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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 20 July 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 5-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 20 July 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abate-Daga et al. (US 3,759,786).
Regarding claim 1, Abate-Daga discloses gadolinia particle comprising molybdenum (molybdenum coated microspheres of Gd2O3; col. 4, lines 28-29).
Regarding claim 2, Abate-Daga discloses the particles of claim 1, and further discloses that the particles may be prepared with sizes in the range of 2 to 200 μm (col. 2, lines 68-69), which falls entirely within the range recited in the instant claim.
Though Abate-Daga does not teach that these sizes are calculated by laser diffraction/scattering method, when particles of the sizes taught by Abate-Daga are subjected to such a method they will necessarily exhibit median diameters in the claimed range.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamińska et al. (Nanotechnology, 2018, 29, 025702).
Regarding claim 1, Kamińska discloses gadolinia particles comprising molybdenum (molybdate/Gd2O3 core–shell nanoparticles; title and abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Kamińska discloses the particles of claim 1 having uniform sizes of approximately 0.4-0.5 μm (400-500 nm; Figure 7c,f and Table SI.4, sample H), which lie in the instantly claimed range.
Though Kamińska does not teach that these sizes are measured by laser diffraction/scattering, the method of measurement is not expected to significantly affect the conclusions drawn about the diameters of the particles. Therefore, when measured by laser diffraction/scattering the diameters of the particles disclosed by Kamińska are also expected to fall within the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Kamińska discloses the particles of claim 1 being comprised of 28% Gd2MoO6 and 72% Gd2O3 (p. 4, ¶ 2-4 and Table SI.3, sample H), which is equivalent to an average formula of Gd2O3(MoO3)0.28. By mass this corresponds to 40 grams of MoO3 for every 185.8 grams of Gd2O3, which is equivalent to a Gd2O3 content of 82% and a MoO3 content of 18% based on the total mass of the particles, each of which fall in the instantly claimed ranges.
Though Kamińska does not teach that these compositions are measured by XRF, the method of measurement is not expected to significantly affect the conclusions drawn about the composition of the particles. Therefore, when measured by XRF, the composition of the particles disclosed by Kamińska are also expected to fall within the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Kamińska discloses the particle of claim 1, and also discloses them being comprised of 82% Gd2O3 and 18% MoO3, as analyzed for claim 3. Kamińska additionally teaches that following calcination the elements of the particles are approximately uniformly distributed over the entire volume of the nanoparticles (In the non-calcined molybdate/Gd2O3 doped Er and Yb, core–shell NPs samples (H and I) a core richer in molybdenum was observed, whereas in the calcined molybdate/Gd2O3 doped Er and Yb, core shell NPs samples, the elements are evenly distributed over the entire volume of the NPs; p. 5, ¶ 1, emphasis added). Therefore, it can be concluded that the calcined particles of Kamińska have a surface layer wherein the Gd2O3 content is also approximately 82% of the mass of the surface layer and the MoO3 content is approximately 18% of the mass of the surface layer.
Even if the MoO3 content in the surface layer is somewhat lower than in the whole particle due to incomplete diffusion during calcination, it would still be reasonable to conclude that the content of MoO3 in the surface layer is greater than 2 mass %, and the content of the Gd2O3 is less than 98%, as supported by the EDS mapping of Gd and Mo showing Mo and Gd each extending approximately uniformly to the edges of the particles (Figure SI.6, excerpted below).
It is noted that Kamińska does not specifically teach the compositions of the surface layer being measured by XPS surface analysis. However, Kamińska provides data and conclusions that inform on the composition of the surface layer. Therefore, when measured by XPS the composition of the particles disclosed by Kamińska are also expected to fall within the instantly claimed range.
PNG
media_image1.png
486
246
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Portion of Figure SI.6 showing EDS mapping of Gd (top) and Mo (bottom) of the calcined particles of sample H.
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