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 .
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.
Claims 1 – 6, 13 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 108122999A)
In regards to claim 1, Liu teaches Pt nanoparticle modified GaN nanowire (title, abstract). The nanowire is prepared by immersing GAN (gallium nitride) into Pt (platinum) nanoparticle colloidal solution, soaked, washed and dried to obtain Pt nanoparticle-modified GaN nanowires [0022]. The GaN nanowire contains Pt nanoparticle at 0.4 to 0.8 wt.% [0025]. The Pt nanoparticles on GaN provides the limitations of the claimed catalyst and thus should be effective for providing the intended use as catalyst for the conversion of methane to cyclohexane.
In regards to claim 2, Liu teaches the catalyst having GaN as balance of the catalyst which would be present in the claimed amount absent the amount of the Pt nanoparticles.
In regards to claim 3, Liu teaches the catalyst having the claimed limitation as previously stated.
In regards to claim 4, Liu teaches the catalyst are nanoparticles comprising Pt nanoparticles on a GaN nanowire, which are both nanoparticles.
In regards to claims 5, 6, Liu teaches the catalyst having the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts and thus would be expected to have similar properties.
In regards to claims 13, 15 – 17, Liu teaches every step of the process including depositing the platinum onto the surface of the GaN using electron beam deposition or chemical reduction, washing the surface with water and drying [0022 – 0025, 0047 and 0048]. Chemical vapor deposition provides the step of chemical reduction as claimed.
In regards to claim 14, Liu teaches the process using electron beam deposition unto the nanowire but does not particularly recite photodeposition as claimed. However, in view of Kim et al. (KR 10-2011-0100478) such processes are known to use electron beam and/or photodeposition interchangeably for depositing particles on nanowires and would have been obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 – 12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Liu et al. (CN 108122999A) fails to teach the process of preparing cyclohexane using GaN or any of the claimed catalyst in reaction with methane.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771