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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 21 June 2024 has been received and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 currently recites “the TiO2” but should instead read “…wherein the [[TiO2]] titanium dioxide nanomaterial is one of…”
Claim 8 currently recites metals instead of metal precursors in the list recited in claim 8. The following modification is suggested, with support from specification paragraph [0015]: “…wherein the metal precursor [[is]] comprises one of Sn, Nb, and Zr. “
Alternatively, the claim could be amended to read: “…wherein the metal precursor is a precursor [[one]] of Sn, Nb, [[and]] or Zr.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (CN 101279264 A; hereinafter “Wu”). The provided English machine translation of Wu (CN 101279264 A) is used in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses method of making a titanium dioxide nanomaterial (loose rutile nano-titanium dioxide powder; [0010]), comprising: adding a titanium precursor (titanium sulfate) in an aqueous solution (deionized water and anhydrous ethanol were first prepared in a volume ratio of 2:1 to form an ethanol solution; [0010]; though described by Wu as an “ethanol solution”, the solution is a majority water and can also be considered an “aqueous solution”); adding a citric acid to the aqueous solution (12 g of citric acid…were then added; [0010]; heating the aqueous solution until the formation of a gel (the mixture was evaporated in an 80°C water bath to a white wet gel; [0010]); carbonizing the gel at a first temperature (wet gel was dried and foamed in a furnace at 130°C for 7 hours to form a brown-black dry gel; [0010]; the brown-black color indicates that carbonization occurred); and calcining the carbonized gel at a second temperature (dry gel was then placed in a kiln for calcination at a controlled calcination temperature of 900°C; [0010]).
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, where the first temperature is lower than the second temperature (dried and foamed in a furnace at 130°C … then placed in a kiln for calcination at a controlled temperature of 900°C; [0010]).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses a method of making a nanomaterial (loose rutile nano-titanium dioxide powder; [0010]), comprising: adding a metal precursor (titanium sulfate) in an aqueous solution (deionized water and anhydrous ethanol were first prepared in a volume ratio of 2:1 to form an ethanol solution; [0010]; though described by Wu as an “ethanol solution”, the solution is a majority water and can also be considered an “aqueous solution”); adding a citric acid to the aqueous solution (12 g of citric acid…were then added; [0010]; heating the aqueous solution until the formation of a gel (the mixture was evaporated in an 80°C water bath to a white wet gel; [0010]); carbonizing the gel at a first temperature (wet gel was dried and foamed in a furnace at 130°C for 7 hours to form a brown-black dry gel; [0010]; the brown-black color indicates that carbonization occurred); and calcining the carbonized gel at a second temperature (dry gel was then placed in a kiln for calcination at a controlled calcination temperature of 900°C; [0010]).
Regarding claim 10, Wu teaches the method of claim 7 where the first temperature is lower than the second temperature (dried and foamed in a furnace at 130°C … then placed in a kiln for calcination at a controlled temperature of 900°C; [0010]).
Claims 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sikhwivhilu et al. (J. Nanosci. Nanotech. 2011, 11, 4988-4994).
Regarding claim 7, Sikhwivhilu discloses a method of making a nanomaterial (tin oxide nanoparticles; abstract), comprising: adding a metal precursor in an aqueous solution (SnCl4.5H2O was dissolved in distilled water (Section 2.1.1); adding a citric acid to the aqueous solution (to this solution … citric acid was slowly added; Section 2.1.1); heating the aqueous solution until the formation of a gel (the sol was .. kept at 80 °C and then dried at 100 °C for 24 hours in an oven to form a xerogel; Section 2.1.1); carbonizing the gel at a first temperature (pre-annealed at 180 °C for 2 hours to decompose organic matter completely); and calcining the carbonized gel at a second temperature (annealed at 650 °C for 6 h; Section 2.1.1). It is noted that this annealing process is also described by Sikhwivhilu as a calcination (at the calcination temperature (650 °C for 6 h); Section 3.1) and that the decomposition of the organic matter at 180 °C is a carbonization.
Regarding claim 8, Sikhwivhilu discloses the process of claim 7 where the metal precursor (SnCl4.5H2O) is one of Sn.
Regarding claim 10, Sikhwivhilu discloses the process of claim 7 where the first temperature (180 °C) is lower than the second temperature (650 °C).
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 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 101279264 A), as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Li et al. (J. Photochem. Photobiol. A: Chem. 2001, 141, 209-217). The provided English machine translation of Wu (CN 101279264 A) is used in the analysis below.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Wu discloses the method of claims 1 and 7 but does not teach the method comprising adding a metal dopant precursor to the aqueous solution.
However, Li teaches an analogous sol-gel process where a titanium precursor (titanium tetrabutoxide) is included in a gel-forming reaction to give a gel which is then heated at high temperature to afford titanium dioxide nanoparticles (Section 2.1 and Table 1). Li further teaches that the photoactivity of the tungsten-doped titanium dioxide (WOx-TiO2) was significantly higher than that of pure TiO2- (Section 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method Wu to include a tungsten dopant precursor in the aqueous solution, as taught by Li, thereby arriving at the inventions of claims 2 and 9. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the tungsten-doped titanium dioxide nanoparticles have greater photoactivity than the undoped titanium dioxide, as also taught by Li.
Regarding claim 5, modified Wu teaches the method of claim 2, where Li teaches the titanium dioxide nanostructure is a single-metal (tungsten) doped TiO2 nanoparticle (p. 212, Table 1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wu teaches the method of claim 2, where Li teaches the metal dopant precursor (ammonium tungstate) including a transition metal (tungsten; Section 2.1).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, modified Wu teaches the method of claim 9 where the metal dopant is a transition metal ion (tungsten) and the metal dioxide nanomaterial includes W-doped TiO2 (WOx-TiO2; Li, Table 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 101279264 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hou et al. (CN 101181678 A) . The provided English machine translations of Wu (CN 101279264 A) and Hou (CN 101181678 A) are used in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 4, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, but does not teach the titanium precursor being an ammonium hexafluorotitanate.
However, Hou teaches that when preparing doped titanium dioxide photocatalysts (rare earth modified photocatalysts; [0013]) by various methods, including sol-gel methods, that different titanium sources can be selected, including both titanium sulfate, as used by Wu, and ammonium hexafluorotitanate (ammonium titanate hexafluoride; [0015]), as required by the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ammonium hexafluorotitanate as a metal precursor in the method of Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to so do because they would have been substituting titanium sulfate used by Wu with the ammonium hexafluoride taught by Hou for the same purpose of making titanium dioxide nanoparticles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas A Piro whose telephone number is (571)272-6344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00 am-5:00 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/NICHOLAS A. PIRO/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735