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Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 10/11/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 17227−17236).
Considering claims 1-3 and 5, Wang discloses a nanomaterial, comprising: a non-noble metal substrate (CoNi alloy nanoparticle) and noble metal atoms (Ru) on a surface of the non-noble metal substrate, wherein the noble metal atoms are simultaneously coordinated with a halogen and oxygen (RuOHxCly) (Abstrsact).
Considering claim 6, Wang discloses the nanomaterial further comprises a conductive carrier (nitrogen-doped graphene), and the non-noble metal substrate is on the conductive carrier (Abstract).
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Testova et al. (Catalysis Communications 67 ‘2015’ 95–97).
Considering claims 1-5, Testova discloses a nanomaterial, comprising: a non-noble metal substrate (TiO2) and noble metal atoms (Ru) on a surface of the non-noble metal substrate, wherein the noble metal atoms are simultaneously coordinated with a halogen and oxygen (K4[Ru2OCl10]) (Page 95).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Testova et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ghielmi et al. (US 20230374679 A1).
Considering claim 7, Testova does not disclose the non-noble metal substrate is doped with a reducing metal ion.
However, Ghielmi discloses noble-metal-containing catalyst is preferably supported on inorganic or ceramic supports, especially on titanium oxide, niobium oxide, antimony-doped niobium oxide, tin oxide, antimony-doped tin oxide [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a doped oxide such as antimony-doped niobium oxide or antimony-doped tin oxide in the nanomaterial of Testova, because Ghielmi teaches a support for a noble-metal-containing catalyst is titanium oxide, niobium oxide, antimony-doped niobium oxide, tin oxide, antimony-doped tin oxide. Therefore, it would be obvious to substitute a functionally equivalent support material for another with reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2144.06).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wojciech Haske whose telephone number is (571)272-5666. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 am - 6:00 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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/WOJCIECH HASKE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794