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/Restriction
Applicant’s 5/8/26 election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12 & 18-20) is acknowledged. Claims 13-14 & 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration per 37 CFR 1.142(b) as drawn to a nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim1.
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, 11-12, & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “the… ammonia monohydrate in the ammonia aqueous solution” lacks sufficient antecedent bases, rendering claim 2 rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. Applicant is hereby advised that, as dependent claim 2 is rejected for deficiencies under 35 USC 112(b)/2nd par., all claims depending therefrom also contain such deficiencies and are likewise rejected (unless the deficiencies are resolved by the dependent claim’s own limitations) - cure thereof is required for any and all claims affected even if any such claim were otherwise found allowable. See, e.g., In re Jolly, 172 F.2d 566, 567 (CCPA 1949) (holding that dependent claims of indefinite claims are thusly indefinite), and Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701, 1702-04 (BPAI 1989) (same); 35 USC 112(d)/4th par.
Regarding claims 11-12, the recitation “the solation” lacks sufficient antecedent bases, rendering claims 11-12 rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-10, & 19-20 are allowable over the prior art and do not suffer from any deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or § 112. The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding independent claim 1, the most pertinent prior art of record appears to be CN11617633A (2020) (incl. English machine transl’n, “EMT”) (“’633”). ‘633 teaches a method comprising mixing titanium isopropoxide (i.e. titanium isopropanolate) with aq. ammonia to thereby form a hydrolysis solution, drying the hydrolysis solution to give TiO2, aminating the TiO2 with a mixture of aq. ammonia/EtOH, and drying the resulting TiO2 powder. See ‘633 at, e.g., EMT Embodiment 3 (boxed area). Claim 1has been allowed over ‘633 at least because ‘633 does not mix its initial TiO2 with sodium polyacrylate and MDEA prior to its amination step as claim 1 requires.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL BERNS whose telephone number is (469)295-9161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 (Central). 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.
/DANIEL BERNS/ August 6, 2026
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1736
1 Since it has been held that the patentability of a product and its method of production are determined separately, the claimed process limitations referred to in claims 13 and 16 (i.e. those of claim 1’s method) have not been accorded patentable weight, except to the extent that the process steps suggest structural features of the resulting product. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985), In re Brown, 173 USPQ 688, 688 (CCPA 1977), and In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2113. As such, especially since claim 1 simply yields a titanium sol, the analysis vis-à-vis lack of unity of invention (see the 3/19/26 Restriction Requirement) remains applicable and Groups II & III are ineligible for rejoinder, notwithstanding the allowability of claim 1.
Prosecution Insights