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Claims 1-4, 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/23/26.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 8, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 112892564) and in view of Stilldragon “3 ways to manage a reflux still column” and in view of Zeng (CN 106492859) and in view of Su (CN 103316702).
Yu describes a method of making a black phosphorus-treated copper-based catalyst (abstract). The method of making involves combining a source of black phosphorus precursor into a copper powder catalyst (page 2, step 2).
The black phosphorus can be in the form of black phosphorus quantum dots, nanosheets or powder (page 3, para. 1).
The black phosphorus is combined with a dispersion liquid with copper where it is soaked and then refluxed for 10 hrs at 70 degrees C (embodiment 1). The dispersion is ultrasonicated (embodiment 1). This meets the feature “the reaction is one or more of a hydrothermal reaction, a stirring reflux reaction or ball milling” of Claim 5.
The product is then roasted, reduced and dried (see steps 1 and 2 on page 2). The roasting is performed under an H2 atmosphere (Claim 3 and 9).
Yu describes use of a dispersion liquid, but does not describe what the dispersion liquid is.
Stilldragon describes refluxing to be managed using the boiling point of the solvent (see temperature principle, para. 1). Therefore, water’s boiling point is 100 degrees C, while ethanol’s boiling point is about 78.4 degrees C (Temperature principle, para. 1).
Zeng describes a copper-based catalyst (see “Summary of the invention, para. 2”). In one example, Zeng combines elemental copper with a phosphorus-containing component and adds an aqueous solution of citric acid and refluxes the mixture (page 3, para. 4). The mixture is refluxed at a temperature of 140-160 degrees C (page 3, para. 4).
Therefore, since Stilldragon explains that different solvent having different boiling points, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the refluxing temperature of the copper-phosphate mixture to 140-160 degrees C, as taught by Zeng for use with Yu by the adjusting the dispersion liquid to have one with a higher boiling point.
As to Claim 8, Yu teaches that the solvent used can include N-methylpyrrolidone (page 3, para. 3).
As to Claim 13, Yu teaches that the particles are sieved (page 4, para. 2).
As to Claim 14, Yu teaches that the roasting can be performed at 300-500 degrees C in N2 gas (page 2, last para).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, Stilldragon, Zeng and Su as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of He (CN 1986058).
Yu teaches that the surfactant added can include polyvinylpyrrolidone (Page 3, para. 1). Yu does not teach how much surfactant is added.
He describes a catalyst (title). The catalyst can include phosphorus and copper (page 4, para. 4). The reference explains that when surfactant is loaded, the amount added should range from 1-10wt% (page 6, last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the polyvinylpyrrolidone surfactant of Yu, in an amount of 1-10wt%, as taught by He because He explains that this amount is effective for use in producing a catalyst that contains phosphorus and copper metal, which would lead to predictable and expected results.
References Made of Record
The following additional references from the examiner’s search are made of record:
Liu (CN 114914424).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, 12, 15 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Yu teaches use of an ammonium salt as the surfactant. The reference does not teach use of a cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide (Claim 10). Also, the process does not teach inclusion of phytic acid.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 September 30, 2026
