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 .
Specification
It is noted that instant specification using language which is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice, such as “flower-ball-shaped”, “surface-grafted”, etc. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Applicant is kindly reminded to use proper English language to replace such narrative and indefinite language or terms to conform with current U.S practice in the whole disclosure. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible such errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-3 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. In this case, In this case, claim 1 recites “surface grafted” nano cuprous oxide, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what such “surface grafted” nano cuprous oxide exactly referring to, e.g. what material or polymer being grafted onto what material? Therefore, such limitation renders claim indefiniteness. Secondly, claim 1 recites “flower-ball-shaped”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what is “flower-ball-shaped really mean because such term of “flower-ball-based” is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of such claimed “flower-ball-based”.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ((a) (1)) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN118222142) (For applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been used for citations hereof).
Wang et al (page 2 last 5 para.) teaches a method forming a spherical (i.e. ball-shaped) nanometer cuprous oxide coated by surface grafted titanium-silicon film, comprising the following steps:
(1) preparing spherical nanometer cuprous oxide;
(2) stirring and mixing the spherical nanometer cuprous oxide, tetraethyl titanate and tetraethyl orthosilicate according to the mass ratio of 3-5: 2-4: 5-10, forming a
titanium -silicon film on the surface of the spherical nanometer cuprous oxide;
(3) mixing the spherical nanometer cuprous oxide particles with titanium -silicon film obtained in the step (2) with absolute ethyl alcohol according to mass ratio of 1-3: 5;
(4) adjusting the pH of the solution to 5; then adding silane coupling agent (preferably KH570), stirring for 2-4 h in water bath at 50-60 °C to obtain the surface grafted titanium-silicon film coated flower-ball-shaped nanometer cuprous oxide; wherein preparation of the spherical nano-cuprous oxide includes: mixing cuprous oxide nano-particles into cheese soybean peptone liquid ( i.e. tryptic soy broth) culture medium, then adding Bacillus liquid , culturing at 25-30 °C in the track rotating shaking table for 48-72h; then centrifuging the reaction mixture, washing, collecting solid fraction and drying to obtain the flower-shaped nanometer cuprous oxide particles having diameter about 100 nm (page 3 first 2 para., claims 1-2, 5, example 1, embodiment 2-4).
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al. teaches every and each limitation of claim 1, therefore claim 1 is anticipated by Wang et al.
Regarding claim 2, Wang et al. further teaches the mass ratio of the cuprous oxide nanometer particle to the bacillus solution is 3-5: 1 (claim 3).
Regarding claim 3, Wang et al. further teaches the adding amount of the silane coupling agent in the step (4) is 0.5-2 % of the total mass of the mixture obtained in the step (3) (claim 4, example 1, embodiment 2-4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments filed on 11/12/2025 regarding 112 (b) rejections onto “nano cuprous oxide coated with a titanium-silicon film, “nano cuprous oxide”, “nano”, and “precipitate” have been fully acknowledged and thus previous 112 (b) rejections onto such limitations have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/12/2025 regarding “flower-ball-shaped” being spherical shape with un-even surface, it is noted that “flower-ball-shaped” is a generic and literal translational language which does not apply to English requirement as required by US practice. Furthermore, spherical shape is a specific and definite description, but instantly claimed “flower-ball-shaped” is generic and indefinite, one of ordinary skill in the art does not know what can be considered as a flower-ball shape or such term requires specific flower-ball shape, such as lily flower (daisy flower) configuration associated with a ball shape? Therefore, such arguments are not found convincing. In response to applicant’s arguments about “surface grafted” means polymer material being grafted onto substrate, it is noted that instantly claimed “surface grated” does not have a definite description or explanation which polymer or material being grafted onto what exact substrate material either. Hence, such arguments are not found convincing.
In response to applicant’s arguments about “CN118222142 is just the CN patent application from the same family as the present application, and the present application has claimed priority of the CN patent application (Application No. 202410635306.8). Therefore, CN118222142 should not be used as a reference document for novelty and inventiveness rejection to the present application”, it is noted that instant application currently has an effective filing date of 05/21/2025 because foreign priority date has not been perfected yet (see MPEP § 216 and 37 CFR 1.55). CN11822142 has a publication date of June 21st of 2024 and has three co-authors: Chen-yang Di, Yuan-zhen Chu and Chu-heng Deng which are not inventors or co-inventors of the present application. Therefore, CN’142 qualifies as 102 (a) 1 prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732