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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 23 April 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202110442575.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 and 13-21, in the reply filed on 9 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-12 and 22-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9 June 2026.
Applicant's arguments in the reply of 9 June 2026 against the species election requirement set forth in the Office action mailed 13 April 2026 are persuasive. The species election requirement is withdrawn, and claims 4, 6, 8, 16, 18, and 20 are rejoined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11 January 2024 has been received and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 13-21 are each drawn to an application of various products in “polymer-based nanocomposites, ceramic materials, photocatalytic materials, hydrolysis for hydrogen production, hydrophobic materials, sewage degradation materials, bactericidal coatings, anticorrosive coatings, and marine coatings” (emphasis added). The presence of the conjunction “and” in this listing is interpreted as requiring a single application that spans all of the recited fields.
The claims recite nanomaterials with various morphologies: nanofilm material, nanotubes, and nanorods. Nanofilm material is interpreted as a material comprising nanosheets, or particles with nanoscale dimensions and generally plate like shape. Nanotubes are interpreted as hollow, generally cylindrical tubes with dimensions on the nanoscale. Nanorods are interpreted as solid, generally cylindrical particles with dimensions on the nanoscale.
Claims 2-9 each recite the “product of claim [X]”, where X is a preceding method claim. In each of these instances the “product of claim [X]” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation, i.e. the methods of claims 2-9, as presently recited, do not require the method steps of the preceding claims references therein, and rather only require that the products used in them be equivalent to those that may be obtained by the methods of the referenced claims. See MPEP 2113.
In traversing the election requirement, Applicant’s reply of 9 June 2026 states that the product of claim 4 is the same product as claim 5:
PNG
media_image1.png
98
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This assertion will be taken as correct.
Therefore, the product of claim 4 will be considered an equivalent substitute for the product of claim 5 in any process that requires the use the product of claim 5.
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 2-9 and 14-21 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.
Claims 2-3 and 6-9 each recite some variation of “the product prepared according to claim ‘X’ or the [titanium nanomaterial] according to claim ‘X’”. In each of these instances it is unclear whether these are two recitations of the same material, or if they refer to different materials, in which case how they differ is unclear. Therefore the scope of each of these claims is indefinite and the claims are rejected.
Furthermore, claims 4 and 5 each recite the somewhat different limitations of “the solid substance containing the product or [titanium nanomaterial] of claim ‘X’”. These claim limitations lack sufficient antecedent basis because it is not clear what “solid substances” are being references. Furthermore, the use of the phrase “the product or [titanium nanomaterial] of claim ‘X’”, only introduces further issues of clarity because it is unclear if “the product” refers to the product of the later referenced claim or some other product.
It is additionally noted that claims 1-8 are method claims constructed with open claim language, and not product claims, therefore, the limitations of “the product” or “the products prepared according to claim X” in claims 2-9 lack sufficient antecedent basis as it is unclear what products exactly are being referenced, and in particular if any product obtained by a method comprising at least the recited steps qualifies as “a product prepared according to claim X”.
Claims 4 and 5 additionally recite “the alkali solution involved in the reaction” in lines 6-7. It is unclear if “the alkali solution” and “the reaction” in these lines are referring to the “alkaline solution” and the reaction recited in claims 4 and 5, or if they are attempting to refer to the “alkali solution” and the reaction recited in step 2 of claim 1. If the latter is the case, it is additionally noted that claims 4 and 5 do not actually require the method of steps of claim 1, and so the antecedent basis of these terms would still be unclear.
Claims 4 and 5 each additionally reference the temperature T1. However, because claims 4 and 5 do not require the actual method steps of claim 1, it is unclear what T1 necessarily refers to.
Claims 14-21 each depend upon an indefinite claim without resolving the indefiniteness and are likewise rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because an “application” of a product is neither a process, as it recites no steps, nor is it a product. These “application” claims are analogous to “use” claims, which the courts have held fail to comply with 35 USC § 101. In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 709, 129 USPQ 227, 228 (CCPA 1961). MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Solid State Phenomena 2007, 124-126, 1277-1280; NPL document 1 on the IDS filed 11 January 2024) in view of W. Zhao et al. (Advanced Engineering Materials 2017, 19(7), 1600866; hereinafter Zhao ‘17), Xu et al. (Chemical Physics Letters 2019, 732, 136656), and Zhou et al. (Chem. Commun. 2015, 51, 10847—10849).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a method or preparing titanate nanomaterials comprising the following steps:
step 1, providing an initial alloy comprising a T element and a Ti element, wherein the T element comprises Al, and the phase composition of the initial alloy comprises a T-Ti intermetallic compound (Ti-6Al-4V alloy; p. 1277, “Experiment”);
steps 2, reacting the initial alloy with an alkali solution at a temperature of 100 °C to 200 °C (samples were introduced in 100 ml teflon cup and soaked in 30 ml, 1 M NaOH solution. The teflon cup was put with in [an] air tight stainless steel vessel. This set up was heat treated at 100-200 °C; p. 1277, “Experiment”), during which the reaction interface will necessarily advance inward from the surface of the alloy and in which the initial alloy at the reaction interface undergoes nano-fragmentation through hydrogen generation and T-removal reaction, and simultaneously undergo shape and compositional reconfiguration to generate the solid products; and
step 3, the temperature of the solid flocculated product in the reaction system described in step 2 is lowered from T1 and the product is collected (after hydrothermal treatment, the samples were washed with distilled water and dried at 40°C for 24 hours; p. 1277-1278, “Experiment”).
Kim does not explicitly teach the limitation that during the reaction the interface advances inwardly from the surface of the initial alloy at an average rate of greater than 20 μm/min, nor does Kim describe isolating the product at the stage of being a flocculent powder or a nanofilm material, which is interpreted as a material comprising particles with a platelike morphology and nanoscale dimensions, commonly referred to as nanosheets.
However, Kim does teach that at early reaction times nanosheets are formed in the process they describe (At the early stage of hydrothermal treatment, titania nanoparticles are partially transformed into nanosheet due to the attack of sodium hydroxide; p. 1279, ¶ 1).
Additionally, Zhao ’17 also teaches the production of nanostructured titanium materials by the dealloying of titanium-aluminum alloys, and further teaches that alloy composition, NaOH concentration, reaction time, and temperature all play important roles in determining the morphology, elemental composition, phase composition of nanostructured de-alloyed samples (abstract). Zhao ’17 further teaches that Al50Ti50, Al60Ti40,and Al70Ti30 are among the alloys that may be treated by their method (p. 2, ¶ 1).
Furthermore Xu teaches that 6 M NaOH can also be utilized effectively to dealloy titanium alloys and form nanostructures (nanowires; Section 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the NaOH concentration in the method of Kim, including up to at least 6 M NaOH, as taught by Xu. It would have been further obvious to also vary the alloy compositions including by using Al70Ti30, as taught by Zhao ‘17. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize the morphology and phase composition of the isolated products, as taught by Zhao ’17.
By increasing the NaOH concentration and aluminum content of the alloy, it is also expected that one would arrive at etching rates that would be similar to those the of the instant invention, thereby meeting the limitation requiring that interface advances inwardly from the surface of the initial alloy at an average rate of greater than 20 μm/min.
In particular, it is reasonable to conclude that such rates would be obtained because the concentration of alkali are within the same range as the instant invention (5.1-25 M; p. 6, lines 18-20), the reaction temperature is higher or similar to that used in many of the examples (Ex. 1-8), and the alloy composition suggested by Zhao ’17 (Ti30Al70), with its higher aluminum content than the examples of the instant invention, would be expected to react faster, as taught by Zhao ’17 (It is reasonable to assume that the corrosion rate mostly depended upon the Al/Ti ratio in the as-prepared alloys; p. 4, col. 2, ¶ 1).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stop the reaction at short times by lowering the reaction temperature from T1 and to collect the nanosheets as a solid flocculated product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because nanosheet materials have demonstrated utility in applications including catalysis, photocatalysis, and non-electronics, as taught by Zhou (p. 10847, ¶ 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, where Kim also teaches heating of a nanofilm (nanosheet) material in a closed container with an alkaline solution and subjecting the material to a high temperature and high pressure at a temperature of 220 °C (samples were introduced in 100 ml teflon cup and soaked in 30 ml, 1 M NaOH solution. The teflon cup was put with in [an] air tight stainless steel vessel. This set up was heat treated at 100-200 °C; p. 1277, “Experiment”), which is higher than the boiling temperature of the alkali solution involved in the reaction at ambient pressure. Kim proceeds in one step from the alloy without isolating the nanosheets, as required by claim 1. However, because Kim teaches that nanosheets are formed first (p. 1279, ¶ 1), they also teach the heating of the nanosheets in the closed container under these conditions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the nanosheets isolated from the method of modified Kim (as analyzed for claim 1) and to then further subject them to the reaction conditions that Kim teaches generate nanotubes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to form the nanotube product sought by Kim.
Additionally, the recitation of claim 4 does not actually requiring the method of claim 1 (see Claim Interpretation), but rather it only requires subjecting a product that is equivalent to the product generated in claim 1 to the conditions recited in claim 4. Because the method of modified Kim produces a nanosheet material that could be isolated according to claim 1 (p. 1279, ¶ 1), and because the method of Kim further heats this material in a closed container under the conditions required by claim 4 thereby producing titanate nanotubes, as analyzed above, the method of modified Kim meets all the limitations of claim 4.
Claims 2-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Solid State Phenomena 2007, 124-126, 1277-1280; NPL document 1 on the IDS filed 11 January 2024) in view of W. Zhao et al. (Advanced Engineering Materials 2017, 19(7), 1600866; hereinafter Zhao ‘17), Xu et al. (Chemical Physics Letters 2019, 732, 136656), and Zhou et al. (Chem. Commun. 2015, 51, 10847—10849), as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Z. Zhao et al. (Corrosion Science 2015, 98, 651–660; hereinafter Zhao ‘15).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, as analyzed above, but Kim does not teach reacting the product prepared according to claim 1 with an acid solution and obtaining the titanic acid nanofilm solid material.
However, Zhao ’15 teaches that titanate nanostructures can be treated with an acid solution to afford titanic acid nanostructures, and that these titanic acid nanostructures can be heat treated to prepare TiO2 nanostructures (the as-dealloyed samples were immersed in a 0.1mol/L HCl aqueous solution for 12 h and … Finally, the H-titanate was acquired and could be used as the precursor to fabricate anatase TiO2; Section 2.2 and Section 2.3 for heat treatment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat the titanate nanofilm material obtained by the method of modified Kim with an acid to obtain titanic acid nanofilm material, as required by claim 2, and to then subject these nanofilm material to heat treatment and obtain a TiO2 nanofilm material, as taught by Zhao ’15.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain anatase TiO2 nanostructures, which Zhao ’15 suggests have promising properties (p. 651, ¶ 2).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, modified Kim teaches the method of claim 4, as analyzed above, but Kim does not teach reacting the product prepared according to claim 4 with an acid solution and collecting the titanic acid nanotube solid product.
However, Zhao ’15 teaches that titanate nanostructures can be treated with an acid solution to afford titanic acid nanostructures, and that these titanic acid nanostructures can be heat treated to prepare TiO2 nanostructures (the as-dealloyed samples were immersed in a 0.1mol/L HCl aqueous solution for 12 h and … Finally, the H-titanate was acquired and could be used as the precursor to fabricate anatase TiO2; Section 2.2 and Section 2.3 for heat treatment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat the titanate nanotubes obtained by the method of modified Kim with an acid to obtain titanic acid nanotubes and to then subject these nanotubes to heat treatment and obtain TiO2 nanotubes, as taught by Zhao ’15.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain anatase TiO2 nanostructures, which Zhao ’15 suggests have promising properties (p. 651, ¶ 2).
Regarding claim 7, as set forth above (see Claim Interpretation), the limitations of claim 7 requiring “the product prepared according to claim 5 or the titanate nanotubes according to claim 5” are interpreted as product-by-process limitations, where any product equivalent to that prepared by claim 5 is considered as meeting this limitation. Applicant asserted in the reply of 9 June 2026 that the nanotubes generated by the process of claim 5 are the same as the titanate nanotubes generated by the process of claim 4 (p. 9 of the reply filed 9 June 2026).
Modified Kim teaches the preparation of titanate nanotubes according to claim 4, which are equivalent to those generated according to claim 5. Modified Kim does not teach treating these nanotubes with an acid solution and collecting the solid product.
However, Zhao ’15 teaches that titanate nanostructures can be treated with an acid solution to afford titanic acid nanostructures and collecting these as a solid product, and that these titanic acid nanostructures can be heat treated to prepare TiO2 nanostructures (the as-dealloyed samples were immersed in a 0.1mol/L HCl aqueous solution for 12 h and … Finally, the H-titanate was acquired and could be used as the precursor to fabricate anatase TiO2; Section 2.2 and Section 2.3 for heat treatment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat the titanate nanotubes obtained by the method of modified Kim with an acid to obtain titanic acid nanotubes, as taught by Zhao ’15.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain titanic acid nanotubes that could then be converted to TiO2 nanostructures, which Zhao ’15 suggests have promising properties (p. 651, ¶ 2).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim teaches the method of claim 9, where Zhao ’15 teaches that titanic acid nanostructures can be heat treated to prepared anatase TiO2 nanostructures (Section 2.3) and that such structures have promising properties (p. 651, ¶ 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat treat the product of claim 7 obtained by the method of modified Kim to obtain TiO2 nanotubes of nanorods, as taught by Zhao ’15. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Zhao ’15 teaches that such anatase nanostructures have promising properties.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 13-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of copending Application No. 18/489,670. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘670 application recite limitations that render the instant claims obvious. In particular, while the claims of the ‘670 application are drawn to doped nanomaterials, such materials would also meet the limitations of the instant claim. Furthermore, while claim 1 of the ‘670 application recites a broader limitation of reaction rate being greater than 2 μm/min, such a limitations overlaps with the instantly claimed range of greater than 20 μm/min and the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Therefore, the claimed ranges merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values recited in the ‘670 application.
The further limitations of claims 2-9 are recited in claims 3-10 of the ’670 application, while the “application” claims 13-21 are rendered obvious by claims 25-26 of the ‘670 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-9 and 13-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of copending Application No. 18/489,679. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘679 application recite limitations that render the instant claims obvious. In particular, while the claims of the ‘670 application are drawn to doped nanomaterials, such materials would also meet the limitations of the instant claim. Furthermore, while claim 1 of the ‘679 application recites a broader limitations of reaction rate being greater than 2 μm/min and T1 being ≥ 60 °C, such a limitations overlap with the instantly claimed ranges of greater than 20 μm/min and T1>100°C, the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Therefore, the claimed ranges merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values recited in the ‘679 application.
The further limitations of claims 2-9 are recited in claims 2-9 of the ’679 application, while the “application” claims 13-21 are rendered obvious by claim 19 of the ‘679 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the double patenting rejections were overcome, for example by filing an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 5 recites a method of preparing titanate nanotubes by subjecting a solid titanic acid nanofilm material that is formed by acid treatment of a titanate nanofilm to high pressure, high temperature treatment with an alkaline solution. The closest prior art to such a process is Kim, Zhao ’15, Huang (Crystal Growth & Design 2019, 9(8), 3632-3637), and Dong et al. (J. Electrochemical Soc. 2011, 158 (9) K183-K186), none of which disclose, teach, or reasonably suggest such a method.
Kim teaches the preparation of titanate nanotubes under high pressure, high temperature conditions from a titanium alloy via a mechanism that proceeds through nanosheets, but not one that starts from a solid titanic acid nanofilm material (p. 1279, ¶ 1). Though one of ordinary skill in
Zhao ’15 teaches the preparation of TiO2 nanorods and wires by subjecting titanate nanomaterials to alkaline high temperature, high pressure conditions (Section 2.2-2.3), but also does not teach titanic acid nanosheets.
Huang teaches that titanate nanosheets proceed through nanotubes when forming nanorods and wires under high temperature conditions (Fig. 2), but also does not teach subjecting titanate nanosheets to the process recited in claim 5.
Dong teaches the isolation of titanic acid nanosheets in a process that also forms titanate nanotubes, but does not teach isolating the titanic acid nanosheets and subjecting them to a high temperature, high pressure process to form titanate nanotubes.
None of Kim, Zhao ’15, Huang teach or reasonably suggest starting from titanic acid nanosheets to form titanate nanotubes, nor could such a suggestion be found in the prior art. Furthermore, because Kim and the related prior art teach methods to obtain titanate nanotubes directly, artisans of ordinary skill would not be motivated to modify these methods such that they would require the extra steps of isolating nanosheets and subjecting them to treatment with an acid solution.
Therefore, the method of claim 5, as best understood in view of the issues of indefiniteness raised above, is considered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bavykin et al. (Adv. Mater. 2006, 18, 2807–2824) reviews protonated titanates and TiO2 nanostructured materials.
Lu et al. (Chemical Physics Letters 508 (2011) 258–264) discusses the evolution mechanism of titanate nanostructures in hydrothermal processes.
Wei et al. (Solid State Communications 133 (2005) 493–497) disclose the preparation of TiO2 nanotubes from layered titanate materials under high pressure, high temperature conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas A Piro whose telephone number is (571)272-6344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00 am-5:00 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (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.
/NICHOLAS A. PIRO/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights