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 I in the reply filed on 6/19/26 is acknowledged.
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.
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) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busardo (US Pub.: 2021/0129115) and evidenced by Merriam-Webster definition for “Terrace” and Merriam-Webster definition for “Step” and Merriam-Webster definition for “Kink”.
Busardo describes a catalyst (title) that includes metal nanoparticles attached to a support of nanoparticles (para. 7). The metal nanoparticles may be in the form of a metal-oxide bond, such as Pt-O (para. 21). These metal nanoparticles may be in the form of agglomerates (para. 7, “The catalyst particles may loosely agglomerate so as to form a catalyst powder particles and may be bound on a carrier to form a catalyst”). These agglomerates can be considered to meet the cluster of Claim 1. The nanoparticle supports can include TiO2 (para. 102).
Busardo explains that the catalytic nanoparticles may comprise defects such as terraces, surface steps, kinks and vacancies (para. 213).
Busardo does not specifically state that the terrace crystal surface is more than the step and the kink crystal surface. Merriam-Webster defines a terrace as a relatively level area (definition 1), a flat or open platform (definition 1c), a raised area with a top level (definition 2b). Meanwhile, Merriam-Webster defines a step as a short distance (definition 3b), a space over one step (definition 3a). Finally, the definition provided by Merriam-Webster for “kink” includes a short tight twist, curl (definition 1) or imperfection (definition 5).
As to how this applies to Busardo, since a terrace is understood to describe a larger region of space, such as a level area or open platform, while a step defines a shorter region, such as a short distance and a kink describes an even smaller area, such as an imperfection, the area described as a terrace in Busardo would have a larger surface than the step or kink.
As to the hydrogen oxidation features, although Qamar does not state that the use of their catalyst is for this purpose, since this is an intended use feature, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention That the same compound would be capable of performing the same functions.
As to Claims 2, 3, 5 and 6, these claims describe properties of the composition if used for a particular purpose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition used in the same way would produce the same or similar characteristics.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busardo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 103073103).
Busardo teaches that their PtO-Titania catalyst is effective for use in a wide number of catalytic processes (abstract). Busardo teaches inclusion of Pt, Pd (see para. 31), but not both.
Wang describes a catalyst composition that combines PtO with another catalyst, which can include Pd or PdO and are deposited on a titania support (see Claim 6) for use in catalytically processing organic matter (Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Pd with PtO, as taught by Wang for use with the catalyst of Busardo because Wang explains that the use of two of these catalyst sis effective in the catalytic processing of organic matter.
References Made of Record
The following additional references from the examiner’s search are made of record: Qamar et al. “Self-Assembling behavior of Pt nanoparticles onto surface of TIO2 and their resulting photocatalytic activity”. Qamar describes a composition where platinum nanoparticles are supported on a titanium dioxide base (abstract). The Pt particles can agglomerate on the TiO2 surface (section 3.3, para. 1 and page 948, right col, para. 1 “most of the pt particles were present on the surface of support in the form of agglomerates”) and can be in the form of PtO (section 3.2, para. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights