DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
This is a second non-final rejection following the non-final rejection mailed 04/16/2026 prepared in response to internal quality reviews comments.
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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 10-20 are pending in the application. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn and claims 1-5 are being examined as previously noted in the rejection mailed 04/16/2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the office action mailed 04/16/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues incorporating previous claim 6, indicated as allowable in the action dated 04/16/2026, expedites allowance.
However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made for claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Slimani et al. (Catalysis 2023, 13, 668). Examiner notes this rejection is an exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) being a grace period disclosure including inventors named in this application.
Additionally, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eskandarloo et al. (Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 2015, 26, 281-292; cited in IDS dated 09/27/2023) in view of Coromelci et al. (Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 2022, 341, 112072), with evidentiary support provided by Liu et al. (Int. J. Light. Elec. Optic. 2020, 206, 164342).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Slimani et al. (Catalysis 2023, 13, 668).
Examiner notes Slimani et al. was published 03/29/2023 while the instant application has an effective filing date of 09/27/2023. Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Regarding claim 1, Slimani teaches the synthesis of a Ce and Sm co-doped TiO2 nanoparticles with enhanced photocatalytic activity (Title). Slimani teaches the material is anatase phase TiO2 with a tetragonal structure, cerium and samarium co-doping from 0 to 2.00 % by weight of TiO2, average crystallite sizes of 15.1-17.8 nm, and average particle diameter of 19-25 nm (Abstract; Pg. 5, 2.2; Figure 2; Figure 3). Slimani teaches the indirect band gap is determined by employing the Kubelka-Munk function plotting [F(R)hv]^1/2 against hv is less than 3.16 eV, with the four co-doped samples displaying an indirect band gap eV of about 3.14, 3.12, 3.11 and 3.10 (Pg. 10-11; Figure 8; Pg. 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eskandarloo et al. (Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 2015, 26, 281-292; cited in IDS dated 09/27/2023) in view of Coromelci et al. (Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 2022, 341, 112072), with evidentiary support provided by Liu et al. (Int. J. Light. Elec. Optic. 2020, 206, 164342). Note, Eskandarloo is cited in the IDS dated 09/27/2023 however the copy of Eskandarloo provided by Applicant only includes an Abstract. Citations to the text below are from the full text version provided by Examiner in this action.
Regarding claim 1, Eskandarloo teaches a samarium, cerium co-doped TiO2 nanoparticle that is photocatalytic (Abstract; Title; Pg. 287, right col.). Eskandarloo teaches the nanoparticles display an anatase phase crystal system (Pg. 288, right col.).
Eskandarloo does not explicitly state the anatase crystal system is tetragonal, however anatase is known by skilled artisans to be a tetragonal crystal system, as evidenced by Liu who teaches the crystal structure of anatase TiO2 is tetragonal system (Pg. 2, 2.1 Modeling of anatase TiO2).
Eskandarloo further teaches the material is doped with samarium and cerium, where the samarium content by weight percent (wt.%) ranges from 0.30-1.14 and the cerium content by (wt.%) ranges from 0.30-1.14, while teaching an example where the samarium wt.% is 0.30 and the cerium wt.% is 0.30 (Table 2; Fig. 2).
Eskandarloo teaches the average crystallite size of the Sm-Ce-TiO2 catalyst is 19 nm and the mean particle size is 20 nm (Pg. 288, right col.).
The claim further requires the “the titanium dioxide nanoparticles have an indirect bandgap (Eidrec) from 3.05 to 3.15 electron volts (eV) calculated from a plot of a square root of a Kubelka-Munk function multiplied by an energy of a photon ([(F(R)hv)]1/2) versus an energy of a photon (hv),” to which Eskandarloo is silent.
Coromelci teaches activated mesoporous titania rare-earth metal doped materials where titania is doped with samarium or cerium (Abstract; Title). Coromelci teaches the doping of cerium and samarium leads to a lowering of the indirect band gap from pure TiO2 materials, where pure TiO2 displays an indirect band gap of 3.28 eV while doping with cerium provides an indirect band gap of 3.18 eV and doping with samarium provides an indirect band gap of 3.12 eV (Fig. 5; Pg. 5-6, 3.4. Optical Properties; Pg. 5-6, 3.5, Photocatalytic properties…). Coromelci teaches the indirect band gap is a plot of the square root of the function (F(R)hv)1/2 against the energy of a photon hv (Fig. 5; 2.3 Characterization Techniques). Examiner notes Coromelci does not explicitly state the function is a Kubelka-Munk function, however the functions being plotted in Coromelci ((F(R)hv)1/2 against hv) are identical to the claimed functions, meeting the limitation required by the claim.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Coromelci (samarium doping providing a band gap of 3.12 eV) overlaps with the claimed range (indirect band gap from 3.05 to 3.15 eV). Therefore, the range in Coromelci renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, doping with cerium or samarium lowers the indirect band gap of pure titania which increases the oxygen vacancies on the surface to improve photocatalytic activity, which is useful in applications including photodegradation of dyes (Pg. 6, 3.5. Photocatalytic properties…). Further, Coromelci teaches it is advantageous to provide an indirect band gap below 3.2 eV in order to provide a competitive photocatalyst that is sensitive to light activation (Pg. 6, left col.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the cerium and samarium doping in the titania material into the claimed range by varying the amount of cerium and samarium in order to obtain an indirect band gap at least below 3.20 eV, as directed by Coromelci. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in performing this modification because Figure 5 of Coromelci shows the trend of doping titania with cerium and samarium that leads to a lowering of the indirect band gap. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an indirect band gap of about 3.12 eV in the product of Eskandarloo in order to provide increased oxygen vacancies that improves the photocatalytic activity of the material, as taught by Coromelci.
Regarding claim 2, Eskandarloo in view of Coromelci teaches the photocatalytic nanoparticle composition of claim 1.
Eskandarloo further teaches the material is doped with samarium and cerium, where the samarium content by weight percent (wt.%) ranges from 0.30-1.14 and the cerium content by (wt.%) ranges from 0.30-1.14, while teaching an example where the samarium wt.% is 0.30 and the cerium wt.% is 0.30 (Table 2; Fig. 2). The balance (i.e. the remaining weight percent) is TiO2 (Pg. 283, 2.2.).
Eskandarloo teaches an optimized sample that has the formula Sm (0.6 wt%)–Ce(0.82 wt%)/TiO2 (Fig. 4; Pg. 288, right col.). Converting the weight percent taught in Eskandarloo for the Sm (0.6 wt%)–Ce(0.82 wt%)/TiO2 sample to atom percent (at%) provides values of 0.11 at% Sm, 0.16 at% Ce, 33.1 at% Ti, and 66.7 at% O (see calculations below). At least this example renders obvious the claimed ranges.
Calculations:
Samarium molar mass = 150.36 g/mol; wt.% in Eskandarloo= 0.60
Cerium molar mass = 140.116 g/mol; wt.% in Eskandarloo = 0.82
Titanium molar mass = 47.867 g/mol
Oxygen molar mass = 16 g/mol
TiO2 molar mass = 79.8658 g/mol
Mass percent of Ti in TiO2 = 1* 47.867 / 79.8658 = 59.99
Mass percent of O in TiO2 = 2 * 16 / 79.8658 = 0.40
Wt % of TiO2 in Sm(0.6 wt%)–Ce(0.82 wt%)/TiO2 = 100-(0.6 + 0.82) = 98.58
wt% of Ti in 98.58 g of TiO2 = 59.08
wt% of O in 98.58 g of TiO2 = 39.80
at% of Sm = ((0.6/150.36) / (0.6/150.36) + (0.82/140.116) + (59.08/47.867) + (39.80/16)) * 100 = [Wingdings font/0xE0] 0.107 at% Sm
at% of Ce = ((0.82/140.116) / (0.6/150.36) + (0.82/140.116) + (59.08/47.867) + (39.80/16)) * 100 = [Wingdings font/0xE0] 0.157 at% Ce
at% of Ti = ((59.08/47.867) / (0.6/150.36) + (0.82/140.116) + (59.08/47.867) + (39.80/16)) * 100 = [Wingdings font/0xE0] 33.06 at% Ti
at% of O = ((39.80/16) / (0.6/150.36) + (0.82/140.116) + (59.08/47.867) + (39.80/16)) * 100 = [Wingdings font/0xE0] 66.67 at% O
Regarding claim 3, Eskandarloo in view of Coromelci teaches the photocatalytic nanoparticle composition of claim 1.
Eskandarloo teaches the material is doped with samarium and cerium, where the samarium content by weight percent (wt.%) ranges from 0.30-1.14 and the cerium content by (wt.%) ranges from 0.30-1.14, while teaching an example where the samarium wt.% is 0.30 and the cerium wt.% is 0.30 (Table 2; Fig. 2). Eskandarloo teaches the average crystallite size of the Sm-Ce-TiO2 catalyst is 19 nm and the mean particle size is 20 nm (Pg. 288, right col.). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges and values taught by Eskandarloo (Sm wt% 0.30-1.14; Ce wt.% 0.30-1.14; average crystallite size 19 nm; average particle diameter 20 nm) overlap or abut the claimed ranges (cerium and samarium each present from 0.1 to 2.5% by weight; average crystallite size 15 to 18 nm; average particle diameter 18 to 25 nm). Therefore, the ranges and values in Eskandarloo render obvious the claimed ranges.
It is noted the crystallite size taught by Eskandarloo is 19 nm while the claimed range is 15 to 18 nm. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Furthermore, the proportions are so close (19 nm vs 18 nm) that prima facie one skilled in the art would expect them to have the same or similar properties. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Eskandarloo further teaches the particles have a spherical morphology (Pg. 288, right col.).
Regarding claim 5, Eskandarloo in view of Coromelci teaches the photocatalytic nanoparticle composition of claim 1.
Eskandarloo further teaches the Ce and Sm atoms are doped into the TiO2 crystal lattice (Pg. 288, right col.). Incorporating metals into a crystal lattice is understood to be equivalent to displacing metals in a crystal lattice.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eskandarloo et al. (Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 2015, 26, 281-292; cited in IDS dated 09/27/2023) in view of Coromelci et al. (Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 2022, 341, 112072) and further in view of Zhao et al. (J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 2008, 41, 085417), with evidentiary support for the rejection of independent claim 1 provided by Liu et al. (Int. J. Light. Elec. Optic. 2020, 206, 164342)..
Regarding claim 4, Eskandarloo in view of Coromelci teach the photocatalytic composition of claim 1.
The claim further requires “the titanium dioxide nanoparticles have a cell volume of 136 to 137 cubic angstroms” to which Eskandarloo and Coromelci are silent.
Zhao teaches a study on the effect of lanthanide doping, including Ce or Sm, on the electronic structure of anatase TiO2 that includes unit cell parameters for TiO2 of a = b = 3.7848 Å and c = 9.5124 Å (Abstract; Pg. 3, 3.1; Table 1). The unit cell volume can be calculated from the unit cell parameters by multiplying a*b*c, which provides a taught unit cell volume of 136.26 Å3 (3.7848 x 3.7848 x 9.5124). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges and values taught by Zhao (TiO2 unit cell volume of 136.26 Å3) overlaps the claimed range (cell volume 136 to 137 Å3). Therefore, the range in Zhao render obvious the claimed ranges.
Advantageously, the cell volume changes significantly improve the photocatalytic activity of the lanthanide-doped TiO2 materials (Pg. 4, left and right col.).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a TiO2 material with a unit cell volume of 136.26 Å3 in the photocatalyst of Eskandarloo in order to improve the photocatalytic activity, as taught by Zhao.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights