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
Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 01/29/2026.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the phrase “determined by XRF analysis” and “determined by XPS surface analysis” as recited by Claims 3-4 and 7 are not considered to add patentable weight to the claimed ranges. Absent evidence that the particular method of measuring the composition of the particles by such methods yields bulk/surface layer composition values distinct from those reported by other measurement techniques, the composition of a material is considered fully described by the claimed weight percentage value.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 4 and 7, “Ta2Os” is interpreted as a typographical error in the formula for tantalum pentoxide, Ta2O5. The appearance of “Ta2Os” should be corrected to “Ta2O5”.
In Claims 5-6, “28” is interpreted as a typographical error for the diffraction angle 2θ in x-ray diffraction. “28” should therefore be corrected to “2θ”.
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 3-4, 7 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.
Claims 3 and 7 recite the limitation "the MoO3 content". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as Claim 1 only requires molybdenum and not MoO3. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as requiring that the molybdenum is present in the tantalum oxide particles in the form of MoO3, wherein the content thereof is limited by the claimed range.
Claims 4 and 7 recite the limitation "the Ta2O5 content". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as Claim 1 only requires tantalum oxide and not Ta2O5. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as requiring that the molybdenum is present in the tantalum oxide particles in the form of MoO3, wherein the content thereof is limited by the claimed range.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (Tantalum oxide-supported metal oxide (Re2O7, CrO3, MoO3, WO3, V2O5, and Nb2O5) catalysts: synthesis, Raman characterization and chemically probed by methanol oxidation, Journal of Catalysis, 2003), hereinafter ‘Chen’.
Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses tantalum oxide particles comprising molybdenum (3.1.1. Determination of monolayer surface coverage of Ta2O5-supported metal oxides: a catalyst comprising 1.5% MoO3 supported on Ta2O5 is disclosed).
Regarding Claims 3-4, Chen discloses a catalyst comprising 1.5% MoO3 supported on Ta2O5 as discussed above – this catalyst therefore comprises 1.5 wt% MoO3 and 98.5 wt% Ta2O5.
Regarding Claim 7, Chen discloses that the monolayer surface coverages of the different supported metal oxides on Ta2O5 should not exceed the above values since the microcrystals generally form near and after complete formation of the two-dimensional surface metal oxide monolayer (3.1.1. Determination of monolayer surface coverage of Ta2O5-supported metal oxides). Therefore, the 1.5 wt% MoO3 sample describes a sample in which 1.5% of the surface layer comprises MoO3, with the remaining composition of said surface layers comprising Ta2O5.
Regarding Claim 8, as discussed above, Chen discloses supported metal oxides deposited on Ta2O5 in which the supported metal oxides exist primarily on the surface of the support. The MoO3 sample of Chen is therefore considered to be selectively rich in molybdenum in the surface layers of the tantalum oxide particles.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Tantalum oxide-supported metal oxide (Re2O7, CrO3, MoO3, WO3, V2O5, and Nb2O5) catalysts: synthesis, Raman characterization and chemically probed by methanol oxidation, Journal of Catalysis, 2003), hereinafter ‘Chen’, in view of CN111137923A, hereinafter ‘Geng’.
Regarding Claim 2, while Chen discloses impregnating a tantalum oxide support with molybdenum oxide (2.1. Catalyst preparation), Chen does not disclose that the tantalum oxide comprises polyhedral-shaped particles.
However, polyhedral-shaped tantalum oxide particles were known in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention. As shown by Geng, a method of producing rod-shaped, prismatic nanoparticles of Ta2O5 is disclosed as comprising a heat treatment of (NH₄)₂Ta₂O₃F₆ - the resulting particles are disclosed as having photocatalytic activity ([0007]) and having good thermal and chemical stability ([0009]), which are desirable characteristics for a catalytic material which may be exposed to extreme temperatures and chemical environments when applied to catalyze reactions.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute the tantalum oxide support of Chen with the prismatic polyhedral-shaped T2O5 particles of Geng. Both oxide materials are known in the art to be used as catalytic materials, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using either material as the tantalum oxide support in the process of Chen, thereby producing tantalum oxide particles comprising polyhedral-shaped particles.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose nor reasonably suggest the limitations of Claims 5-6, drawn to the particular crystallite size at diffraction angles of 22.8° and 36.6°. Chen does not disclose any x-ray diffraction studies, nor does it disclose any criticality or discussion regarding the crystallite size of the tantalum oxide particles.
The prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the limitations of Claim 9, requiring the tantalum particles have a specific surface area of 10 m2/g or less. The particles of Chen have a specific surface area of 15.0 m2/g (3.1.1. Determination of monolayer surface coverage of Ta2O5-supported metal oxides), and there is no suggestion within Chen to lower this value to fall within the claimed range.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN LACLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-1815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30-5:30 PST.
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 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.
LOGAN LACLAIR
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights