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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5, lines 20-24 of Remarks, filed August 17th, 2026, with respect to claims 1, 3, and 6-7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Due to claim amendments, the objection of July 20th, 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5, line 25 – Page 6, line 2 of Remarks, filed August 17th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15-16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd Paragraph have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Amendments to claim 1 do not provide a basis for measurement of concentration by which the concentrations of the first component and the second component are compared. To elaborate, a proportion of a first component and a second component based on weight, for example, could fall within the claimed range of 1 to 100 without falling within a proportion based on molar concentration, or vice versa, if the molar mass of the first component differs from that of the second component. It is therefore unclear how to assess whether a given combination of first component and second component falls within the claimed range. The rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15-16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd Paragraph dated July 20th, 2026 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, lines 3-5 of Remarks, filed August 17th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd Paragraph have been fully considered and are persuasive. The ground of rejection arising from “a small amount” previously recited in the claim, dated July 20th, 2026, is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, lines 6-17 of Remarks, filed August 17th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Because the allowable subject matter of claim 2 as presented on January 30th, 2024 has been incorporated into the independent claim 1, the rejection of July 20th, 2026 is withdrawn. Correspondingly, the rejection of dependent claims 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is also withdrawn.
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 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15-16, and 19 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 1 recites the limitation, “a concentration of the second component in the precursor solution relative to a concentration of the first component in the precursor solution is in a range of 1 to 100” in lines 6-8. The claim does not specify the basis for measurement of concentration by which the concentrations of the first component and the second component are compared. For assessing the scope and meaning of the claim for prior art purposes, any measure of concentration will be interpreted to read on “concentration”, as individual claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2111.
Claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15-16, and 19 are indefinite due to their dependence on the indefinite claim 1 and because they do not cure the indefiniteness of “concentration” as recited therein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15-16, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: claim 2 as presented on January 30th, 2024 contained allowable subject matter for reasons discussed on Page 10, lines 7-13 of the Office Action dated July 20th, 2026 but was objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. As the allowable subject matter of the previously presented claim 2 has been incorporated into independent claim 1, claim 1 and its dependent claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15-16, and 19 contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY J. BAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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 571-270-3590. 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.
/ZACHARY JOHN BAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
