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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/21/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-8 previously were canceled. Claims 11 and 15 are newly canceled. Claims 9, 10, 12-14, and 16-20 are pending and under current examination. The claims filed 3/3/2026 are under current examination.
Withdrawn Rejections and Response to Arguments
All rejections of claims 11 and 15 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s cancelation of these claims.
All rejections previously issued are withdrawn in view of the incorporation of subject matter of
1-8 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s cancelation of these claims. Specifically, the rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isobe is withdrawn; subsequently, the rejections of claims 12-19 further in view of Barr are withdrawn; the rejection of claims 11 and 20 further in view of Chen are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 3/3/2026 as entered upon filing of an RCE on 4/21/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/3/2026 (hereafter, “Remarks”) have been fully considered and are addressed as detailed in the advisory action dated 3/16/2026 in the file wrapper. It is noted that the claims presented after the close of prosecution were not entered at the time of the advisory action but are entered now concurrent with response to Applicant’s filing of an RCE.
As to Applicant’s argument that Isobe is inapplicable on account of its teaching of a complex polymerization method and a single phase of alpha-LMO and not a complex oxide, and that Barr does not cure Chens’ deficiency, this argument has been considered but is not persuasive in view of the rationale of record. It is maintained that it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to substitute Barr’s particular cerium molybdenum oxide in place of Isobe’s generally disclosed cerium molybdenum oxide in order to retain the functional properties taught by Barr in systems including foil products.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment and as indicated in the advisory action are presented below.
New Grounds of Rejection as Necessitated by Amendment, No New Reference Cited
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 9, 10, 12-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/017493 (“Isobe” et al.; citations are to the translation included in the file wrapper with the IDS dated 1/13/2023; previously cited) in view of Barr (“Barr”, “A Spectroscopic Investigation of Cerium Molybdenum Oxides”, J. Chem. Soc. Dalton Trans, 1983, 1825; cited in IDS filed 1/13/2023 and included in file wrapper dated 1/13/2023; previously cited).
Claim 9 is drawn to functional material comprising a complex oxide ceramic comprising cerium and molybdenum wherein said complex oxide ceramic has antiviral activity and is mixed with a phtocatalyst and/or a material having an antibacterial effect. The claim language pertaining to an active mixing step is interpreted to imply that the complex oxide ceramic has been mixed with a photocatalyst and/or a material having an antibacterial effect so that the functional material product claimed encompasses at least the two requisite components claimed.
Isobe teaches a complex ceramic containing molybdenum and, in composite oxide ceramic form, at least one of La and Ce wherein said complex demonstrates antibacterial and antiviral functionality (see [0009] and for instance [0011] and [0012]). See also Example 1 at [0059] for instance and [0067] which demonstrates antibacterial/antiviral efficacy. The complex oxide ceramic is in the form of a dry powder which was ground and molded and further mixed; in mixing the calcined powder, the complex oxide ceramic is mixed with additional complex oxide ceramic such that a complex oxide ceramic having antiviral activity is mixed with a complex oxide ceramic having antibacterial effect to produce a functional material in the form of Isobe’s molded body in Isobe’s Example 1.
Isobe does not teach the particular complex oxide ceramic compound recited in claims 9 and 12-14 or the characteristics of these complexes and/or functional features thereof. Isobe and Barr in combination cure this deficiency.
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Isobe’s complex containing molybdenum oxide (see Isobe claim 1) with at least one selected from La and Ce (see Isobe claim 2) to produce a functional material comprising a composite oxide ceramic having components which are both cerium and molybdenum as well as a material having an antibacterial effect and comprising at least one of an oxide containing La and Mo, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so based on Isobe’s examples embodying a combination as claimed (see for instance Isobe claim 3) in order to achieve the desired article (see Isobe claim 10) in order to achieve known antibacterial performance in a solid surface by suppressing adhesion of water (see [0004]) and desirably demonstrating antibacterial/antiviral properties (see [0006] and [0009]).
Further, Barr cures Isobe’s deficiency with regard to the particular complex oxide to be employed. Barr teaches Ce2(MoO4)3 and additional cerium molybdenum oxides including Ce2Mo3O13 and Ce2Mo4O15 (see abstract, in particular; see also page 1825, column 1, paragraph 1, lines 10-12)(limitations of claims 9 and 13) and further teaches the compounds specified in claims 12 and 14(see page 1825, column 1, first full paragraph following abstract) thereby teaching a complex oxide ceramic comprising cerium and molybdenum.
Both Isobe and Barr pertain to cerium and molybdenum oxide complexes for use in products, articles, and systems. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute Barr’s particular cerium molybdenum oxides specified in place of Isobe’s generally disclosed cerium molybdenum oxides, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so based on Barr’s successful teaching of these components in systems including foil products.
Furthermore and upon doing so, because a product and its properties are inseparable, Barr’s product is considered to have the claimed characteristic of having antiviral activity as recited in claim 9 and further as in claims 16 and 17 based on the specific complex oxides. Barr’s cerium molybdenium oxides are in the form of powders pressed into wafers which are considered functional materials (see “Experimental” section, end of first paragraph, “Materials”). As to claim 18 which recites that the complex oxide ceramic is a sintered body, this language appears to be product-by-process language pertaining to a method of making the claimed product, where Barr teaches the product claimed as addressed above. As to claim 19, Bar specifies that cerium molybdates are used as components in systems (see introduction first sentence); the systems are considered articles and inclusion is understood to take place wherein the complex oxide ceramic is present on at least a part of a surface in view of Barr’s teaching of systems including foil products including support system components (see column 1 immediately following abstract).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/017493 (“Isobe” et al.; citations are to the translation included in the file wrapper with the IDS dated 1/13/2023) and Barr (“Barr”, “A Spectroscopic Investigation of Cerium Molybdenum Oxides”, J. Chem. Soc. Dalton Trans, 1983, 1825; cited in IDS filed 1/13/2023 and included in file wrapper dated 1/13/2023; previously cited) as applied to claims 9, 10, 12-14, and 16-19 above, and further in view of CN106479278A (Chen et al., “Chen”).
The teachings of Isobe and Barr have been delineated above. As to claim 20, while Barr teaches that cerium molybdates are used as components in systems (see introduction, first sentence) and while Barr teaches foil products including support system components (see column 1 immediately following abstract), it is not apparent that Bar necessarily teaches an article as instantly specified.
Chen cures this deficiency. Chen teaches a self-cleaning air-purifying powder coating which may be prepared from a variety of products including cerium molybdate (see abstract, in particular). The powder coating is used as an air filter product which may be considered at least a medical supply as recited in claim 20.
Isobe, Barr, and Chen are all directed to various cerium molybdate compounds and/or functional materials thereof. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use functional powder sheets of cerium molybdate in combination with additional antibacterial cerium molybdenum oxide components as taught by Isobe and Barr in medical supply products, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so to provide desirable air purifying benefits as suggested by Chen.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREA B CONIGLIO whose telephone number is (571)270-1336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 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, Michael Hartley can be reached at 5712720616. 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.
/AUDREA B CONIGLIO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights