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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 and 17-18 in the reply filed on 01/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-16 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 01/16/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “one of follow” appears as if it should instead recite “one of the following”.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “one of follow” appears as if it should instead recite “one of the following”.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “one of follow” appears as if it should instead recite “one of the following”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ratio" in line 4, and again in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Further regarding claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation "the total mass" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Claim 3 recites the limitation "the ratio" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further regarding claim 3, Claim 3 recites the limitation "the total mass" in 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All claims not specifically addressed are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes the closest prior art is Nakatsuka et al. (JP2004315643A, hereinafter referred to as Nakatsuka).
Claim 1 is directed towards a class of multiphase rubidium titanate functional ceramic materials, wherein the said multiphase rubidium titanate functional ceramic materials comprise rubidium n-titanate phase(s) with chemical formula Rb2TinO2n+1, and titanium dioxide phase(s) with chemical formula of TiO2; the ratio of the rubidium n-titanate phase(s) is from 45wt% to 99 wt%, and the ratio of titanium dioxide phase(s) is from 1 wt% to 55 wt%, based on the total mass of said multiphase rubidium titanate functional ceramic materials; the value of n in the chemical formula of the rubidium n-titanate phase(s) is from 1 to 12; the multiphase functional ceramic material is prepared in air.
Nakatsuka is directed towards a laser marking material comprising rubidium titanate (see Nakatsuka at the Abstract). Nakatsuka further discloses titanium oxide (TiO2) see Nakatsuka at [0008] from the machine translation. However, Natasuka fails to disclose or make obvious the ratio of the rubidium n-titanate phase(s) is from 45wt% to 99 wt%, and the ratio of titanium dioxide phase(s) is from 1 wt% to 55 wt%, based on the total mass of said multiphase rubidium titanate functional ceramic materials.
As such, the subject matter of claim 1 would be allowed but for the 112(b) rejections above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights