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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the RCE filed on 05/12/2026.
Claims 1 and 3-17 are presently pending; claim 2 is canceled; claims 9-17 are withdrawn; claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9-15 and 17 are amended; claims 1 and 3-8 are under examination.
The objection to the abstract is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the abstract.
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 3-8 over BAUM is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
New grounds of rejection are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/19/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the final action on 02/25/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of claim interpretation, “relative density” as recited in claim 4 (see claim 4 at line 2) is interpreted as meaning a ratio of actual measured density to maximum theoretical density, as this would appear most in keeping with Applicant’s intent as discussed in the specification at paragraphs [0020] and [0040].
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 and 3-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the molybdenum oxychloride crystals” (see claim 1 at line 6). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that prior to amendment, claim 1 recited “molybdenum oxychloride crystals”; however, this has been deleted, and amended claim 1 positively recites “molybdenum dichloride dioxide crystals” instead.
Claims 3-8 are included herein as each depends from a claim which is indefinite for the reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baum, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0282863-A1) (hereinafter, “BAUM”) in view of Takahashi (U.S. 2021/0009436-A1) (hereinafter, “TAKAHASHI”), with evidence from Sigma-Aldrich, "Molybdenum(VI) dichloride dioxide" (hereinafter, “SIGMA-ALDRICH”; citations herein refer to the copy provided by Applicant) as to the rejection of claim 1, and with evidence from Dunkley, “Advances in automisation techniques for the formation of metal powders”, Advances in Powder Metallurgy (hereinafter, “DUNKLEY”) as to the rejection of claims 1 and 6.
Regarding claim 1, BAUM teaches molybdenum oxychloride consolidated masses, comprising: molybdenum oxychloride crystals (see BAUM at paragraphs [0020] and [0026], teaching compacted solid precursor bodies (i.e., consolidated masses), wherein the precursor material may include Mo and oxyhalides, e.g., MoOCl4, which is a molybdenum oxytetrachloride);
and less than 10 wt% binder (see BAUM at paragraph [0029], teaching that the compacted material is generally self-adherent and does not need a binder, i.e., can comprise 0 wt% binder, which is less than 10 wt%);
wherein the consolidated masses have a bulk density greater than 0.85 g/cc (see BAUM at paragraph [0020] and [0022], teaching that the compacted material has a bulk density of, e.g., at least 99% of the absolute density of the precursor material; BAUM teaches precursor materials having densities wherein 99% of the absolute density would fall within the range of 0.85 g/cc); and
wherein at least 90% of the crystals have an average cross body dimension overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of 0.01 mm to 5 mm (see BAUM at paragraphs [0019] and [0024]-[0027], teaching that the compacted precursor material (i.e., consolidated masses) may have dimensions of, e.g., 0.2 cm (2 mm) or more, or smaller than this range when preferred (the precursor material crystals would have to have a smaller size than the compacted material), and that the precursor material is in the form of a fine powder; see DUNKLEY at Section 1.1.2, “Powders”, teaching that it is generally accepted that in order to be described as a powder, a granular solid should have a particle size below 1 mm, and that a fine powder has a particle size below 150 micrometers (i.e., 0.15 mm); therefore, the finely divided powder taught by BAUM is understood to mean having a crystal size of below 0.15 mm; e.g., in paragraph [0070], BAUM provides an example of a fine powder precursor material having a particle size of 40 to 90 micrometers, i.e., 0.04 to 0.09 mm).
As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “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)).
BAUM does not explicitly teach that the molybdenum oxychloride is molybdenum dichloride dioxide.
However, molybdenum dichloride dioxide is a known molybdenum oxychloride in the art. TAKAHASHI teaches high bulk density molybdenum oxychloride consolidated masses (see TAKAHASHI at Abstract and paragraphs [0001], [0021]-[0022], [0039], [0045] and [0047]) wherein the molybdenum oxychloride may be molybdenum oxytetrachloride (MoOCl4) or molybdenum dichloride dioxide (MoO2Cl2) (see TAKAHASHI at paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to simply substitute the MoOCl4 of BAUM with MoO2Cl2 as taught by TAKAHASHI (see TAKAHASHI at paragraph [0022]). One of ordinary skill in the art could have made such a substitution with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of forming high bulk density molybdenum oxychloride consolidated masses. Additionally, MPEP § 2144.07 states that “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
MoO2Cl2 has a density of 3.31 g/cc, as evidenced by SIGMA-ALDRICH (see SIGMA-ALDRICH at pg. 1), and as discussed above, BAUM teaches a bulk density of at least 99% of the absolute density, i.e., a bulk density of at least 3.28 g/cc, which is within the claimed range of greater than 0.85 g/cc.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, BAUM in view of TAKAHASHI teaches consolidated masses according to claim 1, wherein the consolidated masses comprise greater than 95 wt% molybdenum dichloride dioxide (see BAUM at paragraphs [0026], [0029], [0031] and [0034], teaching that the compacted material does not require a binder, and that pure precursor material is preferred).
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, BAUM in view of TAKAHASHI teaches consolidated masses according to claim 1, wherein the consolidated masses have a relative density greater than 75% (see BAUM at paragraph [0020], teaching a bulk density of at least 99% of the absolute density, i.e., a relative density of at least 99%).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, BAUM in view of TAKAHASHI teaches consolidated masses according to claim 1. BAUM does not explicitly mention that the consolidated masses have a uniformity of heat transfer across the individual consolidated masses of ± 10%; however, BAUM in view of TAKAHASHI teaches compacted materials (i.e., consolidated masses) according to claim 1 and having a bulk density of at least 99% of the absolute density, i.e., at least 3.28 g/cc (i.e., a relative density approaching 100%) (see BAUM at paragraph [0020]), therefore the consolidated masses of BAUM in view of TAKAHASHI would be expected to have the same or overlapping properties, including uniformity of heat transfer. As discussed in paragraph [0016] of the present specification, higher density results in more consistent uniformity and heat transfer; MPEP § 2112.01 (I) states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2112.01 (II) states that “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties Applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Therefore, the molybdenum dichloride dioxide consolidated masses of BAUM in view of TAKAHASHI, having a bulk density of at least 3.28 g/cc, would be expected to behave in the same way and exhibit the same or overlapping properties, including uniformity of heat transfer, as the claimed consolidated masses (which only require a bulk density of greater than 0.85 cc) when subjected to the same heating conditions as the claimed consolidated masses.
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, BAUM in view of TAKAHASHI teaches consolidated masses according to claim 1, wherein the molybdenum dichloride dioxide comprises crystals (see BAUM at paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and [0034]; see TAKAHASHI at Abstract). BAUM does not explicitly mention that the crystals have a surface area greater than 0.0005 cm2/g; however, BAUM teaches that the precursor material is a fine powder, and that smaller particle size results in greater surface area (see BAUM at paragraphs [0002], [0017], [0019], [0024]-[0027] and [0034]). As discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above, powder is understood to mean having a particle size of less than 1 mm, and fine powder is understood to mean having a particle size of less than 0.15 mm, as evidenced by DUNKLEY (see DUNKLEY at Section 1.1.2, “Powders”); e.g., BAUM provides an example of a precursor material fine powder having a size of 0.04 to 0.09 mm (see BAUM at paragraph 0070). As discussed in Applicant’s specification at paragraphs [0010], [0014] and [0022]-[0023], surface area is determined by crystal size, and the claimed invention may have an average cross body dimension of less than 5 mm (e.g., less than 1 mm) and a surface area as claimed of greater than 0.0005 cm2/g.
Therefore, as BAUM in view of TAKAHASHI teaches consolidated masses as claimed by the present claim, having an average crystal size of less than 5 mm (less than 0.15 mm), the molybdenum dichloride dioxide crystals of BAUM in view of TAKAHASHI would be expected to have the same or overlapping properties as those of the claimed invention, including a surface area of greater than 0.0005 cm2/g. MPEP § 2112.01 (I) states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2112.01 (II) states that “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties Applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1 above, BAUM in view of TAKAHASHI teaches consolidated masses according to claim 1, wherein the consolidated masses have an average cross body dimension greater than 1 mm (see BAUM at paragraph [0025], teaching that the unitary bodies of compacted precursor material may have dimensions of, e.g., 0.2 cm or more, i.e., 2 mm or more).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1 above, BAUM in view of TAKAHASHI teaches consolidated masses according to claim 1, comprising less than 5 wt% of binder comprising ceramic binders, celluloses, or hydroxyalkyl celluloses, or mixtures thereof (see BAUM at paragraph [0029], teaching that the compacted material does not need a binder, i.e., can comprise 0 wt% binder, which is less than 5 wt%).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/12/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-8 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references as set forth in the grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm 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 on 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.
/S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights