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 § 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.
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.
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 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) 1-10 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US20170294546A1.
Regarding claims 1-10, US20170294546A1 discloses aluminum substrate coated with Mn+1Xn(Ts) layer(s). X is positioned within an octahedral array of M, wherein M is at least one Group 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 metal (corresponding to Group IIIB, IVB, VB, VIB or VIIB metal) such as Ti, wherein each X is C, N, or a combination thereof and n=1, 2, or 3; wherein at least one of said surfaces of the layers has surface terminations, Ts, comprising alkoxide, alkyl, carboxylate, halide such as floride, hydroxide, hydride, oxide, sub-oxide, nitride, sub-nitride, sulfide, sulfonate, thiol, or a combination thereof. See [0081] to [0090]. The coatings may also cover complete areas or may be patterned using lithographic techniques. See [0021]. 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 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 23, US20170294546A1 discloses tin oxide substrate coated with Mn+1Xn(Ts) layer(s). X is positioned within an octahedral array of M, wherein M is at least one Group 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 metal (corresponding to Group IIIB, IVB, VB, VIB or VIIB metal) such as Ti, wherein each X is C, N, or a combination thereof and n=1, 2, or 3; wherein at least one of said surfaces of the layers has surface terminations, Ts, comprising alkoxide, alkyl, carboxylate, halide such as fluoride, hydroxide, hydride, oxide, sub-oxide, nitride, sub-nitride, sulfide, sulfonate, thiol, or a combination thereof. See [0081] to [0090]. The coatings may also cover complete areas or may be patterned using lithographic techniques. See [0021]. 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 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach from “1 to 4 layers of the MXene covers from 55% to 100% of a total surface area of the post-transition metal”.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the prior art teaches that “the coatings may also cover complete areas or may be patterned using lithographic techniques”. See [0021]. ” Complete areas” means 100% coverage.
The applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach from “from 1 to 4 layers of the MXene covers from 55% to 100% of a total surface area of the bulk ceramic”.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the prior art teaches that “the coatings may also cover complete areas or may be patterned using lithographic techniques”. See [0021]. ”Complete areas” means 100% coverage.
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 SHUANGYI ABU ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-6453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am- 5:00 pm.
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 at (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.
/SHUANGYI ABU ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights