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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 09/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 09/29/2026.
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 1-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “RE is a rare earth element” is unclear. Claim 1 does not define “rare earth element”, nor does claim 1 provide a list of elements considered “rare earth elements”. It is unclear if the rare earth elements comprise only the 17 standard rare earth elements La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, and Lu, if instead the list of rare earth elements additionally contains Sc and Y, or if otherwise the list of rare earth elements is differentially enumerated.
Further regarding claim 1, the “M is a cationic doping element” is unclear. It is unclear which elements are, and are not, considered M cationic doping elements. For example, instant claim 5 contains three different lists of M cationic doping elements. It is not clear if the M cationic doping elements of claim 1 are any of the lists of claim 5, or if instead claim 1 comprises an even more broad list.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “M comprises … a rare earth element” is unclear. Claim 4 depends upon claim 1, which recites “RE is a rare earth element”. It is unclear if it is possible for the rare earth element of M to merely be the rare earth element already present via claim 1, or if instead the rare earth element of claim 4 must be different from and separate to the rare earth element of claim 1.
Additionally concerning claim 4, the identity of the cationic transition metal element and the rare earth element of claim 4 are unclear for the reasons stated in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferably" and “further preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Further regarding claim 5, the rare earth element of claim 5 is unclear for the reasons stated in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
All claims not specifically addressed are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The closest prior art is Ifrah et al. (US20190134608, hereinafter referred to as Ifrah). Ifrah discloses a composition comprising at least a cerium and zirconium based mixed oxide comprising zirconium, cerium, lanthanum and optionally at least one rare earth other than cerium and lanthanum (see Ifrah at the Abstract). Ifrah discloses 40 wt.% cerium oxide, 50 wt.% zirconium oxide, 5 wt.% lanthanum oxide, and 5 wt.% yttrium oxide. Examiner notes this corresponds to approximately 60 mol% ZrO2, 34.4 mol% CeO2, 3.3 mol% Y2O3, and 2.3 mol% La2O3. Examiner notes this corresponds to RE of Ce, and M of Y and La, an x value of 0.344, a y value of 0.66 (see Ifrah at [0183]). However, per instant claim 1, Ifrah fails to disclose or make obvious 0.01 ≤ z < 0.3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights