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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. Claim(s) 9-1 6 and 19- 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang, J.; Lu, P.; Su, W.; Xing, Y.; Li, R.; Li, Y.; Zhu, T.; Yue, H.; Cui, Y. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019 , 26 , 20248. Regarding claims 9- 12 : Wang et al. ( Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019 , 26 , 20248) discloses Fe 0.3 La 0.7 O 1.5 {corresponding to La 1.4 Fe 0.6 O 3 (x= 0.7) } [abstract; §Experimental]. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention ( antibacterial agen t) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim [see MPEP 2111.02]. Regarding claims 13-16: Wang et al. ( Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019 , 26 , 20248) discloses Fe 0.3 La 0.7 O 1.5 {corresponding to La 1.4 Fe 0.6 O 3 (x= 0.7)} on an AC (activate d coke) substrate (Fe 0.3 La 0.7 O 1.5 /AC) [abstract; §Experimental]. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention (antibacterial product) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim [see MPEP 2111.02]. Regarding claim 19 : Wang et al. ( Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019 , 26 , 20248) discloses Fe 0.3 La 0.7 O 1.5 {corresponding to La 1.4 Fe 0.6 O 3 (x= 0.7)} on an AC (activate d coke) substrate (Fe 0.3 La 0.7 O 1.5 /AC) for removal of pollutants (ex. NO x , CO) {corresponding to air filter} [abstract; §Experimental]. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention (antibacterial product) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim [see MPEP 2111.02]. Regarding claim 20 : Wang et al. ( Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019 , 26 , 20248) discloses Fe 0.3 La 0.7 O 1.5 {corresponding to La 1.4 Fe 0.6 O 3 (x= 0.7)} (coating material) on an AC (activate d coke) substrate (Fe 0.3 La 0.7 O 1.5 /AC) [abstract; §Experimental]. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention (antibacterial coating material) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim [see MPEP 2111.02]. Claim(s) 9 , 11, 13, 15, and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Atsushi et al. (JP 2005-272320) (English machine translation for citation) [IDS 11/6/23] . Regarding claims 9 and 1 1 : Atsushi et al. (JP 2005-272320) discloses anti-algae additives [0006], wherein Atsushi et al. (JP 2005-272320) discloses LaFeO 3 {corresponding to x = 0. 5 } [ 0024; 0027; 0029 ]. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention (antibacterial agent ) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim [see MPEP 2111.02]. Regarding claims 13 , 1 5 and 17-22 : Atsushi et al. (JP 2005-272320) discloses anti-algae additives [0006], wherein Atsushi et al. (JP 2005-272320) discloses LaFeO 3 {corresponding to x = 0.5} [0024; 0027; 0029] powder dispersed in a coating composition containing an epoxy acrylate resin and styrene [ 0029 -0030 ]. The coating material is applied to a base material and dried to form a coating film on the surface of the base material [0030]. Atsushi et al. (JP 2005- 272320) discloses the coating material is suitable for doors, window frames, etc. (building materials) [0032]. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention (antibacterial product ; antibacterial coating material ) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim [see MPEP 2111.02]. 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. Claim 9- 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9- 22 of copending Application No. 18/277283 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the antifungal agent, antifungal product, and antifungal coating material containing Ln 2x Fe 2(1-x) O 3 (0.45<x<1.00) of Application No. 18/277283 anticipates the instant claimed anti bacterial agent, anti bacterial product, and anti bacterial coating material containing Ln 2x Fe 2(1-x) O 3 (0.45<x<1.00) . A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention (antibacterial agent; antibacterial product; antibacterial coating material) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim [see MPEP 2111.02]. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim 9- 17 and 19-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/709952 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the anti viral agent, anti viral product, and anti viral layer of Application No. 18/709952 substantially overlap in scope with the instant claimed antibacterial agent, antibacterial product, and antibacterial coating material containing Ln 2x Fe 2(1-x) O 3 (0.45<x<1.00). While Application No. 18/709952 does not specifically claim Ln 2x Fe 2(1-x) O 3 (0.45<x<1.00) in claim 1, it would have been obvious to have employed Ln 2x Fe 2(1-x) O 3 (0.45<x<1.00) , as Application No. 18/709952 claims Ln 2x Fe 2(1-x) O 3 (0.45<x<1.00) [claim 2 -3 ]. “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven , 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) [see MPEP 2144.06]. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. See attached form PTO-892. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL F PEPITONE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3299 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:00 AM - 3:30 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 Mark Eashoo can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1197 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MICHAEL F PEPITONE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767