vDETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are pending
Claims 16-19 are withdrawn from consideration
Claims 1-11 and 15 are rejected
Claims 12-14 are objected to
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 and Species (a), claim 15 in the reply filed on May 19, 2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 May 19, 2026.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
5. In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “total” to “total of the constituent metal atoms” in claim 1 - line 6 and claim 2 - line 4. Appropriate correction is required.
6. In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “particles include” to “particle includes” in claim 1 - line 6 and claim 2 - line 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 9-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Botella et al., Mo–W-containing tetragonal tungsten bronzes through isomorphic substitution of molybdenum by tungsten (Botella).
Regarding claim 1, Botella teaches Mo(W)–Nb–V–Te mixed metal oxides with tetragonal tungsten bronze (TTB) structures (Botella, Abstract)
wherein crystalline phases were identified with powder X-ray diffraction (i.e. multielement composite oxide powder) (Botella, p. 163, paragraph 3).
Botella further teaches the Mo(W)–Nb–V–Te mixed metal oxides (Botella, Abstract) have their average chemical composition measured (Botella, p. 167, Table 2) and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) was performed to determine the oxidation state of each element present in MW50 and MW75 catalysts (Botella, p. 166, left column, paragraph 3);
wherein Mo and W are present as Mo6+ and W6+ (i.e. containing two or more hexavalent metal elements) (Botella, p. 168, left column, last paragraph);
wherein Nb is present as Nb5+ (Botella, p. 166, last paragraph);
wherein V is present as V5+ and V4+ (i.e. containing two or more pentavalent metals) (Botella, p. 166, last paragraph);
wherein Te is present as Te6+ (i.e. hexavalent metal), Te4+, and metallic Te (Te0) (Botella, p. 166, left column, paragraph 3).
Botella further teaches the Mo–W–Nb–V–Te mixed metal oxides (Botella, Abstract)
are made up of bulk and surface metal atomic ratios for MW50 and MW75 (Botella, p. 167, Table 2);
wherein the bulk atomic ratios 0.55–0.45–0.63–0.18–0.06 (MW50) and 0.36–0.64–0.53–0.24–0.07 (MW75) make up the majority of the material (Botella, p. 167, Table 2);
wherein the oxidation states of the bulk and surface atomic ratios are around 0.55 (Mo6+)–0.45 (W6+) – 0.63 (Nb5+) – 0.18 (V4+ or V5+) – 0.06 (Te6+, Te4+ or Te0) for MW50 and around 0.36 (Mo6+)– 0.64 (W6+) – 0.53 (Nb5+) – 0.24 (V4+ or V5+) – 0.07 (Te6+, Te4+ or Te0) for MW75 (Botella, p. 167, Table 2);
wherein the total metal atomic ratios in MW50 for Mo6+, W6+, and Te6+ (i.e. two or more hexavalent metal elements) is around 1 (i.e. 0.55 + 0.45 and Te6+ present on the surface) and the total metal atomic ratio for Nb5+ and V5+ is around 0.63 (i.e. 0.63 for Nb5+ and V5+ present on the surface) (Botella, p. 167, Table 2);
wherein total the percent content in MW50 for Mo6+, W6+, and Te6+ (i.e. two or more hexavalent metal atoms) is around 53% (i.e. (~1 / 1.87) * 100) and the atomic percent content of Nb5+ and V5+ (i.e. two or more pentavalent metal atoms) is around 34% (i.e. (~0.63 / 1.87) *100);
wherein the total metal atomic ratio in MW75 for Mo6+, W6+, and Te6+ (i.e. two or more hexavalent metal elements) is around 1 (i.e. 0.36 + 0.64 and Te6+ present on the surface) and the atomic ratio of Nb5+ and V5+ is around 0.53 (i.e. 0.53 for Nb5+ and V5+ present on the surface) (Botella, p. 167, Table 2);
wherein the total metal atomic percent content of the Mo6+, W6+, and Te6+ (i.e. two or more hexavalent metal atoms) is around 54% (i.e. (~1 / 1.84) * 100) and the total metal atomic percent content of Nb5+ and V5+ (i.e. two or more pentavalent metal atoms) is around 29% (i.e. (~0.53 / 1.84) *100) (MW75) (Botella, p. 167, Table 2);
wherein the total content of Mo6+, W6+, Te6+ (i.e. two or more hexavalent metal atoms) and Nb5+ and V5+ (i.e. two or more pentavalent metal atoms) is around 87% (i.e. ~53% + ~37%) in MW50 and around 83% (i.e. ~54% + ~29%) in MW75, which fall within the claimed range.
Botella further teaches MW50 and MW75 are mixed metal oxides (i.e. containing oxygen).
Botella further teaches the Mo(W)–Nb–V–Te mixed metal oxides (Botella, Abstract) have a basic TTB structure (Botella, p. 163, right column, paragraph 4);
wherein the TTB structure form pentagonal columns (i.e. oxide particle) (Botella, p. 163, right column, paragraph 4);
wherein the pentagonal columns (i.e. oxide particle) of MW50 have a major and a minor axis wherein the minor axis intersects the major axis (Botella, p. 165, Fig. 3b), see annotated Fig. 3b below.
PNG
media_image1.png
405
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3b
Botella further teaches the TTB structure in a standard configuration gives five-membered rings that are pentagonal tunnels (i.e. polygonal tunnel structure including one or more polygonal tunnels of five or more vertices) arranged around square tunnels (Botella, p. 163, right column, paragraph 4)
wherein strings of the TTB structure units connect along the perpendicular direction to form the pentagonal columns (i.e. polygonal tunnel structure including one or more polygonal tunnels of five or more vertices in a major axis direction along the major axis) (Botella, p. 163, right column, paragraph 4).
9. Regarding claim 3, Botella further teaches the Mo(W)–Nb–V–Te mixed metal oxides (Botella, Abstract) have a total metal atomic percent content of Mo6+, W6+, and Te6+ metals (i.e. two or more hexavalent metal atoms) of around 53% (MW50) or around 54% (MW75), which fall within the claimed range.
10. Regarding claim 4, Botella further teaches the Mo(W)–Nb–V–Te mixed metal oxides (Botella, Abstract) have a total metal atomic percent content of Nb5+ and V5+ metals (i.e. two or more pentavalent metal atoms) of around 34% (MW50) or around 29% (MW75), which fall within claimed range.
11. Regarding claim 6, Botella further teaches Mo and W are present as Mo6+ and W6+ (i.e. i.e. hexavalent metal elements include Mo and W) (Botella, p. 168, left column, last paragraph)
12. Regarding claim 7, Botella further teaches Nb and V are present as Nb5+ and V5+ (i.e. pentavalent metal elements include Nb and V) (Botella, p. 166, left column, last paragraph).
13. Regarding claim 9, Botella further teaches the Mo(W)–Nb–V–Te mixed metal oxides with TTB structures (Botella, Abstract) wherein strings of the TTB structure units connect along the perpendicular direction to form the pentagonal columns (i.e. columnar crystal structure grown in the major axis direction) (Botella, p. 163, right column, paragraph 4).
14. Regarding claim 10, Botella further teaches the Mo(W)–Nb–V–Te mixed metal oxides (Botella, Abstract) wherein examples of the major axis illustrate that the pentagonal columns have a length of about 500 nm or about 1250 nm with a corresponding minor axis of about 125 nm (Botella, p. 165, Fig. 3b)
wherein an aspect ratio of the pentagonal columns is about 10 (i.e. ~1250 nm / ~125 nm) and about 4 (i.e. ~500 nm / ~125 nm), see annotated Fig 3b (major/minor axis) below.
PNG
media_image2.png
474
953
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 3b (major/minor axis)
15. Regarding claim 11, Botella further teaches Mo and W are present as W6+ and Mo6+ (i.e. the hexavalent metal elements include W and Mo) wherein the content of W and Mo in MW50 is 0.45 and 0.55 and the content of W and Mo in MW75 is 0.64 and 0.36 (Botella, p. 167, Table 2)
wherein the ratio of W to Mo (i.e. AW / AMo) is 0.82 (MW50) and 1.78 (MW75), which falls within the claimed range.
16. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Botella, taken in view of evidence by www.globalsino.com, Tetragonal Tungsten Bronze (TTB) - Practical Electron Microscopy and Database - - An Online Book - (www.globalsino.com).
17. Regarding claim 8, Botella further teaches the Mo(W)–Nb–V–Te mixed metal oxides (Botella, Abstract) have a basic TTB structure (Botella, p. 163, right column, paragraph 4) with pentagonal tunnels (Botella, p. 163, right column, paragraph 4);
wherein the a-axis unit cell parameters for the TTB structure are 12.12 Å (MW50) and 12.14 Å (MW75) (Botella, p. 164, Fig. 2(a)) and in a tetragonal structure the b-parameter is equal to the a-axis parameter, see annotated Fig. 2(a) below.
PNG
media_image3.png
298
527
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Botella further teaches the area of an ab plane of one unit cell for MW50 and MW75 is 1.47 nm2 (i.e. (12.12 Å * (1 nm / 10 Å))2) and 1.47 nm2 (i.e. (12.14 Å * (1 nm / 10 Å))2) (Botella, p. 164, right column, Fig. 2(a));
wherein in a 5 x 5 nm area there are 17 unit cell ab planes (i.e. (5x5 nm2) * (1 unit cell / 1.47 nm2));
wherein in a standard Tetragonal tungsten bronze (TTB) type structure, each unit cell includes 4 pentagonal tunnels in the ab plane (www.globalsino.com, Fig. 3352(b)), see annotated Fig. 3352(b) below.
PNG
media_image4.png
354
373
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3352(b)
Botella further teaches wherein the pentagonal columns have a minor axis length of ~125 nm (Botella, p. 165, Fig. 3b), see annotated Fig 3b (major/minor axis) above
wherein a 5 nm x 5 nm region in the minor axis is chosen to exclude a peripheral portion of 1 nm width from an outer periphery of the minor axis (i.e. in a plane intersecting the major axis direction) has around 68 pentagonal tunnels (i.e. 17 unit cell ab planes * (4 pentagonal tunnels / 1 unit cell ab plane)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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 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.
19. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botella in view of Blanch-Raga et al., Catalytic abatement of trichloroethylene over Mo and/or W-based bronzes (Blanch-Raga).
20. Regarding claim 2, Botella does not teach the constituent metal elements contain the hexavalent metal elements and the pentavalent metal elements at a content of 90 atm% or more in total.
With respect to the difference, Blanch-Raga teaches Mo(W)–Nb–V–O mixed metal oxide bronzes (i.e. multielement composite oxide) for the catalytic oxidation of trichloroethylene (Blanch-Raga, Abstract);
wherein the oxidation states of Mo and W are Mo6+ and W6+ (i.e. two or more hexavalent metal elements) (Blanch-Raga, p. 39, right column, paragraph 2);
wherein the oxidation states of Nb and V are Nb5+ and V5+ (i.e. two or more pentavalent metal elements) (Blanch-Raga, p. 39, right column, paragraph 2);
wherein the Mo/W/Nb/V/P catalyst compositions for MW25-L, MW50-L, and MW75-L have atomic ratios of 0.70 (Mo)/0.30 (W)/0.41 (Nb)/0.20 (V)/0.08 (P) (MW25-L), 0.54 (Mo)/0.46 (W)/0.41 (Nb)/0.20 (V)/0.08 (P) (MW50-L), and 0.48 (Mo)/0.52 (W)/0.55 (Nb)/0.23 (V)/0.08 (P) (MW75-L) (Blanch-Raga, p. 38, Table 1);
wherein the total atomic composition of Nb5+ and V5+ (i.e. two or more pentavalent metal elements) is 0.61 (i.e. 0.41 +0.20) (MW25-L), 0.61 (i.e. 0.41 + 0.20) (MW50-L), and 0.78 (i.e. 0.55 + 0.23) (MW75-L) (Blanch-Raga, p. 38, Table 1);
wherein the total atomic composition of W6+ and Mo6+ (i.e. two or more hexavalent metal elements) is 1 (MW25-L, MW50-L, and MW75-L);
wherein the percent content of Nb5+ and V5+ relative to the total metal atoms is 38% (i.e. (0.61 / 1.61) * 100) (MW25-L and MW50-L) or 44% (MW75-L);
wherein the percent content of W6+ and Mo6+ (i.e. two or more hexavalent metal elements) relative to the total metal atoms is 62% (i.e. (0.61 / 1.61) * 100) (MW25-L and MW50-L).
Blanch-Raga expressly teaches Mo, W containing catalysts (i.e. two hexavalent metal elements) present higher catalytic activity than the corresponding samples containing only Mo or W (i.e. one hexavalent metal element) (Blanch-Raga, p. 43, left column, paragraph 5);
wherein a higher concentration of tungsten atoms facilitates a higher incorporation
of vanadium or niobium in the framework of a TBB structure (Blanch-Raga, p. 38, right column, first paragraph);
wherein the most active catalyst contains both W and Mo (Blanch-Raga, p. 42, left column, paragraph 4);
wherein incorporation of tungsten in the catalyst increases the diffusion of oxygen in the bulk that under catalytic conditions facilitate a fast reoxidation of the catalyst (Blanch-Raga, p. 41, left column, paragraph 2).
Botella and Blanch-Raga are analogous art as are analogous art as they are all drawn to mixed metal oxides with tetragonal tungsten bronze (TTB) structures.
In light of the motivation for Mo, W containing catalysts (i.e. two hexavalent metal elements) present higher catalytic activity than the corresponding samples containing only Mo or W as disclosed by Blanch-Raga, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a percent content of W6+ and Mo6+ (i.e. two or more hexavalent metal elements) relative to the total metal atoms is 62% in the Mo(W)–Nb–V–Te mixed metal oxides with tetragonal tungsten bronze (TTB) structures of Botella, in order to achieve an increase the diffusion of oxygen in the bulk that under catalytic conditions and facilitate a fast reoxidation of the catalyst, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
21. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botella
22. Regarding claim 5, Botella further teaches V and Te are present as V4+ and Te4+ on the Mo(W)–Nb–V–Te mixed metal oxide surface (i.e. contain one or more tetravalent metal elements) (Botella, p. 167, Table 2);
wherein Te4+ (i.e. contain one or more tetravalent metal elements)-sites are responsible of the olefin selective activation (Botella, p. 167, right column, last paragraph);
wherein the incorporation of tellurium into the bronze framework is crucial to achieve high performance in the olefin partial oxidation (Botella, p. 167, right column, last paragraph).
Although there are no disclosures of the one or more tetravalent metal elements at a content of 1 atm% or more, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of Te4+ (i.e. contain one or more tetravalent metal elements) incorporated into the bronze framework (Botella, p. 167, right column, last paragraph), including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to achieve high performance in the olefin partial oxidation.
23. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botella as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imran et al., Tungsten-molybdenum oxide nanowires/reduced graphene oxide nanocomposite with enhanced and durable performance for electrocatalytic hydrogen evolution reaction (Imran).
24. Regarding claim 15, Botella does not further teach an electrochemical device comprising the multielement composite oxide powder according to claim 1 as an electrochemically functional material.
With respect to the difference, Imran teaches a tungsten-molybdenum oxide (i.e. multielement composite oxide) and reduced graphene oxide to obtain a W-Mo O/rGO nanocomposite (Imran, Abstract);
wherein the nanocomposite showed excellent electro-catalytic activity for the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) (i.e. an electrochemically functional material) (Imran, Abstract);
wherein the W and Mo are present as W6+ and Mo6+ -(i.e. constituent metal elements containing two or more hexavalent metal elements) (Imran, p. 8135, left column, first paragraph);
wherein the W-Mo-O/rGO composites (i.e. composite including composite oxide powder) were loaded on a glassy carbon electrode (i.e. an electrochemical device) (Imran, p. 8135, left column, last paragraph) and show highly efficient activity towards HER (Imran, p. 8135, left column, first paragraph).
Imran expressly teaches Pt-based materials exhibit the highest activity for hydrogen evolution reaction (HER), but their high cost and low abundance limit their large-scale applications (Imran, p. 8131, left column, first paragraph);
wherein the development of highly efficient and low-cost electrocatalyst for HER still remains a major challenge (Imran, p. 8131, left column, first paragraph);
wherein tungsten-molybdenum oxide nanowires directly enable excellent HER catalytic performance which is comparable with commercial Pt/C catalyst (Imran, p. 8131, right column, first paragraph).
Botella and Imran are analogous art as they are all drawn to tungsten-molybdenum multielement composite oxides for catalysis.
In light of the motivation for the development of highly efficient and low-cost electrocatalysts for HER as disclosed by Imran, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a glassy carbon electrode with the Mo(W)–Nb–V–Te mixed metal oxides of Botella, in order to achieve highly efficient and low-cost electrocatalyst for HER that is comparable to expensive commercial Pt/C, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
25. Claims 12-14 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.
26. Regarding claims 12-14, Botella further teaches the Mo(W)–Nb–V–Te mixed metal oxides with tetragonal tungsten bronze (TTB) structures (Botella, Abstract) are represented by the bulk atomic ratios of Mo–W–Nb–V–P–Te (Botella, p. 164, Table 1);
wherein the bulk atomic ratios are 0.55–0.45–0.63–0.18 –0.06–0.06 (MW50) and 0.36–0.64–0.53–0.24–0.12–0.07 (MW75) (Botella, p. 164, Table 1);
wherein the general formulas for the Mo(W)–Nb–P–V–Te mixed metal oxides (Botella, Abstract) are 0.28 (Mo) (i.e. 0.55 / 1.93 and b = 0.28) – 0.23 (W) (i.e. 0.45 / 1.93 and a = 0.23) –0.33 (Nb) (i.e. 0.63 / 1.93) – 0.09 (V) (i.e. 0.18 / 1.93) –0.03 (P) (i.e. 0.06 / 1.93) –0.03 (Te) (i.e. 0.06 / 1.93) (MW50) and 0.18 (Mo) (i.e. 0.36 / 1.96 and b = 0.18) – 0.33 (W) (i.e. 0.64 / 1.96 and a = 0.33) – 0.27 (Nb) (i.e. 0.53 / 1.96) – 0.12 (V) (i.e. 0.24 / 1.96) –0.06 (P) (i.e. 0.12 / 1.96) – 0.04 (Te) (i.e. 0.07 / 1.96) (MW75) (Botella, p. 164, Table 1);
wherein a/b is 0.82 (i.e. 0.23 / 0.28) (MW50) or 1.83 (i.e. 0.33 / 0.18) (MW75), which fall within the claimed range;
wherein a+b is 0.51 for MW50 (i.e. 0.23 + 0.28) and MW75 (i.e. 0.33 + 0.18), which fall within the claimed range;
wherein Ax is V and Nb (i.e. two or more selected from Nb and V) with x = 0.42 (i.e. 0.33 + 0.09) (MW50) and x = 0.39 (i.e. 0.27 + 0.12) (MW75), which fall within the claimed range.
Botella further teaches MW50 and MW75 are mixed metal oxides (i.e. containing oxygen) (Botella, p. 167, Table 2);
wherein the oxidation states of Mo is Mo6+ (i.e. MoO3), W is W6+ (i.e. WO3) (Botella, p.163, right column, last paragraph), Nb is Nb5+ -(i.e. NbO2.5) (Botella, p.164, right column, first paragraph), V is V5+ (i.e. VO2.5) or V4+ (i.e. VO2) (Botella, p.166, left column, last paragraph), Te is Te6+ (i.e. TeO3), Te4+ (i.e. TeO2), or Te0 (Botella, p.166, right column, first paragraph) and P oxidation state is not disclosed;
wherein the general formulas for the Mo(W)–Nb–V–Te mixed metal oxides (Botella, Abstract) are W0.23 Mo0.28 Nb0.33 V0.09 P0.03 Te0.03 (MW50) and W0.33 Mo0.18 Nb0.27 V0.12 P0.06 Te0.04 (MW75) (Botella, p. 164, Table 1);
wherein z is around 2.36 (MW50) (i.e. 0.23 * 3 oxygens + 0.28 * 3 oxygens + 0.33 * 2.5 oxygens) or around 2.21 (MW75) (i.e. 0.33 * 3 oxygens + 0.18 * 3 oxygens + 0.27 * 2.5 oxygens), which fall within the claimed range.
Botella further teaches there is no Ti (i.e. y = 0), which falls within the claimed range.
Botella further teaches an aspect ratio of the major axis to the minor axis is 2 or more and 50 or less (as detailed in article 14 above).
Botella further teaches the oxide particles include 20 or more and 70 or less of the polygonal tunnels per 5 nm × 5 nm area in a region excluding a peripheral portion of 1 nm width from an outer periphery in a plane intersecting the major axis direction (as detailed in article 17 above).
27. However, Botella does not teach a+b+x+y = 1. Specifically, Botella teaches a + b + x + y = 0.93 (MW50) or a + b + x + y = 0.90 (MW75), which is outside the scope of the present claims.
Conclusion
28. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 5.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights