CTNF 18/263,636 CTNF 101377 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 23-19 AIA Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, 7-9 and 12-22, directed to a process for the preparation and activation of a sensor in the reply filed on 02/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Groups I and II are linked by a single general inventive concept and share the same corresponding special technical feature. Upon further review of the subject matter, this is found persuasive. Additionally, the examiner has found prior art that covers the non-elected claims, and found it holds no additional search burden. The requirement is thus withdrawn and all pending claims will be examined. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 4, 8, 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 4 and 8 cite “MB” but does not expand on the abbreviation. The examiner is interpreting it as methylene blue given the art and the specifications. Expand the abbreviation at least once in claim 4. Claim 16 ends on a semi-colon instead of a period. Claim 17 recites “is in the form of nanoparticles” , and it is recommended to instead be changed to recite “is in the form of a nanoparticle” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 2, 16 and 22 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 2 recites the limitation "the group" in lines 2 and 14. Claim 16 recites the limitation “the group” in line 2. Claim 22 recites the limitation “the group” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. There is no recitation of a “group” in the preceding claims that claims 2, 16 and 22 are dependent on, nor within the claims themselves. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smyth et al. (US PG-Pub 20120142527 A1), in view of Galagan et al. ("Monitoring Time and Temperature by Methylene Blue Containing Polyacrylate Film", as cited in the IDS) . Regarding claim 1, Smyth et al. teaches sensors for detecting oxidizing agents in a package containing perishable goods. The sensor, or referred as an indicator, is in the form of a composition, which may be UV light activatable. It can contain a redox sensitive material, such as methylene blue, and a semiconductor material such as TiO 2 , which when excited/activated by UV light at 200-400 nm, can form an excited electronic state that has a reduced form that is able to reduce the redox sensitive material (see Smyth et al., [0004], [0008]-[0009], [0020], [0029], [0048]). Smyth et ail. fails to teach that the pre-polymeric solution additionally comprises at least one di- or tri-acrylate monomer. However, in the analogous art of "Monitoring time and temperature by methylene blue containing polyacrylate film", Galagan et al. teaches oxygen indicators for determining safe storage periods and freshness of food and pharmaceutical products. The methylene blue compositions used for indication contains polyacrylate films, which are prepared by UV polymerization (at 365 nm) of a mixture of acrylate monomers, and benzil dimethyl ketal photoinitiator (see Galagan et al., Introduction, Results and discussion, pg. 49-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indicator composition of Smyth et al. to incorporate acrylate monomers (as taught by Galagan et al.), for the benefit of using the formed structure of the polyacrylate and color transition following exposure to air can be used to determine the time and temperature of oxidation for perishable products, especially in fabrication of low cost visual sensors (see Galagan et al., Abstract). Regarding claim 2, the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. teaches the exact limitations of claim 2. Specifically, Smyth et al. teaches the process according to claim 1 wherein, said at least one redox dye is selected from the group consisting of a thiazine dye, an oxazine dye, an azine dye, an indophenol dye, an indigo dye a viologen dye, an eurhodin dye, and mixtures thereof (see Smyth et al., [0007], disclosing the redox-sensitive material can be a dye such as a thiazine dyestuff, an oxazine dyestuff, an azine dyestuff, a triphenylmethane dyestuff, an indophenol dyestuff, an indigo dyestuff, viologen and/or mixtures thereof.), and/or said at least one semiconductor material is a metal oxide (MOSs) (see Smyth et al., [0009], disclosing that the semiconductor material may be an oxide of titanium (such as TiO 2 ).), and/or said at least one di- or tri-acrylate monomer is selected from the group consisting of polyethyleneglycol diacrylate (PEGDA), ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate(EOTMPTA), high propoxylated glyceryl triacrylate (HPOGTA), tetraethyleneglycol diacrylate (TEGDA), propoxylated neopentylglycol diacrylate (PONPGDA), ethoxylated bisphenol (A) diacrylate (EOBPADA), tricyclodecane dimethanol diacrylate (TCDDA), tris- 2-hydroxyethyl isocyanurate triacrylate (THEICTA); and mixtures thereof. Regarding claim 3, the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. teaches the exact limitations of claim 3. Specifically, Smyth et al. teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein said pre-polymeric solution is subjected to UVA irradiation for a time of 30 seconds to 15 minutes (see Smyth et al., [0186]-[0188], disclosing activating the TiO2 ink indicator by irradiating with a UVA lamp, having between a minute to two minutes of irradiation required to initiate a colour change from blue to colourless in acetone derived compositions of the ink); and/or further comprises at least one photoinitiator, and optionally at least one sacrificial electron donor (SED) (see Smyth et al., [0139], disclosing the indicator comprising a sacrificial electron donor.). Regarding claim 5, the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. teaches the exact limitations of claim 5. Specifically, Smyth et al. teaches a single-layer sensor, comprising a sensor obtained by means of the process described according to claim 1 (see Smyth et al., [0001], [0190], disclosing applying an indicator to a printing substrate as a film (as described in examples).). Regarding claim 6, Smyth et al. teaches the oxygen indicator, which may be activated by the semiconductor through the absorption of a burst of near UV light. The semiconductor material is selected so that the photogenerated electron is sufficiently reducing in power that it can reduce the redox-sensitive dye present (e.g., methylene blue is reduced to leuco-methylene blue to create a color change) (see Smyth et al., [0143]-[0144]). Smyth et al. fails to teach the single-layer sensor comprising a polymer matrix based on at least one di- or tri-acrylate monomer. However, Galagan et al. teaches methylene blue containing polyacrylate films, which were prepared by UV polymerization of a mixture of acrylates monomers and benzil dimethyl ketal photoinitiator, creating a polymer matrix of polyacrylates (see Galagan et al., Results and Discussion, pg. 50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indicator composition following activation of Smyth et al. to incorporate acrylate monomers forming polymer matrixes following UV irradiation activation (as taught by Galagan et al.), for the benefit of using the formed structure of the polyacrylate and color transition following exposure to air can be used to determine the time and temperature of oxidation for perishable products, especially in fabrication of low cost visual sensors (see Galagan et al., Abstract). Regarding claim 7, Smyth et al. fails to teach the sensor further comprising at least one photoinitiator. However, Galagan et al. teaches the polymerization mixture comprising methylene blue, acrylate monomers, and a photoinitiator benzil dimethyl ketal (see Galagan et al., Results and Discussions, pg. 50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indicator composition of Smyth et al. to incorporate a photoinitiator (as taught by Galagan et al.), for the benefit of using the photoinitiator for reducing methylene blue and polymerizing acrylate monomers upon UV irradiation along with the semiconductor (see Galagan et al., Results and Discussions, pg. 50). Regarding claim 9, Smyth et al. teaches a single-layer sensor (see Smyth et al., [0001], [0190], disclosing applying an indicator to a printing substrate as a film (as described in examples).), but fails to teach it being a part of a multilayer sensor further comprising at least one further polymer layer based on at least one di- or tri-acylate monomer. However, Galagan et al. teaches that the methylene blue mixture further comprises a polymer film of acrylate (which could act as a additional layer) (see Galagan et al., Preparation of leuco methylene blue based polymer films, pg. 50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indicator film on a substrate of Smyth et al. to further incorporate an additional polymer film of acrylate to form multiple layers on the sensor (as taught by Galagan et al.), for the benefit of using the formed structure of the polyacrylate and color transition following exposure to air can be used to determine the time and temperature of oxidation for perishable products, especially in fabrication of low cost visual sensors (see Galagan et al., Abstract). Regarding claim 12, the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. teaches the exact limitations of claim 12. Specifically, Smyth et al. teaches a sensor according to claim 7, further comprising at least one sacrificial electron donor (SED) (see Smyth et al., [0139], disclosing the indicator comprising a sacrificial electron donor.). Regarding claim 13, the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. teaches the exact limitations of claim 13. Specifically, Smyth et al. teaches a method for detecting an oxidizing agent inside a package, comprising providing a sensor according to claim 5 inside said package (see Smyth, [0001]-[0003], [0024], disclosing the indicator/sensor used to detect oxidizing agents and oxygen, where the indicator is directly printed into the air-tight packaging such as food, beverages, pharmaceuticals and medical diagnostic kit packaging.). Regarding claim 14, the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. teaches the exact limitations of claim 14. Specifically, Smyth et al. teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein said package contains a food or pharmaceutical (see Smyth et al., [0003], disclosing that applicable air-tight packaging includes food, beverages, works of art, pharmaceuticals, medical diagnostic kits and sterilized packages.). Regarding claim 15, the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. teaches the exact limitations of claim 15. Specifically, Smyth et al. teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein said pre-polymeric solution is subjected to UV irradiation of 300 to 400 nm (see Smyth et al., [0161], disclosing that the semiconductor material is usually biologically and chemically inactive, unless irradiated with light of energy (i.e., UV) greater than or equal to its bandgap. Ideally, the bandgap of the semiconductor should fall in the near UV region, i.e. 3.1 to 4.1 eV (400 to 300 nm).). Regarding claim 16, the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. teaches the exact limitations of claim 16. Specifically, Smyth et al. teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein said at least one semiconductor material is a metal oxide (MOSs) selected from the group consisting of TiO 2 , ZnO, SnO 2 , WO 3 , Nb 2 O 5 , ZrO 2 , CuS, ZnS, CdS, SnS, WS 2 , MoS 2 and mixtures thereof (see Smyth et al., [0009], the semiconductor material may be an oxide of titanium (such as titanium (IV) oxide; TiO 2 , and strontium titanate; SrTiO 3 ), tin (such as tin (IV) oxide; SnO 2 ), tungsten (such as tungsten (VI) oxide; WO 3 ) and zinc (such as zinc (II) oxide; ZnO) and mixtures thereof.). Regarding claim 17, the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. teaches the exact limitations of claim 17. Specifically, Smyth et al. teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein said at least one semiconductor material is in the form of nanoparticles (see Smyth et al., [0161], disclosing the semiconductor material may be used in various forms, including: as micro and nanocrystalline powder particles dispersed in a polymer encapsulating material or pressed in the form of a tablet or pellet, or as a micro or nanocrystalline film.). Regarding claim 21, the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. teaches the exact limitations of claim 21. Specifically, Smyth et al. teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein said pre-polymeric solution is subjected to UVA irradiation for a time of 1 to 10 minutes (see Smyth et al., [0186]-[0188], disclosing activating the TiO2 ink indicator by irradiating with a UVA lamp, having between a minute to two minutes of irradiation required to initiate a colour change from blue to colourless in acetone derived compositions of the ink) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 4, 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Smyth et al. and Wu et al . as applied to claim s 1, 3 and 5 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US PAT 6534671 B2) . Regarding claim 4, Smyth et al. teaches that the colorimetric indicator may comprise methylene blue as the redox sensitive material, and a semiconductor material comprising an oxide metal (e.g., TiO2) that’s sensitive to light to allow the reduction of both the semiconductor and the redox sensitive material (see Smyth et al., [0009], [0029], [0031], [0048]). Smyth et al. fails to teach wherein the pre-polymeric solution further comprises DAROCUR 1173 and PEGDA. However, Galagan et al. teaches that one of the acrylates that may be used in the methylene blue polymerization mixture can comprise polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) (see Galagan et al., Materials, Results and Discussions, pg. 50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indicator composition of Smyth et al. to incorporate PEGDA as an additional component (as taught by Galagan et al.), for the benefit of using the formed structure of the polyacrylate and color transition following exposure to air can be used to determine the time and temperature of oxidation for perishable products, especially in fabrication of low cost visual sensors (see Galagan et al., Abstract). Furthermore, the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. fails to teach wherein the pre-polymeric solution further comprises DAROCUR 1173. However, in the analogous art of photocurable halofluorinated acrylates, Wu et al. teaches photocuring halofluorinated acrylates, by inducing polymerization or crosslinking of monomers into a three-dimensional network by means of irradiation. Most commercial photocuring systems consist of multifunctional acrylate monomers and free radical photoinitiators (see Wu et al., Abstract, col. 1/lines 18-28). The photoinitiators which can induce polymerization of acrylates may include Darocur 1173 for use in photocurable compositions (see Wu et al., col.6/lines 37-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indicator composition including methylene blue, TiO2, and PEGDA from the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. to further incorporate the composition further including a photoinitiator Darocur 1173 (as taught by Wu et al.), for the benefit of being able to effectively convert the acrylate monomers into a solid composition with short time cycles, limited space, and capital requirements (see Wu et al., col. 1/lines 18-28). Regarding claim 8, Smyth et al. teaches that the colorimetric indicator may comprise methylene blue as the redox sensitive material, and a semiconductor material comprising an oxide metal (e.g., TiO2) that’s sensitive to light to allow the reduction of both the semiconductor and the redox sensitive material (see Smyth et al., [0009], [0029], [0031], [0048]). Smyth et al. fails to teach wherein the sensor further comprises DAROCUR 1173 and a polymer matrix based on PEGDA. However, Galagan et al. teaches that one of the acrylates that may be used in the methylene blue polymerization mixture can comprise polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA), which will form into a polymer matrix upon polymerization (see Galagan et al., Materials, Results and Discussions, pg. 50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indicator composition of Smyth et al. to incorporate PEGDA as an additional component (as taught by Galagan et al.), for the benefit of using the formed structure of the polyacrylate and color transition following exposure to air can be used to determine the time and temperature of oxidation for perishable products, especially in fabrication of low cost visual sensors (see Galagan et al., Abstract). Furthermore, the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. fails to teach wherein the sensor further comprises DAROCUR 1173. However, Wu et al. teaches photocuring halofluorinated acrylates, by inducing polymerization or crosslinking of monomers into a three-dimensional network by means of irradiation. Most commercial photocuring systems consist of multifunctional acrylate monomers and free radical photoinitiators (see Wu et al., Abstract, col. 1/lines 18-28). The photoinitiators which can induce polymerization of acrylates may include Darocur 1173 for use in photocurable compositions (see Wu et al., col.6/lines 37-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indicator composition including methylene blue, TiO2, and polymer matrix PEGDA from the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. to further incorporate the composition further including a photoinitiator Darocur 1173 (as taught by Wu et al.), for the benefit of being able to effectively convert the acrylate monomers into a solid composition with short time cycles, limited space, and capital requirements (see Wu et al., col. 1/lines 18-28). Regarding claim 22, the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. fails to teach wherein said at least one photoinitiator is selected from the group comprising DAROCUR 1173 (2-hydroxy-2-methy- 1-phenyl-1-propiophenone), IRGACURE 369 (2-benzyl-2-(dimethylamino)-1-[4-Preliminary Amendment (morpholinyl) phenyl)]-1-butanone), IRGACURE 819 (phenylbis(2,4,6- trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide), and LAP (lithium phenyl-2,4,6- trimethylbenzoylphosphinate). However, Wu et al. teaches photocuring halofluorinated acrylates, by inducing polymerization or crosslinking of monomers into a three-dimensional network by means of irradiation. Most commercial photocuring systems consist of multifunctional acrylate monomers and free radical photoinitiators (see Wu et al., Abstract, col. 1/lines 18-28). The photoinitiators which can induce polymerization of acrylates may include Darocur 1173 for use in photocurable compositions (see Wu et al., col.6/lines 37-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indicator irradiation process from the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. to incorporate including a photoinitiator Darocur 1173 (as taught by Wu et al.), for the benefit of being able to effectively convert the acrylate monomers into a solid composition with short time cycles, limited space, and capital requirements (see Wu et al., col. 1/lines 18-28) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al . as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US PG-Pub 20070092927 A1) . Regarding claim 18, Smyth et al. teaches that the semiconductor material may be used in various forms, including: as micro and nanocrystalline powder particles dispersed in a polymer encapsulating material or pressed in the form of a tablet or pellet, or as a micro or nanocrystalline film (see Smyth et al., [0161]). The combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. fails to teach wherein said nanoparticles have an average size of 1 to 100 nm. However, in the analogous art of photocatalytic particles with directed and controlled redox activity, Johnson et al. teaches a photoactivatable semiconductor which directs and controls redox activity. The invention uses photoactivatable TiO 2 upon excitation via UV light, where the nanoparticles are reported to have a diameter of 40 nm or less and a surface area larger than 20 m 2 /gram. Johnson et al. additionally teaches that nanoparticles generally can have a diameter spanning from 1 to 1000 nanometers (see Johnson et al., Abstract, [0002]-[0003], [0039], [0042], [0050]). While Johnson et al. doesn't explicitly teach that the semiconductor nanoparticles have a average size of 1 to 100 nm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ranges of Johnson et al. to have the TiO2 nanoparticles be in the ranges an average of 1 to 100 nm, as a result of routine optimization ( See MPEP 2144.05 regarding routine optimization; see also In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation"); see In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."). It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the semiconductor nanoparticles of the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. incorporate the average ranges of the nanoparticle diameter to be 1 to 100 nm (as taught by Johnson et al.), for the benefit in applications where increased surface area to volume ratio is important during photoactivation (see Johnson et al., [0042]). Regarding claim 19, the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. fails to teach wherein said nanoparticles have an average size of 1 to 50 nm. However, Johnson et al. teaches a photoactivatable semiconductor which directs and controls redox activity. The invention uses photoactivatable TiO 2 upon excitation via UV light, where the nanoparticles are reported to have a diameter of 40 nm or less and a surface area larger than 20 m 2 /gram. Johnson et al. additionally teaches that nanoparticles generally can have a diameter spanning from 1 to 1000 nanometers (see Johnson et al., Abstract, [0002]-[0003], [0039], [0042], [0050]). While Johnson et al. doesn't explicitly teach that the semiconductor nanoparticles have a average size of 1 to 50 nm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ranges of Johnson et al. to have the TiO2 nanoparticles be in the ranges an average of 1 to 50 nm, as a result of routine optimization ( See MPEP 2144.05 regarding routine optimization; see also In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation"); see In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."). It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the semiconductor nanoparticles of the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. to incorporate the average ranges of the nanoparticle diameter to be 1 to 50 nm (as taught by Johnson et al.), for the benefit in applications where increased surface area to volume ratio is important during photoactivation (see Johnson et al., [0042]). Regarding claim 20, the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. fails to teach wherein said nanoparticles have an average size of 5 to 25 nm. However, Johnson et al. teaches a photoactivatable semiconductor which directs and controls redox activity. The invention uses photoactivatable TiO 2 upon excitation via UV light, where the nanoparticles are reported to have a diameter of 40 nm or less and a surface area larger than 20 m 2 /gram. Johnson et al. additionally teaches that nanoparticles generally can have a diameter spanning from 1 to 1000 nanometers (see Johnson et al., Abstract, [0002]-[0003], [0039], [0042], [0050]). While Johnson et al. doesn't explicitly teach that the semiconductor nanoparticles have a average size of 5 to 25 nm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ranges of Johnson et al. to have the TiO2 nanoparticles be in the ranges an average of 5 to 25 nm, as a result of routine optimization ( See MPEP 2144.05 regarding routine optimization; see also In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation"); see In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."). It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the semiconductor nanoparticles of the combination of Smyth et al. and Galagan et al. to incorporate the average ranges of the nanoparticle diameter to be 5 to 25 nm (as taught by Johnson et al.), for the benefit in applications where increased surface area to volume ratio is important during photoactivation (see Johnson et al., [0042]). Status of Claims The examiner notes that the claims above are given broad limitations as the current claim limitations direct to simply the components of the pre-polymeric solution and sensor, but can potentially be made more allowable by specifying the function of the components of the pre-polymeric solution and sensor in the current claims, as cited within the specifications (e.g., the semiconductor used for polymerization of the acrylate monomer). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tracy C Colena whose telephone number is (571)272-1625. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 8:00am-5:00pm. 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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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. /TRACY CHING-TIAN COLENA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /JENNIFER WECKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/263,636 Page 2 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/263,636 Page 3 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/263,636 Page 4 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/263,636 Page 5 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/263,636 Page 6 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/263,636 Page 7 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/263,636 Page 8 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/263,636 Page 9 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/263,636 Page 10 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/263,636 Page 11 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/263,636 Page 12 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/263,636 Page 13 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/263,636 Page 14 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/263,636 Page 15 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/263,636 Page 16 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/263,636 Page 17 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/263,636 Page 18 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/263,636 Page 19 Art Unit: 1797