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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 11/12/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “Dso”, which appears to be a mistake for “D50”. 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 2-10 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.
In each of claims 2 and 3, the phrase “the crystallite size” and “the plane” both lack antecedent basis.
In claim 4, the feature “the median Dso” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 5, the feature “the dispersity index S” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 5, the features “the 10% diameter D10, median diameter Dso, and 90% diameter D90” and “the laser diffraction/scattering method” lack antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 6, each of “the Fe2O3 content (F1)”, “the XRF analysis”, and “the MoO3 content (Mi)” lack antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 7, the scope of the phrase “selectively rich” is indefinite.
In claim 8, each of “the Fe2O3 content (F2)”, “the XRF analysis”, and “the MoO3 content (M2)” lack antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 9, each of “the pH”, “the isoelectric point”, and “the potential” lack antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 10, “the specific surface area” each lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by CN 1169685.
Regarding claim 1, CN ‘685 teaches a material that includes iron oxide particles containing molybdenum (Example 19). The material is polyhedral shape such as cubic (Description).
Regarding claims 2-3, CN ‘685 teaches that the particles may have a length of 0.3 to 3 microns, these are considered crystallites because the disclosure describes that the particles may form aggregates having larger particle sizes (Description). The length of the particles may be considered a plane under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Regarding claims 4-5, CN ’685 teaches that the particles may form agglomerated particles (Description). CN ‘685 does not expressly state a D10, D50, D90, or a dispersity index as recited in the requirements of claims 4-5. However, “the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2112. The product of CN ‘685 is substantially similar to the claimed product because it has a similar chemical composition and structure. Also, the larger agglomerated particles shown in the figures appear to show particle characteristics similar to what is recited in instant claim 4-5 (See Figures).
Regarding claim 6, the particles may contain 1200 grams iron oxide and 47.7 grams of molybdenum trioxide (Example 19).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the particles may contain 1200 grams iron oxide and 47.7 grams of molybdenum trioxide (Example 19), which would be approximately 4% molybdenum, which would also exist on the surface because the iron oxide and molybdenum oxide are mixed (Example 19). Thus, the particles would be selectively rich in molybdenum.
Regarding claim 9, CN ‘685 does not expressly state “the pH of the isoelectric point at which the potential is 0 is 2 to 5 as determined by zeta potential measurement”. However, “the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2112. The product of CN ‘685 is substantially similar to the claimed product because it has a similar chemical composition and structure. Also, the larger agglomerated particles shown in the figures appear to show particle characteristics similar to what is recited in instant claim 4-5 (See Figures).
Regarding claim 10, the surface area may be less than 1.2 m^2/g (claim 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A FIORITO whose telephone number is (571)272-9921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/JAMES A FIORITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731