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 1-10 in the reply filed on 07/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Pat. No. 12,735,328. (hereafter ‘328) in view of Rani et al. (J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2014 30(5), 459-465). (cited in the IDS filed on 09/29/2024).
Regarding claims 1-3,‘328 claims niobium oxide comprising molybdenum oxide. (claim 1).
‘328 does not claim that the niobate has the formula of claim 1.
Rani et al. discloses niobate particles having the general formula (K0.5Na0.5)Nb(1-x)MoxO3 (Abstract, Fig. 2) which is a K0.5Na0.5NbO3 material including Mo, where x = 0.5, y = 1 and z = 3, as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select K0.5Na0.5NbO3 as the niobium oxide material in view of the advantageous structural, electrical and optical properties thereof.
Regarding claim 4, the particles of Rani et al. have a cube shape and a particle size of 5-7 micrometers. (Fig 2(a)-(b), see and p. 461, right side).
Regarding claims 8-10, Rani et al. teaches niobate particles having the general formula (K0.5Na0.5)Nb(1-x)MoxO3 (Abstract, Fig. 2) where x = 0.02, 0.04 and 0.06. With a molecular weight (g/mol) for each of the elements as follows: Nb: 92.9, O 16, Mo: 96.0, Na: 23 and K39.1 for a total of 177.1 g/mol for (K0.5Na0.5)Nb(1-x)MoxO3, the content of Mo at 0.02 would be 0.01% ((96x0.02)/(177.1)) to 0.03% by weight at x = 0.06, overlapping with the presently claimed range. The content of Nb is about 53% by weight with x = 0.02 – 0.06 ((92.9x99.8)/(177.1)) and the content of Na+K being about 17% by weight.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Pat. No. 12,735,328. (hereafter ‘328) in view of Qiu et al. (Preparation of nitrogen doped K2Nb4O11 with high photocatalytic activity for degradation of organic pollutants, Applied Catalysis A: General,Volume 402, Issues 1–2, 2011, Pages 23-30).
‘329 does not claim K2Nb4O11 particles as claimed.
Qiu et al. teaches nitrogen doped-K2Nb4O11 particles having photocatalytic activity (Abstract) which has a columnar shape having length, diameter and aspect ratio overlapping with the presently claimed range (see Fig. 2(a)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the K2Nb4O11 columnar particles in ‘328.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use K2Nb4O11 columnar as materials to be doped with Mo in order to alter the electrical and optical properties which would improve the photocatalytic and emission spectra properties.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Pat. No. 12,735,328. (hereafter ‘328) in view of Ide et al. (Hydrothermal Conversion of Layered Niobate K4Nb6O17·3H2O to Rare Microporous Niobate K6Nb10.8O30, Inorg. Chem. 2017, 56, 10848-10851).
‘329 does not claim K4Nb6O17 particles as claimed.
Ide et al. teaches a method of hydrothermal conversion of layered niobate having the general formula K4Nb6O17 having dimensions lying inside the presently claimed range. (Abstract, Fig. 1a). Ide et al. teaches that K4Nb6O17 is a piezoelectric material that has unique properties including microchannels. (p. 10848, left col.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use K4Nb6O17 as the niobate material that is doped with Mo in ‘329
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use K4Nb6O17 in view of the unique plate-like morphology having microchannels therein which would be of interest in applications involving phototcatlaysis, piezeoelectrics or adsorbents.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Pat. No. 12,735,328. (hereafter ‘328) iin view of Souza (Layered niobate KNb3O8 synthesized by the polymeric precursor method, Cerâmica 64 (2018) 104-108).
‘329 does not claim does not disclose KNb3O8 particles as claimed.
Souza et al. discloses a layered niobate material of KNb3O8 having electro-optic, dielectric, piezoelectric and photocatalytic properties and length, diameter and aspect ratio overlapping with the presently claimed range. (Abstract, page 104 and Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the KNb3O8 layered particles disclosed in ‘329 as materials to be doped with Mo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use KNb3O8 layered as materials to be doped with Mo in order to alter the electrical and optical properties which would improve the photocatalytic and emission spectra properties of the material.
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 2-7 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.
Claims 2-3 contain the limitation “the niobate particles comprise” and K2Nb4O11 and K4Nb6O17. These formulas are incongruent with the formula of claim 1 of KxNa(1-x)NbyOz because x in these formulas of claims 2-3 is greater than 1.
Claims 5-6 are rejected for substantially the same reason as claims 2-3 above
Claims 4-7 are rejected as being dependent on claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rani et al. (J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2014 30(5), 459-465). (cited in the IDS filed on 09/29/2024).
Regarding claims 1-3, Rani et al. discloses niobate particles having the general formula (K0.5Na0.5)Nb(1-x)MoxO3 (Abstract, Fig. 2) which is a K0.5Na0.5NbO3 material including Mo, where x = 0.5, y = 1 and z = 3, as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, the particles of Rani et al. have a cube shape and a particle size of 5-7 micrometers. (Fig 2(a)-(b), see and p. 461, right side).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rani et al. (J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2014 30(5), 459-465). (cited in the IDS filed on 09/29/2024).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, 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).
Regarding claims 8-10, Rani et al. teaches niobate particles having the general formula (K0.5Na0.5)Nb(1-x)MoxO3 (Abstract, Fig. 2) where x = 0.02, 0.04 and 0.06. With a molecular weight (g/mol) for each of the elements as follows: Nb: 92.9, O 16, Mo: 96.0, Na: 23 and K39.1 for a total of 177.1 g/mol for (K0.5Na0.5)Nb(1-x)MoxO3, the content of Mo at 0.02 would be 0.01% ((96x0.02)/(177.1)) to 0.03% by weight at x = 0.06, overlapping with the presently claimed range. The content of Nb is about 53% by weight with x = 0.02 – 0.06 ((92.9x99.8)/(177.1)) and the content of Na+K being about 17% by weight.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rani et al. (J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2014 30(5), 459-465). (cited in the IDS filed on 09/29/2024) in view of Qiu et al. (Preparation of nitrogen doped K2Nb4O11 with high photocatalytic activity for degradation of organic pollutants, Applied Catalysis A: General,Volume 402, Issues 1–2, 2011, Pages 23-30).
Rani is relied upon as described in the rejection of claims 1-2, above.
Rani et al. does not disclose K2Nb4O11 particles as claimed.
Qiu et al. teaches nitrogen doped-K2Nb4O11 particles having photocatalytic activity (Abstract) which has a columnar shape having length, diameter and aspect ratio overlapping with the presently claimed range (see Fig. 2(a)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the K2Nb4O11 columnar particles disclosed in Qiu et al. as materials to be doped with Mo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use K2Nb4O11 columnar as materials to be doped with Mo in order to alter the electrical and optical properties which would improve the photocatalytic and emission spectra properties.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rani et al. (J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2014 30(5), 459-465) (cited in the IDS filed on 09/29/2024) in view of Ide et al. (Hydrothermal Conversion of Layered Niobate K4Nb6O17·3H2O to Rare Microporous Niobate K6Nb10.8O30, Inorg. Chem. 2017, 56, 10848-10851).
Rani is relied upon as described in the rejection of claims 1-2, above.
Rani et al. does not disclose K4Nb6O17 particles as claimed.
Ide et al. teaches a method of hydrothermal conversion of layered niobate having the general formula K4Nb6O17 having dimensions lying inside the presently claimed range. (Abstract, Fig. 1a). Ide et al. teaches that K4Nb6O17 is a piezoelectric material that has unique properties including microchannels. (p. 10848, left col.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use K4Nb6O17 as the niobate material that is doped with Mo in Rani et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use K4Nb6O17 in view of the unique plate-like morphology having microchannels therein which would be of interest in applications involving phototcatlaysis, piezeoelectrics or adsorbents.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rani et al. (J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2014 30(5), 459-465). (cited in the IDS filed on 09/29/2024) in view of Souza (Layered niobate KNb3O8 synthesized by the polymeric precursor method, Cerâmica 64 (2018) 104-108).
Rani is relied upon as described in the rejection of claims 1-2, above.
Rani et al. does not disclose KNb3O8 particles as claimed.
Souza et al. discloses a layered niobate material of KNb3O8 having electro-optic, dielectric, piezoelectric and photocatalytic properties and length, diameter and aspect ratio overlapping with the presently claimed range. (Abstract, page 104 and Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the KNb3O8 layered particles disclosed in Qiu et al. as materials to be doped with Mo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use KNb3O8 layered as materials to be doped with Mo in order to alter the electrical and optical properties which would improve the photocatalytic and emission spectra properties of the material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 09/03/2026
Prosecution Insights