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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 03/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Groups I and II share the same or corresponding technical feature. As such, once Groups I and II have the same or corresponding special technical feature, rejoinder of the unelected Group II (corresponding to claim 10) is respectfully solicited” (Applicants’ response page 5). This is not found persuasive because of the following reasons.
The Group II invention (claim 10) is not subjected to rejoinder because the claim is drawn to “a use of the nanomaterial macroscopic composites”, which is considered a method of use. The claim of Group II would be rejoined if it depends on a product claim, however the claim is presently depending on a method of making a product of claim 1. See MPEP 821.04(b) for more details regarding rejoinder of product, process of making a product, and process of use claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
2. Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/18/2026.
Status of Application
3. This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/085904, which was filed on 04/08/2022.
Claims 1-10 were originally presented in this application for examination.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending in this application for examination.
Specification
4. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file.
Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any.
The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any, should be updated in a timely manner.
Priority
5. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The foreign document CN202210331670.6 (filed on 03/30/2022) has been received and placed in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/06/2023 has been made of record and entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy accompanies this office action.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A. In claim 1, step 1), “setting” is suggested changing to --providing--.
B. In claim 1, step 1), “required for the synthesis of nanomaterials” is suggested deleting.
C. In claim 1, step 2), “the precursor solution” should change to --the reaction precursor solution--.
D. In claim 1, step 2), “on/in” is suggested changing to --on or in--.
E. In claim 1, step 3), “to make the substrate generate a heat” is suggested changing to --to generate heat on the substrate--.
F. In claim 1, step 3), “the precursor solution” should change to --the reaction precursor solution--.
G. In claim 1, step 3), “on/in” is suggested changing to --on or in--.
H. In claim 2, line 2, “through substrate heating and solvent evaporation” should be deleted because it is too wordy.
I. In claim 2, line 3, “types of materials for” should be deleted.
J. In claim 3, line 2, “through substrate heating and solvent evaporation” should be deleted because it is too wordy.
K. In claim 3, line 3, “forms of materials for the substrate adopt materials” should change to --the substrate is--.
L. In claim 4, line 2, “through substrate heating and solvent evaporation” should be deleted because it is too wordy.
M. In claim 4, line 6, “on/in” is suggested changing to --on or in--.
N. In claim 5, line 2, “through substrate heating and solvent evaporation” should be deleted because it is too wordy.
O. In claim 5, line 3, “main components of” should be deleted.
P. In claim 5, line 3, “comprise” should change to --comprises--.
Q. In claim 5, line 34, --wherein-- should be inserted before “the reaction raw material A”.
R. In claim 6, line 2, “through substrate heating and solvent evaporation” should be deleted because it is too wordy.
S. In claim 6, last line, “inorganic metal ions and organics” should change to --inorganic or organic metal ions--.
T. In claim 7, line 2, “through substrate heating and solvent evaporation” should be deleted because it is too wordy.
U. In claim 8, line 2, “through substrate heating and solvent evaporation” should be deleted because it is too wordy.
V. In claim 8, “types of the nanomaterials in” should be deleted.
W. In claim 9, line 2, “through substrate heating and solvent evaporation” should be deleted because it is too wordy.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)(Second Paragraph)
8. 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 1-7 & 9 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.
A. Regarding claim 1, step 2), the phase “a small volume” does not particularly point out specific amount of the precursor solution for the claimed method, thus renders the claim vague and indefinite.
B. Regarding claim 1, step 3), the phrase “a certain heating method” is unclear as to what heating method is being referred to in the claimed method.
C. Regarding claim 1, step 3), the claim limitation on “after a period of time” does not particularly point out specific time, thus renders the claim unclear.
D. Regarding claim 4, the claim recites multiple ranges for “the heating methods”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “all of the methods…”, and the claim also recites “electrothermal, photothermal, or microwave heating”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
E. Regarding claim 5, the claim limitation “a growth regulator C” is not defined in the claim, thus renders to claim unclear as to what material is intended to include as part of the claimed invention. Specification [0020] lists various compounds suitable for the claimed method, however they are not being listed or particularly pointed out in the claim.
F. Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “in the reaction precursor solution, a reaction raw material A comprises inorganic metal ions and organics” is noted. Does Applicant mean the reaction precursor solution comprises a reaction raw material A, which comprises inorganic or organic metal ions? If so, the claim should be properly amended to overcome the rejection.
The claim could also be considered as lacks of insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “a reaction raw material A” is not mentioned in claim 1.
G. Regarding claim 6, the limitation “inorganic metal ions and organics” is not defined in the claim, thus it is unclear as to what inorganic and organic metal ions are intended to include as part of the claimed invention. The instant specification [0017] & [0018] list various inorganic and organic metal ions and compounds, however they are not being listed or particularly pointed out in the claim.
H. Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “in the reaction precursor solution, a solvent B comprises a mixture of one or more of water, ethanol and N,N-dimethylformamide” is noted. Does Applicant mean the reaction precursor solution comprises a solvent B, which comprises a mixture of one or more of water, ethanol and N,N-dimethylformamide? If so, the claim should be properly amended to overcome the rejection.
I. Claim 7 recites the limitation "a solvent B" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “Solvent B” is not mentioned in claim 1.
J. Claim 9 recites the limitation "a cleaning solvent" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “Cleaning solvent” is not mentioned in claim 1.
K. Claim 9 recites the limitation "a drying temperature" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “Drying temperature” is not mentioned in claim 1.
L. Claim 9 recites the limitation "a drying time" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “Drying time” is not mentioned in claim 1.
*Claims 2 & 3 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims and they do not cure the indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)(Fourth Paragraph)
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The claim is failing to further limit the “certain heating methods” limitation in step 3) of claim 1. The instant claim recites “the nanomaterial macroscopic composites comprise all of materials prepared by hydrothermal/solvothermal methods, including metal organic frameworks, covalent organic frameworks, metals, and oxides thereof” appears improper because the claim does not indicate that the “hydrothermal/solvothermal methods” is the heating methods in step 3) of claim 1 and being further limited.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 1-9 are allowable over the prior art made of record. The following is a statement of reason(s) for allowing the claimed subject matter.
The claims would be allowed if the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the Claim Objections are overcome.
The claimed invention relates to a method for preparing a nanomaterial macroscopic composites through substrate heating and solvent evaporation by providing a substrate and preparing a reaction precursor solution (as recited in claim 1, step 1), evenly dropping a small volume of the precursor solution on/in the substrate (as recited in claim 1, step 2), and performing a heat treating (by electrothermal, photothermal, or microwave heating) to generate heat on the substrate and transferring the heat to the reaction precursor solution on/in the substrate; then removing the substrate for cleaning after the reaction is finished to obtain a nanomaterial macroscopic composites (as recited in claim 1, step 3).
Reed et al. (US 2012/0004093 A1) is identified as the closest prior art reference which teaches the claimed method, however the method disclosed by Reed et al. differs from the claimed method by specifically defining the addition amount (a small volume) and addition mode (evenly dropping) of the reaction precursor solution on/in the substrate (as recited in claim 1, step 2). It is considered dropping a small amount of the reaction precursor solution for reaction to or in the substrate in a uniform drop coating manner is inventive and not taught by the prior art.
There is no motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references together to arrive to the claimed invention.
Citations
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for related art. See PTO-892 Form prepared.
US 8,388,870 B2 (cited for a method for producing a metal-nanoparticle-containing composite).
US 2019/0314790 A1 (cited for a method of making a nanomaterial using microwave hydrothermal method).
Conclusion
12. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-9 are rejected. Claim 10 is withdrawn. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov.
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 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.
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/CNN/
May 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights