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. Status of the Claims Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are pending (claim set as filed on 09/06/2023). Claims 5-6 were withdrawn after restriction/election requirement. Election/Restrictions Claims 5-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method for preparing the oral anti-radiation microalgae-nanoparticle compound preparation, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/07/2026. Applicant’s election without traverse of the species of claims 3 and 4 in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged. The election of species requirement for claim s 3 -4 , as set forth in the Office Action mailed on 11/07/2025, has been reconsidered and is hereby withdrawn . In view of the above noted withdrawal of the election of species requirement, applicant is advised that if any of the claim represented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claims may be subject to provisional statutory and/or non-statutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01. Priority Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country. This application filed on 09/06/2023 claims benefit to foreign application no. CN202211269196.5 filed on 10/17/2022 which finds full support for the instant claims. Therefore, the effective filing date of the application is 10/17/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 s 7- 8 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 7 recites the phrase “ wherein the anti-radiation refers to prevention, treatment, or alleviation of a damage or a disease in intestinal tract and other organs of a whole body caused by ionizing radiation or a radioactive substance ”. It is unclear from the language used in the claim , i.e. refers to, as to what is being limited. Claim 8 is rejected for being dependent on claim 7. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rabiee ( Rabiee et al., “ Diatoms with Invaluable Applications in Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, and Biomedicine: Recent Advances ”, 2021 Jun 21, American Chemical Society Biomaterials Science and Engineering, 7, pgs. 3053-3058) and as evidenced by Meriam-Webster (Meriam-Webster Dictionary, “diatom”, 2026, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diatoms , accessed 2026 Mar 10). Rabiee’s general disclosure relates to the application of diatom microalgae in nanotechnology such as drug delivery (see abstract) . Regarding claim 1 , Rabiee teaches a drug loaded onto a nanoparticle -microalgae compound via a surface modifier that is intended for oral administration (see Rabiee pg. 3058 , ¶ 3). Rabiee discloses a “diatom” which , as evidenced by Meriam-Webster , is a type of microalgae ( see Meriam-Webster pg. 1). Regarding claims 1-4 and 7, Rabiee teaches a n oral drug delivery system comprising curcumin loaded porous silicon NP from diatoms wherein the encapsulation further contains hypromellose acetate succinate which reads on the cellulose derivative surface modifier ( see pg. 3058 , ¶ 3) . Rabiee teaches curcumin (see pg. 3058, ¶ 3) which is a n ingredient considered to be capable of preventing and/or treating radiation-induced cell, tissue, or organ damages caused by ionizing radiation or a radioactive substances . The instant specification states curcumin is an anti-radiation drug ( [000 7 ] and [0014]). Claim 7 recites a “wherein” clause for intended use of the anti-radiation compound and since Rabiee teaches the same claimed composition, it is capable of performing the intended use. Regarding claim s 1 and 8 , Rabiee teaches a n oral drug delivery system comprising curcumin loaded porous silicon NP from diatoms wherein the encapsulation further contains hypromellose acetate succinate which reads on a pharmaceutical excipient as claimed in claim 8 (see pg. 3058 , ¶ 3). Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Losic ( Losic et al., “Multifunctional microspherical magnetic and pH responsive carriers for combination anticancer therapy engineered by droplet-based microfluidics ”, 2017 Apr 19, Journal of Materials Chemistry B, 5, pgs. 4097-4 099 ) and as evidenced by Meriam-Webster (Meriam-Webster Dictionary, “diatom”, 2026, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diatoms , accessed 2026 Mar 10) . Losic’s general disclosure relates to the use of drug nanocarriers for the treatment of colorectal cancer (see abstract). Regarding claim 1 , Losic teaches a drug loaded onto a nanoparticle-microalgae compound via a surface modifier that is intended for oral administration (see Losic pg. 4098, ¶3 and 5; see Losic pg. 4099, ¶ 1). Losic discloses a “diatom” which, as evidenced by Meriam-Webster, is a type of microalgae (see Meriam-Webster pg. 1). Regarding claims 1-4 and 7, Losic teaches an oral drug delivery system comprising curcumin loaded porous silicon NP from diatoms wherein the encapsulation further contains hypromellose acetate succinate which reads on the cellulose derivative surface modifier (see pg. 4098, ¶3 and 5; see pg. 4099, ¶ 1) . Losic teaches curcumin (see pg. 4099, ¶ 1) which is an ingredient considered to be capable of preventing and/or treating radiation-induced cell, tissue, or organ damages caused by ionizing radiation or a radioactive substances . The instant specification states curcumin is an anti-radiation drug ([000 7 ] and [0014]). Claim 7 recites a “wherein” clause for intended use of the anti-radiation compound and since Losic teaches the same claimed composition, it is capable of performing the intended use. Regarding claim s 1 and 8 , Losic teaches an oral drug delivery system comprising curcumin loaded porous silicon NP from diatoms wherein the encapsulation further contains hypromellose acetate succinate which reads on a pharmaceutical excipient as claimed in claim 8 (see pg. 4098, ¶5 and pg. 4099, ¶ 1). Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-8 a re rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 17 -18 of Application No. 18/606, 877 in view of Rabiee – reference cited from above and reprised herein. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Instant claims are directed towards: a n oral anti-radiation microalgae-nanoparticle compound preparation with a surface modifier (claim 1 -2, 4, and 7 ) the compound further comprising a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (claim 8) Co-pending Application No. 18/606,877 claims are directed towards: pharmaceutical complex for radioprotection, comprising amifostine and natural microalgae (claim 1) the pharmaceutical complex further compris ing at least one active component such as amifostine and at least one pharmaceutically acceptable additive such as adhesives or excipients (claim s 17-18 ) Although the preamble s are different , both sets of claims are directed to an anti-radiation composition comprising an anti-radiation drug, microalgae, and a dditives like adhesives (such as a surface modifier) and excipient s . Co-pending Application No. 18/606,877 does not recite: the compound further comprising a nanoparticle Rabiee teaches a nanoparticle (see pg. 3058, ¶ 3) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the nanoparticle as taught in Rabiee to the radioprotective pharmaceutical complex as taught in ‘877. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to do so because Rabiee teaches that the nanoparticle encapsulation improves delivery of water insoluble drugs (see Rabie pg. 3058, ¶ 2) . Therefore, such use of the nanoparticle s would be considered an advantage in ‘877 which describes a drug delivery model for water-soluble compounds but not water-insoluble ones (see ‘877 [0007]) . Conclusion No claims are allowed. Correspondence Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Emmalee R. Williams whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5472 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 7:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Sharmila Landau can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-0614 . 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. /E.R.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 1653 /SHARMILA G LANDAU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653