loaded with Pt-Ag for water splitting, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44 (2019) 13040-13051).
Shi teaches a method for preparing a nanoporous TiO2 loaded with Pt-Ag, the method comprising:
Synthesizing Al92Ti7.96-xPt0.04Agx (x=0.05, 0.1 and 0.15) ribbons (i.e., Ti, T-type = Al, and A-group = Pt and Ag where the atomic percentage of Ag is less than 50%);
Immersing the pre-prepared ribbons in 10 wt% NaOH at ambient temperature for 2 h, then aqueous solution undergone for 10 h in 80°C water bath;
Washing the obtained sample with distilled water, then drying in the oven.
Regarding claim 1, Shi does not teach that the reaction interface advances inwards from the surface of the initial alloy at an average rate of greater than 2 µm /min. Further it is noted that a 10 wt% NaOH solution has a molarity of about 2.78M which is significantly less than the 10 to 15 M solutions used for step b in the examples and the temperature of 80°C is significantly less than the temperature of 119°C used in the examples. Therefore, since the reaction conditions are different, there is no reason for an artisan to expect that the reaction interface advances inwards from the surface of the initial alloy at an average rate of greater than 2 µm /min as required in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Shi does not teach sealing the initial alloy with alkaline solution in a closed vessel and subsequently heating the closed reaction system to the temperature of T2 and holding it for a certain period of time; wherein 100°C < Tfsolution < T2 and the pressure at the temperature of T2 is higher than the ambient pressure as required in claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FORREST whose telephone number is (571)270-5833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10AM-6PM).
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights