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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/13/2025.
Status of Application
3. This application was filed on 05/24/2023, which is a Continuation of PCT/JP2022/005366, which was filed on 02/10/2022.
Claims 1-19 were originally presented in this application for examination.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and under consideration.
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.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1, 7, & 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A. In claim 1, line 3, --wherein-- is suggested insert before “D50”.
B. In claim 1, line 4, “being” (first and second occurrences) is suggested change to--is--.
C. In claim 1, last line, “being” is suggested change to --is--.
D. In claim 7, line 2, --a group consisting of-- should be inserted after “from”.
E. In claim 7, last line, “or” should be changed to --and--.
F. In claim 8, line 2, --a group consisting of-- should be inserted after “from”.
G. In claim 8, last line, “or” should be changed to --and--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)/103
6. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakano et al. (US 2011/0212832 A1), hereinafter “Nakano et al.”
Nakano et al. discloses an aqueous dispersion liquid contains at least one particles selected from tungsten oxide particles and tungsten oxide composite particles. The mean primary diameter (D50) of the particles is in a range of 1 nm to 400 nm, concentration of the particles is in a range of 0.1 mass % to 40 mass % (see abstract and page 2, [0013]).
The tungsten oxide based particles may contain metal elements, such as Fe, Mn, Cu, Ti, Al, Ca, Ni, Cr, Mg, etc. as impurity and can be 2 mass % or less (see page 3, [0021]).
In the aqueous dispersion liquid, particle size distribution of the tungsten oxide based particles is preferably such that the D90 diameter is in the range of 0.01 um to 10 um (see page 4, [0032]).
The aqueous dispersion liquid may contain alcohol in the range of 20 mass % or less as a dispersion medium other than water. As the alcohol, methanol, ethanol, 1-propanol, 2-propanol, etc. can be used. See page 4, [0036].
Regarding claims 1-4 & 16, the reference appears to teach the claimed tungsten oxide powder slurry comprising a tungsten oxide powder and an aqueous solvent.
The claim limitations on “D50 being 20 nm to 10,000 nm and D90 being 100,000 nm or less” and “D50 is 500 nm or less and D90 is 1000 nm or less” of the tungsten oxide powder in the slurry in claims 1 & 2, respectively, appear overlapping with the disclosed D50 and D90 particle size ranges. See abstract and page 2, [0013]) and page 4, [0032].
With respect to the claim limitation on “a half-value width of a most intense peak detected at 29o ± 1o being 2o or less according to X-ray diffraction” in claim 1 and the related claim features recited in the instant claims 3 & 4, while the reference does not disclose these characteristics, it is inherent and expected that the disclosed aqueous dispersion liquid would have the same characteristics as well because same product is disclosed and claimed.
Regarding claims 5 & 6, the reference teaches the concentration of the tungsten oxide based particles is in a range of 0.1 mass % to 40 mass %, which is overlapping with the claimed range of “within a range of 5% by mass to 50% by mass”. See abstract and page 2, [0013].
Regarding claim 11, the reference teaches the tungsten oxide based particles may contain metal elements, such as Fe, Mn, Cu, Ti, Al, Ca, Ni, Cr, Mg, etc. as impurity and can be 2 mass % or less, which falls within the claim range of “0.01% by mass to 50% by mass” and “magnesium” is among the group listed in the reference as impurity element (see page 3, [0021]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)/103
7. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-10, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sato et al. (US 9,409,144 B2), hereinafter “Sato et al. ‘144”.
Sato ‘144 discloses a cation adsorbent comprising tungsten oxide particles dispersed in an aqueous dispersion medium (see col. 8, claim 1 and col. 9, claim 3). The tungsten oxide particles are in fine powder (see col. 2, lines 6-7). The aqueous dispersion medium can be water (see col. 3, lines 41-43). The particle diameter of the tungsten oxide particle is in a range of 1 nm or more and 1000 nm or less (see col. 9, claim 2). A cation to be adsorbed by the cation adsorbent is at least one ion selected from the group consisting of a Cs, Sr, Na, Mg, Ca, and K ion (see col. 2, line 45 – col. 3, line 25).
Regarding claims 1, 3, & 16, the reference appears to teach the claimed tungsten oxide powder slurry comprising a tungsten oxide powder and an aqueous solvent.
With respect to the claimed tungsten oxide powder particle size limitation on “D50 being 20 nm to 10,000 nm and D90 being 100,000 nm or less” in claim 1, it is considered these limitations are met because the tungsten oxide particles of the reference are taught to be in a range of 1 nm or more and 1000 nm or less, and this range would obviously be falling within these claimed D50 and D90 ranges.
With respect to the claim limitation on “a half-value width of a most intense peak detected at 29o ± 1o being 2o or less according to X-ray diffraction” in claim 1 and the related claim features recited in the instant claims 3 & 4, while the reference does not disclose these characteristics, it is inherent and expected that the disclosed cation adsorbent, which comprises tungsten oxide particles dispersed in an aqueous medium, would have the same characteristics as well because same product is disclosed and claimed.
Regarding claims 7 & 8, the reference teaches the cation adsorbent comprises at least one ion selected from a group which includes the K and Na ions (ion (see col. 2, line 45 – col. 3, line 25).
Regarding claims 9 & 10, the reference discloses that the tungsten oxide particles were manufactured by inductively-couple plasma process (which is without the aqueous solvent) having a particle diameter of about 20 nm (see col. 6, lines 17-22), which meets the claimed average particle size of “20 nm or less”.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Sato et al. (US 10,081,850 B2) and Nakano et al. (US 2011/0212832 A1) are identified as the closest prior arts, which teach the claimed tungsten oxide powder slurry comprising a tungsten oxide powder and an aqueous solvent, however these references do not disclose the claimed features including the absorbance, wavelength, and the related absorbance and wavelength ratio as recited.
There is no motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references together to arrive to the claimed invention.
Citations
9. 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.
Conclusion
10. Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-11 & 16 are rejected. Claims 12-15 are objected. Claims 17-19 are withdrawn. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
11. 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/
December 13, 2025
Prosecution Insights