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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kominami “Hydrolysis of Titanium Alkoxide in Organic Solvent at High Temperatures”.
1. Regarding Claim 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, Kominami discloses using titanium alkoxide (corresponds to claimed precursor of titanium dioxide) in an organic solvent (Title), such as toluene (corresponds to claimed non-water solvent of instant Claims 34 and 36) with water (corresponds to claimed water) to form nanosized titanium oxide (Abstract) having an average particle size of greater than 4 nm and as high as 25 nm (Table 1 and Abstract), as being claimed in instant Claims 34, 37, and 38. Kominami discloses heating to a temperature ranging from 125 to 300 C (corresponds to claimed temperature ranges of instant Claims 24 and 41) for 2 hours up to a pressure of 10 MPa (overlaps with claimed pressure ranges of instant Claims 34 and 39) (Page 3926, 1st column) Although Kominami does not disclose the claimed molar ratio of its titanium alkoxide to water, it does disclose that the smaller crystallite size of the present product can be explained by the limited solubility of TiO2 in the organic solvent that contained a small portion of water (Page 3926, 2nd column). The Examiner respectfully submits that it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the concentration of water based on the particle size.
2. Regarding Claim 35, Kominami discloses using titanium n-butoxide, which is known to function as a titanium(IV) tetra-alkoxide where the R group is an n-butyl chain (-C₄H₉). Its chemical formula is written as Ti(OC4H9)4.
3. Regarding Claim 42, Kominami discloses having an anatase structure (Page 3926).
4. Regarding Claim 45, Kominami discloses separating the water (solvent) (Page 3926, 2nd column), which would provide wet nanocrystals.
Claim(s) 40, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kominami “Hydrolysis of Titanium Alkoxide in Organic Solvent at High Temperatures”, as applied to Claims 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45, and in view of O’Brien USPA_20100135937_A1.
5. Regarding Claims 40, 43, 44, O’Brien does not disclose the claimed distribution.
6. O’Brien discloses metal oxide nanocrystals and its preparation (Title) wherein said nanocrystals can have a narrow size distribution (paragraph 0013). Although the exact values are not stated, the Examiner respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would know which ranges to use to arrive at a narrow size distribution.
7. Regarding Claims 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50, Kominami in view of O’Brien suggests using capping agents such as oleic acid (paragraph 0077) that can be used in solvent (paragraph 0108), which corresponds to the purified limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached on 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights