DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 § 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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites the limitation “The method of claim 17” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 17 has been canceled. Therefore, Claim 18 is dependent on a canceled claim.
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.
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 1, 5-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gershinsky et al. (“Ultra fast elemental synthesis of high yield copper Chevrel phase with high electrochemical performance”) in view of Bell et al. (“Nanostructured Material for Advanced Energy Storage -- Magnesium Battery Cathode Development”).
With regard to Claim 1, Gershinsky teaches a method for synthesizing a Chevrel phase compound comprising combining a set of elemental precursors including molybdenum (Mo), molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), and copper (Cu) (Page 51, 2.2. Synthetic methods; Frontal combustion (for all the M–Mo–T systems under study): The combustion was performed in quartz tubes under Ar…Thermal explosion or bulk combustion (for the Cu–Mo–S system): The elemental mixture (2 or 5 g) with extra sulfur (Cu2Mo6S8.5 stoichiometry) was loaded into a Swagelok stainless steel vessel under argon atmosphere…Cu2Mo6S8 was prepared also by a known [13] solid-state technique: a mixture of binary sulfides (MoS2, CuS) and elemental Mo loaded in Swagelok; Page 54, 3.2. Mechanisms of the Cu2Mo6S8 synthesis).
Gershinsky teaches subjecting the combined set of elemental precursors to an environment adapted for self-propagating high temperature synthesis of the combined set of elemental precursors, thereby synthesizing the Chevrel phase compound (Abstract, Self-propagating High-temperature Synthesis (SHS) was applied for the first time to prepare Chevrel phases, MxMo6T8 (M = metal, T = S, Se); Page 51, 2.2. Synthetic methods; Frontal combustion (for all the M–Mo–T systems under study): The combustion was performed in quartz tubes under Ar…Thermal explosion or bulk combustion (for the Cu–Mo–S system): The elemental mixture (2 or 5 g) with extra sulfur (Cu2Mo6S8.5 stoichiometry) was loaded into a Swagelok stainless steel vessel under argon atmosphere…Cu2Mo6S8 was prepared also by a known [13] solid-state technique: a mixture of binary sulfides (MoS2, CuS) and elemental Mo loaded in Swagelok).
Gershinsky teaches removing the synthesized Chevrel phase compound from the environment (Fig. 4; Page 53, A typical morphology of the SHS product, Cu2Mo6S8, is presented in Fig. 4). The synthesized Chevrel phase compound must be removed from the reaction environment to further analyze the compound, e.g. using a scanning electron microscope.
Gershinsky is silent to the method wherein combining the set of elemental precursors includes electrospinning the set of elemental precursors.
Bell teaches the method wherein combining the set of elemental precursors includes electrospinning the set of elemental precursors (Abstract, This work developed a continuous and fibrous nanoscale network of the cathode material through the use of electrospinning with the goal of enhancing performance and reactivity of the battery), to increase electrochemical activity and conductivity (Page 9, 1. Introduction; We proposed the usage of the electrospinning processing technique to directly produce continuous and fibrous networks of the Mg2Mo6S8 cathode material. This has the potential benefits of decreasing the heat treatment temperature, increasing electrochemical activity and conductivity due to the nanoscale of the fibers and the intimate integration of carbon into the fibrous matrix).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Gershinsky to teach the method wherein combining the set of elemental precursors includes electrospinning the set of elemental precursors, as taught in Bell, to increase electrochemical activity and conductivity.
With regard to Claim 5, Gershinsky teaches the method wherein the synthesized Chevrel phase compound has at least one of catalytic, photocatalytic, and sorbent properties (Page 50, 1. Introduction; The molybdenum chalcogenides, MxMo6T8 (M = metal, T = S, Se, Te), also known as Chevrel phases, are an important class of inorganic compounds with remarkable superconductive, magnetic, thermoelectric, and catalytic properties).
With regard to Claim 6, Gershinsky teaches the method wherein the Chevrel phase compound is synthesized in 10 minutes or less of the combined set of elemental precursors being subjected to the environment (Page 51, 2.2. Synthetic methods; The elemental mixture (2 or 5 g) with extra sulfur (Cu2Mo6S8.5 stoichiometry) was…introduced in the hot furnace (1000 °C) for 2 and 10 min for 2 g samples or for 10 and 20 min for 5 g samples).
With regard to Claim 7, Gershinsky does not explicitly teach the method wherein the Chevrel phase compound is synthesized in less than 15 seconds of the combined set of elemental precursors being subjected to the environment, instead disclosing the total time that the mixture is in the environment (Page 51, 2.2. Synthetic methods; The elemental mixture (2 or 5 g) with extra sulfur (Cu2Mo6S8.5 stoichiometry) was…introduced in the hot furnace (1000 °C) for 2 and 10 min for 2 g samples or for 10 and 20 min for 5 g samples).
However, Gershinsky teaches the self-propagating high-temperature synthesis reaction itself completes in a relatively brief time span (Page 50, 1. Introduction; The synthesis is extremely fast and the overall reaction process takes only a few seconds or minutes). Given that the method of synthesizing the Chevrel phase compound disclosed by Gershinsky in view of Bell and the method of the instant invention are substantially identical, it is expected that the length of time it takes for the reaction to complete would be substantially the same as the process claimed and in the range of the claim. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
With regard to Claim 8, Gershinsky teaches the method wherein the synthesized Chevrel phase compound does not require further treatment subsequent to the self-propagating high temperature synthesis (Page 51, 2.2. Synthetic methods).
With regard to Claim 9, Gershinsky teaches the method wherein the environment is within a tube furnace (Fig. 2; Page 51, 2.2. Synthetic methods; Frontal combustion (for all the M–Mo–T systems under study): The combustion was performed in quartz tubes under Ar).
With regard to Claims 10-13, Gershinsky teaches the method wherein the combined set of elemental precursors is encapsulated within an encapsulating instrument within an argon (Ar) atmosphere when subjected to the environment, wherein the encapsulating instrument is a quartz tube, wherein the air is removed from the atmosphere within the encapsulating instrument (Fig. 2; Page 51, 2.2. Synthetic methods; Frontal combustion (for all the M–Mo–T systems under study): The combustion was performed in quartz tubes under Ar).
With regard to Claims 14-15, Gershinsky teaches the method wherein the environment has a temperature greater than or equal to 800°C and less than or equal to 1100°C, and wherein the environment has a temperature of 1000°C (Page 51, 2.2. Synthetic methods; Thermal explosion or bulk combustion (for the Cu–Mo–S system): The elemental mixture (2 or 5 g) with extra sulfur (Cu2Mo6S8.5 stoichiometry) was loaded into a Swagelok stainless steel vessel under argon atmosphere, and introduced in the hot furnace (1000 °C) for 2 and 10 min for 2 g samples or for 10 and 20 min for 5 g samples).
With regard to Claim 16, Gershinsky is silent to the method wherein the environment has a temperature of 1050°C, instead teaching the method wherein the environment has a temperature of 1000°C (Page 51, 2.2. Synthetic methods; Thermal explosion or bulk combustion (for the Cu–Mo–S system): The elemental mixture (2 or 5 g) with extra sulfur (Cu2Mo6S8.5 stoichiometry) was loaded into a Swagelok stainless steel vessel under argon atmosphere, and introduced in the hot furnace (1000 °C) for 2 and 10 min for 2 g samples or for 10 and 20 min for 5 g samples).
Bell teaches the method wherein the environment has a temperature of 1050°C (Page 9, 1. Introduction; To synthesize an active cathode Chevrel phase, there are a multitude of steps required. High temperature synthesis of 1000-1200 °C of the combined elements and sulfides results in a cation-stabilized phase, such as Cu2Mo6S8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one temperature known to be successful in the production of a material in place of another used to produce the same material with a predictable result of synthesizing a Chevrel phase compound. See MPEP 2143.I.B.
Furthermore, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05.I, 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).
With regard to Claim 18, Gershinsky is silent to the method wherein the synthesized Chevrel phase compound is in the form of nanofibers.
Bell teaches the method wherein the synthesized Chevrel phase compound is in the form of nanofibers to increase electrochemical activity and conductivity (Page 9, 1. Introduction; We proposed the usage of the electrospinning processing technique to directly produce continuous and fibrous networks of the Mg2Mo6S8 cathode material. This has the potential benefits of decreasing the heat treatment temperature, increasing electrochemical activity and conductivity due to the nanoscale of the fibers and the intimate integration of carbon into the fibrous matrix).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Gershinsky to teach the method wherein the synthesized Chevrel phase compound is in the form of nanofibers, as taught in Bell, to increase electrochemical activity and conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed January 9, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2 and 5-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and claims 1-2 and 5-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112 and of claims 1, 5-16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gershinsky et al. (“Ultra fast elemental synthesis of high yield copper Chevrel phase with high electrochemical performance”) in view of Bell et al. (“Nanostructured Material for Advanced Energy Storage -- Magnesium Battery Cathode Development”).
On page 7 of Applicant’s arguments, with regard to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues that “Bell is not concerned with the electrospinning of any copper species. Neither does Bell teach or suggest electrospinning any copper species” and that “Bell clearly teaches away from methods of preparation of the presently claimed copper Chevrel phase compounds”. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, the Examiner maintains the rejection, and notes that Bell is used as a secondary reference to cure the deficiencies of Gershinsky with regard to the electrospinning limitation (see amended Claim 1 rejection). Furthermore, Bell still discloses a copper Chevrel phase embodiment (Page 9, 1. Introduction; To synthesize an active cathode Chevrel phase, there are a multitude of steps required. High temperature synthesis of 1000-1200 °C of the combined elements and sulfides results in a cation-stabilized phase, such as Cu2Mo6S8). As set forth in MPEP 2123.II, “disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments”. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736