DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/650,606 application filed 30 April 2024, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 25-46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 17 August 2026.
Claims 1-24 are pending and have been fully considered.
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 6, 8, 11, 18, 20, and 23 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 6 recites “the atomic percentage (at %) of the non-reducible metal oxide in the MEA particle is less than about 20 at %.” Note that less than about 20 at % includes 0 at %. However, claim 5, from which 6 depends, recites that the MEA particle further comprises a non-reducible metal oxide. Thus, claim 6 contains a contradiction concerning the presence of the metal oxide. See, also, claim 18, which depends on claim 17.
Claim 8 recites “the atomic percentage (at %) of the metal chloride in the MEA particle is less than about 20 at %.” Note that less than about 20 at % includes 0 at %. However, claim 7, from which 8 depends, recites that the MEA particle includes a metal chloride. Thus, claim 8 contains a contradiction concerning the presence of the metal chloride. See, also, claim 20, which depends on claim 19.
Claim 11 recites “the atomic percentage (at %) of the non-reducible and high-temperature-stable compound in the MEA particle is less than about 20 at %.” Note that less than about 20 at % includes 0 at %. However, claim 9, from which 11 depends, recites that the MEA particle further comprises the non-reducible and high-temperature-stable compound. Thus, claim 11 contains a contradiction concerning the presence of the non-reducible and high-temperature-stable compound. See also claim 23, which depends on claim 21.
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 10 and 22 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. Claim 10 recites that the “non-reducible and high temperature-stable compound is selected from the group consisting of…KBr, NaNO3…” However, claim 10 depends from claim 9, which recites “a non-reducible and high-temperature-stable compound selected from the group consisting of carbides, borides, boron carbides, nitrides, boron nitrides, silicide, aluminides, phosphides, phosphates, sulfides, sulfates, hydrides, hydrates, carbonitrides, graphene, graphene oxide, carbon nanotubes, graphite, and any combinations thereof.” Neither KBr nor NaNO3 corresponds to any of the groups recited in instant claim 9. The same issue is present with claim 22, which depends on claim 21. 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 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) 1-2 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al in Nano-Micro Small (2022, vol 18, 2105611, 11 pgs).
With respect to claims 1-2 and 13-14, Park et al discloses “[t]his work presents medium-entropy alloys (MEAs) as OER electrocatalysts to simultaneously satisfy the requirement of high catalytic activity and long-term stability” [abstract] and “we first adopted MEAs as electrocatalyst candidates to simultaneously achieve high stability and catalytic properties. In an effort to enhance the water splitting activities, we employed MEAs that mainly consisted of iron which favors the OER. The MEA and oxide layer originated from the MEA which contains multiple transition elements exhibited superior OER activity with high corrosion resistance to the electrolyte. Since the activity and stability of catalysts for OER is highly affected by the microstructure and composition, the tailored composition of MEA can significantly enhance overall reaction properties. To maximize the exposed active sites and the intrinsic activity of the active sites, we adopted the anodic oxidation and cyclic voltammetry activation methods to the MEAs. The high stability of MEAs was verified by an anti-rust test that conducted in a 1 M NaOH solution, and various electrocatalytic properties were measured using three electrode systems. The overpotential for achieving a current density of 10 mA cm-2 was dramatically decreased after the anodization and cyclic voltammectric (CV) activation, from 370 mV for pristine Fe60(CoNi)30Cr10 MEA to 187 mV for CV activated Fe60(CoNi)30Cr10 MEA” [2nd paragraph on left hand side of page 2] and “[f]ive HEA/MEAs, two conventional HEA/MEAs, and three new MEAs were prepared to determine the optimum composition for the OER. The typical HEAs and MEAs, CoCrFeMnNi and CoCrNi, were selected and compared with the catalytic properties of the three new MEAs. To maximize the synergistic effect of the transition metal-based alloy, three new compositions of MEAs, namely, Fe57.5(CoNi)32.5Cr10, Fe60(CoNi)30Cr10 , and Fe62.5(CoNi)27.5Cr10 were selected, which is favorable for the OER [see paragraph under the heading “2.1. Distinctive Properties of MEAs Compared to Conventional Alloys]. Note that CoCrNi is a medium entropy alloy [see Figure 1b].
PNG
media_image1.png
327
373
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7, 9, 12, 15-17, 19, 21, and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6, 8, 11, 18, 20, and 23 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claims 3 and 15, Park et al does not disclose a promoter; with respect to claims 5 and 17, Park et al does not disclose the recited non-reducible metal oxides; with respect to claims 7 and 19, Park et al does not disclose the recited metal chlorides; with respect to claims 9 and 21, Park et al does not disclose the recited non-reducible and high temperature stable compounds; with respect to claims 12 and 24, Park et al teaches “Fe60(CoNi)30Cr10 MEA with a size of 30 x 75 mm…” [see 2nd paragraph on right hand side of page 10], which is outside the recited diameter range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
13 October 2026
Prosecution Insights