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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 2-4, in the reply filed on 02/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Because the claims are anchored to the same specific nanozyme and its disclosed preparation, Applicants submits that searching any elected group would inherently involve searching the same fundamental technical field--oxygen-vacancy TiO2-based materials loaded with cobalt oxide and their sonodynamics/ROS-related behavior—and therefore the Office Action does not demonstrate that examining the non-elected groups would require a genuinely separate, non-overlapping search ...” (Applicants’ response, pages 11-12). Applicants’ arguments are not found persuasive because of the following reasons.
First, the arguments regarding Group I (claim 1) is found persuasive thus claim 1 has been rejoined with the claims of Group II invention.
Second, the arguments regarding Group III, claims 5-20, is not found persuasive because Group III invention is directed to a method of using the cobaltosic-loaded titanium oxide (Co3O4@TiO2-x) of Group I, which is a different method than Group II. The search required for Group II does not require a search for all the use limitations being recited in the claims of Group III. In this particular situation, the method of claim 5 is depending upon the method claim 2 and since claim 2 is not a product so claim 5 cannot be rejoined or examined with Group I and Group II claims. However, now that the product claim of Group I is rejoined and will be examined with the elected method claims of Group II so when the product claim of Group I is found allowable, the method claims of Group III will be rejoined upon allowance. See MPEP, Chapter 2100 for more details regarding rejoining of the product claims with the process of making a product and process of using a product.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
2. Claims 5-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/12/2026.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based on an application filed in CHINA on 10/26/2022. The certified copy CN202211315197.9 has been received and placed in this application.
Status of Application
4. This application was filed on 07/05/2023.
Claims 1-20 were originally presented in this application for examination.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Specification
5. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file.
Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any.
The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any, should be updated in a timely manner.
6. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 5, [0039] & [0041], “Co3O4” and “TiO2-x” should change to --Co3O4-- and --TiO2-x--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 2-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A. In claim 2, line 1, “A preparation method for the” should change to --A method for preparation of--.
B. In claim 2, line 2 of step (b), “putting” should change to --placing--.
C. In claim 2, line 2 of step (c), “a cooled” should change to --the cooled--.
D. In claim 2, line 3 of step (c), “a washed” should change to --the washed--.
E. In claim 3, line 1, “The preparation method for the” should change to --The method for preparation of--.
F. In claim 3, line 2, “a preparation method for” should be deleted.
G. In claim 3, line 3, “comprises” should change to --is prepared by--.
H. In claim 3, line 2 of step (1), “putting” should change to --placing--.
I. In claim 3, line 4 of step (1), “a temperature” should change to --the temperature--.
J. In claim 4, line 1, “The preparation method for the” should change to --The method for preparation of--.
K. In claim 4, line 2, “a preparation method for” should be deleted.
L. In claim 4, line 3, “comprises” should change to --is prepared by--.
M. In claim 4, line 1 of step (1), “putting” should change to --placing--.
N. In claim 4, line 3 of step (1), “a same direction” is suggested deleting or rephrasing.
O. In claim 4, line 1 of step (2), “putting” should change to --placing--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Second Paragraph)
8. 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 1-4 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.
The instant claims recite the compound “TiO2-x” but “x” is not defined in the claims, which renders the claims unclear and indefinite as to what is the value for “x”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) (Fourth Paragraph)
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
It is considered the instant claims are failing to further limit the step of preparing Co3O4 nanozyme and step of preparing TiO2-x of claim 2. The process steps being recited in each of claim 2, 3, & 4 are different from each other so they are of different embodiments and do not appear to further limit each other.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
10. 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kadi et al. (US 10,987,659), hereinafter “Kadi et al. ‘659”.
The claimed invention relates to a cobaltosic oxide-loaded titanium dioxide (Co3O4@TiO2-x) heterojunction nanozyme, comprising: a surface oxygen vacancy doped TiO2-x nanosheet and a variable-valence metal-containing Co₃O₄ nanozyme, wherein the variable-valence metal-containing Co₃O₄ nanozyme is loaded on a surface of the surface oxygen vacancy doped TiO2-x nanosheet to construct and obtain the Co₃O₄@TiO₂-x heterojunction nanozyme (as recited in the instant claim 1).
Kadi et al. ‘659 discloses hollow mesoporous nanospheres of Co3O4@TiO2 having a heterojunction structure (see Example at col. 7).
Kadi et al. ‘659 teaches the claimed cobaltosic oxide-loaded titanium dioxide Co3O4@TiO2-x heterojunction nanozyme, thus anticipates the instant claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 2-4 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. Also, the claims would be allowed if the Claim Objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (2nd Para and 4th Para) are amended or overcome.
The prior art teaches a method for preparation of a cobaltosic oxide-loaded titanium dioxide (Co3O4@TiO2) heterojunction nanozyme, but does not teach step (a), (b), and (c) as set forth in the instant claim 2.
Kadi et al. ‘659 is identified as the closest prior art, which teaches the claimed cobaltosic oxide- loaded titanium dioxide (Co3O4@TiO2-x) of the instant claim 1, however this reference does not teach to prepare the disclosed Co3O4@TiO2-x as recited in step (a), (b), and (c) in the instant claim 2.
There would be no motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references together to arrive to the claimed invention.
Citations
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for related art. See PTO-892 Form prepared.
Conclusion
13. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-4 are rejected. Claims 5-20 are withdrawn. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov.
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, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached at 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/CNN/
May 02, 2026
Prosecution Insights