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. Response to Arguments Applicant's traversal of the restriction requirement filed FILLIN "Enter argument filing date" \* MERGEFORMAT 6/23/2023 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant submits that the product of invention II cannot be made by a materially different process than that stated in invention I . The evidence cited in the traversal , such as instant specification [0043], states that the titanium ion is relatively more stable , and the resulting particle grains are more uniform in size, at the temperature conditions and stirring rates of invention I ( Response to Restriction Requirement, page 3). Therefore applicant’s argument is that the conditions positively recited in claim 1 are capable of forming the product of invention II. However, Applicant has not provided evidence that the product of invention II cannot be made by a materially different process as that of invention I. Applicant states that the specification suggests that titanium ions are unstable when basic raw materials are used and therefore cannot produce the uniform particles recited in invention II (Response to Restriction Requirement, page 2). The specification discloses that the concentration of protons in the raw material aqueous solution is not limited [0029, 19] and that the concentration may impact the particle size of the plate-like particles [0029, 23-25 and 29-31]. T he specification does not i nclu de evidence that the size of the particles would affect the ratio of particles having a plate-like shape, as required by invention II. Indeed, the instant specification states that the primary particle size (D50) of plate-like particles is also not particularly limited [0083 , 0084] , and instead that the particle size increases with lower proton concentration, as suggested by “The proton concentration per 1 kg of the raw material aqueous solution is preferably 14 mol/kg or less, more preferably 12 mol/kg or less, and still more preferably 10 mol/kg or less. Within these ranges, the particle size of the plate-like particles in a titanium phosphate powder may be further increased” [0029]. Therefore the specification does not provide evidence that a lower concentrations of protons , as may be found in basic conditions, would directly inhibit the formation of invention II, of particles having a ratio of 20% or less. T he restriction requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 1-16 are examined in this office action. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 1-16 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. Claim 1 recites inter alia “with the ambient temperature of the sealed vessel maintained…” It is not clear whether this language should be interpreted to mean the temperature of the environment outside the sealed vessel, the temperature maintained inside of the sealed vessel, or another definition; therefore this language renders claim 1 indefinite in scope. To proceed with examination, the interpretation “with the ambient temperature inside the sealed vessel maintained…” is applied to claim 1 and all dependent claims. Claims 2-16 do not rectify the issue and are therefore similarly rejected for indefiniteness. 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. Claim s FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-2, 6, 8, 10-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa et al. 2021, CN 112739647 A , referred to herein as Miwa . A machine English translation, as provided with this office action, is cited herein. Regarding claim 1, Miwa teaches a method for producing a titanium phosphate powder exhibiting crystallinity of titanium phosphate (Example 1) represented by a chemical formula Ti(HPO4)2-nH2O(0<n<1) (00 62 ), and containing plate-like particles (plate-like shape, 00 64 ), the method comprising: putting an acidic raw material aqueous solution containing phosphorus and titanium in a sealed vessel ( liquid mixture of titanium sulfate and phosphoric acid is placed in a closed container, 00 60 ), and storing the sealed vessel containing the raw material aqueous solution for a period of 2 hours or more ( 5 hours, 00 60 ) , with the ambient temperature of the sealed vessel maintained under a constant temperature condition ( 100°C and 160°C , 0037 ) wherein during the storage, the raw material aqueous solution is not stirred ( stirring is not disclosed ). Miwa does not teach the temperature condition falling within the instant claimed range of 40-100 C. However, Miwa teaches a range of temperature between 100°C and 160°C , 0037 , overlapping with the instant range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art," a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform a method for preparing titanium phosphate as suggested by Miwa where the temperature of the hydrothermal synthesis is in any workable or optimum range overlapping with 100-160 °C as taught by Miwa including the claimed range in order to obtain a temperature suitable for the reaction, and thus arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Miwa does not disclose stirring, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably implement the method taught by Miwa with any stirring of the raw material aqueous solution (liquid mixture). This therefore meets the limitation of the raw material aqueous solution not being stirred as required by the instant claim. Regarding claim 6, Mira teaches that the liquid mixture is acidic (contains phosphoric acid, 00 60 ), and contains phosphoric acid and titanium sulfate (00 60 ); this meets the limitations of a phosphorus-containing material and a titanium-containing material as required by the instant claim. Regarding claim 8, Miwa teaches further preparing the raw material aqueous solution (mixing, 00 60 ). Regarding claim 10, Miwa teaches phosphoric acid, 00 60 . Regarding claim 11, Miwa teaches phosphoric acid, 00 60 . Regarding claim 12, Miwa teaches titanium sulfate, 0 060 . Regarding claim 13, Miwa teaches titanium sulfate, 00 60 . Regarding claim 16, Miwa teaches plate-like particles (00 64 ) . Miwa does not teach the presence of non-plate-like shapes and therefore the ratio of non-plate-like shapes is presumed to be 0% relative to the total number of particles; this meets the limitation of having a shape other than the plate-like shape at a ratio of 20% or less relative to the total number of particles as required by the instant claim. Claim s FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 3 -5, 7, 9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa , as applied to claim 1, in view of Ren et al . , Front Chem. 2018 Oct 17; 6:489, referred to herein as Ren . Wissen.science-and-fun.de , 2018, and the PubChem database are additionally cited in support of the rejections made . Regarding claim 3, Miwa teaches the method for producing a titanium phosphate powder as applied to claim 1 above. Miwa does not teach a concentration of phosphorus in the raw material aqueous solution relative to a total mass of the raw material aqueous solution is 1 mass% or more and 30 mass% or less . However, Ren teaches an analogous method for preparing TP, titanium phosphate (hydrothermal method, page 1 of SI ) wherein TP was obtained from 5.66 mL of phosphoric acid (p age 1 of SI ). This corresponds to a mass of 5.66 mL * 1.8 70 g / cm ^ 3 = 10. 58 g , where the density of liquid phosphoric acid is reported by Wissen.science-and-fun.de . Thus the mass of phosphorus present is 10.58 g H3PO4 *30.97 g mol phosphorus*1 mol P mol H3PO4 * 1 mol 97.99g H3PO4 =3.34 g P The total mass of solution reported by Ren is 4 mL tetrabutyltitanate ( ρ = 1.00 g/m L, thus 4 g) + 4 mL acetic acid (ρ = 1.0446 g/mL, thus 4.18 g) + 20 mL absolute ethanol (ρ = 0.7893 g/m L, thus 15.79 g) + 12 mL of 0.01 M HCl (ρ = 1 g/mL, thus 12 g) + 0.04 mL ammonium hydroxide (ρ = 0.9 g/mL, thus 0.036 g) + 10.58 g phosphoric acid = 46.586 grams , such that the mass percentage of phosphoric acid present is 3.34 /46.59 = 0. 072 or approximately 7.2 % by mass ( page 1 of SI; densities of each compound retrieved on PubChem). This falls within the instant claimed range of 1 mass% or more and 30 mass% or less. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention taught by Miwa with the starting materials and composition taught by Ren and thus arrive at the claimed invention; one would be motivated to do so because Ren teaches that the method taught is simple and feasible and arrives at silver-modified titanium phosphate which has the advantage of being light active (introduction). Regarding claim 4, Miwa teaches the method for producing a titanium phosphate powder as applied to claim 1 above. Miwa does not teach a concentration of titanium in the raw material aqueous solution is 0.1 mass% or more and 5 mass% or less relative to a total mass of the raw material aqueous solution. However, Ren teaches an analogous method for preparing TP, titanium phosphate (hydrothermal method, page 1 of SI) wherein 4 mL of tetrabutyltitanate is used (page 1 of SI); this corresponds to a mass percentage of 4 g TBT*47.88 g mol Ti*1 mol Ti mol TBT * 1 mol 340.32g TBT =0.56 g Ti 0.56 g/46.59 g = 0.0 12 or approximately 1.2 % by mass, following the calculations provided regarding claim 3 above. This falls within the instant claimed range of 0.1 mass% or more and 5 mass% or less relative to a total mass of the raw material aqueous solution. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention taught by Miwa with the starting materials and composition taught by Ren and thus arrive at the claimed invention; one would be motivated to do so because Ren teaches that the method taught is simple and feasible and arrives at silver-modified titanium phosphate which has the advantage of being light active (introduction). Regarding claim 5, Miwa teaches the method for producing a titanium phosphate powder as applied to claim 1 above. Miwa does not teach the raw material aqueous solution has a proton concentration per 1 kg of the raw material aqueous solution of 6 mol/kg or more and 14 mol/kg or less . However, Ren teaches an analogous method for preparing TP, titanium phosphate (hydrothermal method, page 1 of SI) wherein acetic acid (monoprotic), hydrochloric acid (monoprotic), and phosphoric acid (triprotic) are in solution. This yields 10.58 g H3PO4* mol 97.99g H3PO4* 3 mol H+ 1 mol H3PO4 =0.32 mol H+ 4.18 g CH3COOH* mol 60.05 g CH3COOH* 1 mol H+ 1 mol CH3COOH =0.07 mol H+ 12 g HCl*0.01 mol L HCl* 0.001 L 1 g * 1 mol H+ 1 mol HCl =0.00012 mol H + 0.32 + 0.07 + 0.00012 = 0.39 mol H+ , which gives a total proton concentration of 0.39 mol/46.59 g of solution = 0.008 mol/g of solution, or 8.37 mol/kg of solution. This falls within the instant claimed range of 6 mol/kg or more and 14 mol/kg or less . It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention taught by Miwa with the starting materials and composition taught by Ren and thus arrive at the claimed invention; one would be motivated to do so because Ren teaches that the method taught is simple and feasible and arrives at silver-modified titanium phosphate which has the advantage of being light active (introduction). Regarding claim 7, Miwa teaches the method for producing a titanium phosphate powder as applied to claim 6 above. Miwa does not teach that the mixture aqueous solution further contains an acid containing no phosphorus and no titanium. However, Ren teaches an analogous method for preparing TP, titanium phosphate (hydrothermal method, page 1 of SI) wherein acetic acid and hydrochloric acid are added in the raw material aqueous solution (page 1 of SI). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention taught by Miwa with the starting materials and composition taught by Ren and thus arrive at the claimed invention; one would be motivated to do so because Ren teaches that the method taught is simple and feasible and arrives at silver-modified titanium phosphate which has the advantage of being light active (introduction). Regarding claim 9, Miwa teaches the method for producing a titanium phosphate powder as applied to claim 8 above. Miwa does not teach that the preparation of the raw material aqueous solution includes further adding an acid containing no phosphorus and no titanium. However, Ren teaches an analogous method for preparing TP, titanium phosphate (hydrothermal method, page 1 of SI) wherein acetic acid and hydrochloric acid are added in the raw material aqueous solution (page 1 of SI). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention taught by Miwa with the starting materials and composition taught by Ren and thus arrive at the claimed invention; one would be motivated to do so because Ren teaches that the method taught is simple and feasible and arrives at silver-modified titanium phosphate which has the advantage of being light active (introduction). Regarding claim 1 4, Miwa teaches the method for producing a titanium phosphate powder as applied to claim 7 above. Miwa does not teach that the acid containing no phosphorus and no titanium contains at least one acid selected from the group consisting of hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, carbonic acid, acetic acid, citric acid and formic acid . However, Ren teaches an analogous method for preparing TP, titanium phosphate (hydrothermal method, page 1 of SI) wherein acetic acid and hydrochloric acid are added in the raw material aqueous solution (page 1 of SI). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention taught by Miwa with the starting materials and composition taught by Ren and thus arrive at the claimed invention; one would be motivated to do so because Ren teaches that the method taught is simple and feasible and arrives at silver-modified titanium phosphate which has the advantage of being light active (introduction). Regarding claim 15, Miwa teaches the method for producing a titanium phosphate powder as applied to claim 9 above. Miwa does not teach that the acid containing no phosphorus and no titanium contains at least one acid selected from the group consisting of hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, carbonic acid, acetic acid, citric acid and formic acid . However, Ren teaches an analogous method for preparing TP, titanium phosphate (hydrothermal method, page 1 of SI) wherein acetic acid and hydrochloric acid are added in the raw material aqueous solution (page 1 of SI). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention taught by Miwa with the starting materials and composition taught by Ren and thus arrive at the claimed invention; one would be motivated to do so because Ren teaches that the method taught is simple and feasible and arrives at silver-modified titanium phosphate which has the advantage of being light active (introduction). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1768 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Sally Merkling can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /Eileen Moudou/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738 /MICHAEL FORREST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738