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 .
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.
Status of Application
Claims 1-13 are pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's request for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d). Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 does not depend from claim 1, as such it should explicitly state the values of the limitations of claim 1 which aply to claim 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3 and 5 are 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. Claims 3 and 5 both depend from claim 1, claim 1 sets forth that x, y and z are between 0 and 1 (exclusive of the end points), as such y=z=u=v=0 cannot happen as y and z cannot be 0. From claim 5 it appears that maybe claim 1 should be 0<=x,y,z<=1 which would permit that but that is not presently what is claimed. Claim 5 does not further limit claim 1 for the same reasons as it shows for example Co0.5Fe0.5O0.5F1.5 which would be y=z=0.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6-13 are allowed (Claim 12 is allowable assuming the above objection is overcame).
As to claim 1, none of the cited prior art either alone or in combination discloses a composition of formula (I) as claimed. US PG Pub No. 20170233879 to Kumta discloses Sn0.75Ir0.25O0.5F1.5 which discloses M1=Sn, M2=Ir, neither of which are d/f block metals and discloses x=0.25, y=0, z=0, v=0, and w=0.5, however the value for w in the claims is w=0.25+0*(0.25-0.75)+0*(0-0.25)=0.25 so this does not meet the claimed value for w. “Investigating of mixed-metal (oxy)fluorides as a new class of water oxidation electrocatalysts” to Lemoine (cited and provided by Applicants) discloses a structure with Fe2 which is too higher to cover Formula (I).
Claims 6, 7, 9, 11, and 13 all incorporate ultimately the subject matter of claim 1 and it is allowed for the same reasons as the allowable product of claim 1.
As to claim 12, none of the cited prior art either alone or in combination discloses the compositional formula (II) as claimed. Kumta is the closest piece of prior art and it does not disclose the same metals nor a pentaflourination and seven waters of hydration present. Lemoine discloses F4.4 or F8(H2O)2, not F5(H2O)7.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6-13 are allowed. Claims 3 and 5 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 PM.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights