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 .
Claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoo et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0074035, Applicants’ submitted art).
Regarding claim 1, Yoo et al. teach a method defined as a shock process, in which a precursor material composed of at least three component elements are uniformly deposited on a substrate, and the precursor-loaded substrate is heated to a temperature ranging from 500 K to 3000 K for a time duration ranging from 1 millisecond to one minute, followed by quenching/cooling. See paragraph [0013], and [0020] of Yoo et al., as well as Figure 13A and paragraph [0169], which depicts an embodiment of the shock process that applies multiple shocks.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Yoo et al. teach the feasibility in heating the precursor-loaded substrate by subjecting said substrate to Joule heating by applying a current, or by conductive heating, microwave heating, laser heating, radiative heating, or plasma heating. See paragraphs [0156]-[0162] of Yoo et al.
Regarding claim 4, Yoo et al. teach conductive cooling, convection cooling, and spraying with or immersion in cryogenic temperature fluids as exemplary cooling methods. See paragraphs [0167]-[0168] of Yoo et al.
Regarding claim 5, Yoo et al. teach that the substrate may be a carbon-based material; see paragraph [0154] of Yoo et al.
In view of these teachings, Yoo et al. anticipate claims 1-5.
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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 108298518).
Regarding claims 17-19, Zhang et al. teach a single-atom dispersed carbon material, wherein examples of the single atom include Co and Pt, and the carbon material may be carbon nanotubes or carbon fiber (“carbon-based substrate”; “substrate comprises carbon fibers”). See paragraphs [0013] and [0016] of Zhang et al., as well as Example 10, which depicts the formation of a single-atom Pt dispersed carbon material derived from a Pt-coordinated O-porphyrin organic framework, and Example 12, which depicts the formation of a single-atom Co and Ni dispersed carbon material from a Co, Ni dual-coordinated N-porphyrin organic framework and carbon nanotube hybrid.
Further regarding claim 17, Zhang et al. teach that the single-atom dispersed carbon material is formed from a hybrid formed by a porphyrin organic framework with a transition metal coordinated in the porphyrin ring and carbon materials, wherein the transition metal single atoms in the single-atom dispersed carbon material are the same as the coordinated transition metal atoms in the porphyrin organic framework. See paragraph [0017] of Zhang et al. From this teaching, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect the single atoms to be covalently bonded to the carbon atoms of the substrate, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 20, Zhang et al. teach that the single-atom dispersed carbon material “effectively constructs a single-atom site structure, so that the derived single-atom carbon material has a high single-atom site density and stability”, and “exhibits single transition metals dispersed in a carbon framework”. See paragraph [0020] of Zhang et al. From this teaching, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect the single-atom dispersed carbon material disclosed in Zhang et al. to exhibit uniform distribution of the single atoms, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Zhang et al. do not explicitly teach or suggest that the single-atom dispersed carbon material comprises “a plurality of defects”, as recited in Applicants’ claim 17. However, in the aforementioned Examples 10 and 12 of Zhang et al., reference is made to forming calcined products from the organic frameworks and carbon materials, and then treating the respectively obtained calcined products with acid. As a result of said treatment with acid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to reasonably expect the resultant single-atom dispersed carbon materials disclosed in Zhang et al. to exhibit a plurality of defects, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0142149).
Regarding claims 17-19, Ma et al. teach supported catalysts comprising a metal loaded carbon nanotube structure (“structure comprising a carbon-based substrate”; “substrate comprises carbon nanofibers”), wherein examples of the metal catalyst include platinum and ruthenium. Ma et al. further teach the feasibility in functionalizing the carbon nanotubes prior to loading the metal catalysts, “which consequently results in better attachment of the metal catalyst to the carbon nanotube surface (whether by adsorption, hydrogen bond, adhesion, electrostatic attraction covalent bond absorption, van der Waals force, or any other mechanism which may occur to secure, support, hold or otherwise keep the metal catalyst onto the carbon nanotube surface).” See paragraphs [0063]-[0064], [0068], [0074], and [0075] of Ma et al. From these teachings, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect the supported catalysts disclosed in Ma et al. to (a) comprise carbon nanotubes exhibiting a plurality of defects and (b) comprise metal catalysts that are covalently bonded to the carbon nanotubes.
Further regarding claim 17, and also regarding claim 20, Ma et al. teach that the aforementioned supported catalysts exhibit a high level of metal catalyst dispersion, if in extrudate form, compared to the form of metal loaded carbon nanotubes prior to extrusion. See paragraphs [0085] and [0090] of Ma et al.
Ma et al. do not explicitly teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding the catalyst being a single-atom dispersion of individual single atoms, as recited in Applicants’ claim 17. However, because Ma et al. teach a structure structurally reading upon that instantly claimed, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect the structure here in Ma et al. to comprise catalyst metals in the form of a single-atom dispersion, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-16 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims 6-16, regarding, for example, the formation of individual single first atoms, said single first atoms being separately dispersed on and bonded to the substrate, regarding the loading amount of the precursors (claim 15), or regarding the duration of the first cooling period in each first heating cycle being at least 10 times the first duration (claim 16).
Yoo et al. teach the formation of multielement nanoparticles having a size or average diameter ranging from a few atoms to at least 1 micrometer (paragraph [0012] therein), as opposed to the formation of single atoms separately dispersed on an bonded to the substrate, as recited in Applicants’ claim 6.
Because claims 7-14 depend directly or indirectly from claim 6, the limitations of these claims are also not taught or suggested by Yoo et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, 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.
/Patricia L. Hailey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights