DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This application is a 371 of App. No. PCT/US 2022/045614, filed on 10/04/2022, which is entitled to and claims the benefit of priority of U.S. Provisional App. No. 63/254,336, filed 10/11/2021. The preliminary amendment filed on 11/03/2025 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
3. Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-3, 7-8, 17, 109, without traverse in the reply filed on 03/24/2026 is acknowledged.
4. Claims 1-3, 7-8,17,19, 23, 29, 36, 39, 42, 46, 51,53, 56, 60, 64, 67-68, 70, 74, 79, 84 ,87-88, 95-96, 98, 100,103,105,110-114 and 117 are pending. Claims 1-3, 7-8, 17, 109 are under examination on the merits. Claims 19, 23, 29, 36, 39, 42, 46, 51, 53, 56, 60, 64, 67-68, 70, 74, 79, 84, 87-88, 95-96, 98, 100,103,105,110-114 and 117 are withdrawn to a non-elected invention from further consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statements submitted on 04/03/2024, and 03/24/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statements.
Priority
6. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted on 04/03/2024 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested that “or wherein said ionizing radiation", and ”or wherein said electromagnetic radiation” be deleted and " wherein said ionizing radiation", and ”and wherein said electromagnetic radiation” be inserted in its stead so as to engender claim language clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 2, 7-8, 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05©. Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by “such as” and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “wherein said component (a) is a compound selected from the group consisting of a bismuth compound, a cesium compound, a barium compound, a tungsten compound, and combinations thereof, and said component (b) is a compound selected from the group consisting of an aluminum compound, a lead compound, a silicon compound, and combinations thereof”, and the claim also recites “wherein said component (a) is a bismuth compound and said component (b) is a compound selected from the group consisting of an aluminum compound, a lead compound, a silicon compound, and combinations thereof” or “wherein said component (a) is a bismuth compound and said component (b) is an aluminum compound; and still said component (a) is bismuth oxide and said component (b) is aluminum oxide”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claims 7-8, 17 being depended on claim 2 are rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. The following is a quotation of the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
11. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim. Applicant is required to cancel the claim, or amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, or rewrite the claim in independent form. Claim 7, as written, depends on claim 2, which recites “wherein said bismuth compound is selected from the group consisting of bismuth oxide, bismuth chloride oxide, bismuth sulfide, bismuth hydroxide, bismuth carbonate, bismuth silicate, bismuth subcarbonate, bismuth selenide, bismuth telluride, bismuth chalconides, bismuth fluoride, bismuth chloride, bismuth bromide, bismuth iodide, bismuth salts, bismuth complexes, bismuth alloys, bismuth vanadate, bismuth orthovanadate, bismuth vanadate molybdate, bismuth nitrate, bismuth manganese oxide, bismuth oxide iodide, bismuth oxide bromide, and combinations thereof”, however, based on the content of the claim 2, wherein said component (a) is bismuth oxide. Thus, claim 7 as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim 2.
12. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim. Applicant is required to cancel the claim, or amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, or rewrite the claim in independent form. Claim 8, as written, depends on claim 2, which recites “wherein said cesium compound is selected from the group consisting of cesium chloride, cesium bitartrate, cesium halide, cesium polyhalide, cesium polyiodide, cesium oxide, cesium sulfide, cesium polysulfide, cesium carbonate, and combinations thereof; or wherein said barium compound is selected from the group consisting of barium sulfate, barium oxide, barium dithionate, and combinations thereof; or wherein said tungsten compound is selected from the group consisting of tungsten carbide, tungsten oxide, and combinations thereof; or wherein said aluminum compound is selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide, aluminum sulfate, aluminum potassium sulfate, and combinations thereof; or wherein said lead compound is selected from the group consisting of lead salts, lead sulfate, lead chloride, lead bromide, lead oxide, lead iodide, and combinations thereof; wherein said silicon compound is selected from the group consisting of silicon dioxide, silica, fumed silica, silica gel, aerogel, precipitated silica, and combinations thereof”, however, based on the content of the claim 2, wherein said component (a) is bismuth oxide, and said component (b) is aluminum oxide. Thus, claim 8 as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim 2.
Claim Interpretation
13. For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 2 is construed to recites “The radiation-sensitive coating composition according to claim 1, wherein said component (a) is a compound selected from the group consisting of a bismuth compound, a cesium compound, a barium compound, a tungsten compound, and combinations thereof, and said component (b) is a compound selected from the group consisting of an aluminum compound, a lead compound, a silicon compound, and combinations thereof.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
14. 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.
15. Claims 1-3, 7-8, 17, 109 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (Reversible photochromic photocatalyst Bi2O3/TiO2/Al2O3 with enhanced visible photoactivity: application toward UDMH degradation in wastewater, Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering, Volume 55, 2020, Issue 3, Page 1-17, see IDS 04/03/2024, hereinafter “Zhou”).
Regarding claims 1-3: Zhou discloses a radiation-sensitive coating composition (Page 1, Abstract, lines 1-11; Page 2, Col. 2, 3rd para; Page 3, Col.2, 1st para) comprising a component (a) and a component (b), wherein said component (a) is a metal compound or a metalloid compound such as Bi2O3 , and said component (b) is at least one different metal compound or metalloid compound such as Al2O3 from the synthesis of Bi2O3/TiO2/Al2O3 (BTA) photocatalyst (Page 1, Abstract, lines 1-11; Page 2 Col. 2, 3rd para), wherein the catalyst exhibited markedly enhanced photocatalytic activity for the degradation of 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) waste water compared with conventional TiO2/Al2O3 (TA) catalysts under UV, visible and solar irradiation (Page 1, Abstract, lines 9-11).
Regarding claim 7: Zhou discloses the radiation-sensitive coating composition (Page 1, Abstract, lines 1-11; Page 2, Col. 2, 3rd para; Page 3, Col.2, 1st para), wherein said component (a) is Bi2O3.
Regarding claim 8: Zhou discloses the radiation-sensitive coating composition (Page 1, Abstract, lines 1-11; Page 2, Col. 2, 3rd para; Page 3, Col.2, 1st para), wherein said component (a) is Bi2O3, and said component (b) is such as Al2O3. It is submitted that recited claim 8 only further define the component (a) and component (b), and excludes any limitation to consider.
Regarding claim 17: Zhou discloses the radiation-sensitive coating composition (Page 1, Abstract, lines 1-11; Page 2, Col. 2, 3rd para; Page 3, Col.2, 1st para), wherein said component (a) is Bi2O3.
Regarding claim 109: Zhou discloses the radiation-sensitive coating composition (Page 1, Abstract, lines 1-11; Page 2, Col. 2, 3rd para; Page 3, Col.2, 1st para). It is submitted, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Since Zhou discloses a similar radiation-sensitive coating composition then the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
16. Claims 1-2, 8, 109 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anyumba et al. (US Pub. No. 2004/0197700 A1, hereinafter “Anyumba”).
Regarding claims 1-2: Anyumba discloses a radiation-sensitive coating composition (Page 1, [0011]) comprising a radiation sensitive lithium salt of a C6 to C64 conjugated polymerizable polyacetylene having at least one terminal carboxylic acid or carboxylate group in the form of hair-like or bristle-like filaments and size measured in microns, wherein the length to width ratio of said filaments is at least 5:1 and as high as 5000:1 or more up to several thousand to one (Page 1, [0011]; Page 4, [0041]-[0046], Example 1). Anyumba discloses the secondary sensitizer may be incorporated in a coating applied over the product, or it may be present in the substrate over which the product is deposited. Representative examples of such secondary sensitizers for photon radiation with from about 10 KeV to about 200 KeV energy include compounds containing at least one radiation absorbing element having an atomic number >11, e.g. compounds containing lead, iodine, cesium, barium, bromine and rubidium (Page 3, [0027]; Page 6, [0068], Example 12).
Regarding claim 8: Anyumba discloses the radiation-sensitive coating composition (Page 1, [0011]) comprising a component (a) such as cesium or barium, and a component (b) is lithium salt of a C6 to C64 conjugated polymerizable polyacetylene (Page 3, [0027]; Page 6, [0068], Example 12). It is submitted that recited claim 8 only further define the component (a) and component (b), and excludes any limitation to consider.
Regarding claim 109: Anyumba discloses the radiation-sensitive coating composition (Page 1, [0011]), wherein the radiation-sensitive coating composition is used in a radiological application (Page 6, [0068], Example 12).
Examiner Information
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
04/07/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights