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 . 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 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.
DETAILED FINAL ACTION
Status of Claims
Withdrawn
Cancelled
Currently Amended
Previously Presented/Original
Pending
Examined
10-15
8 & 9
1
2-7
1-7 and 10-15
1-7
The examined claims are drawn to an apparatus.
Status of Previous Objections / Rejections
At this juncture, Examiner withdraws the previous Office action’s (OA) (i.e, 07/28/2025) 35 USC §102/103 and §103 rejections in view of amendments to the claims, Applicant’s remarks and a reconsideration of the pertinent rejections.
Response to Amendment
In their reply dated October 28, 2025, Applicant amended the claims to address the rejections and claim interpretations of the prior Office action (OA) and to potentially advance prosecution. In view of the claim amendments and the attendant revised scope of the claimed invention, Examiner applies new claim interpretations and/or grounds of rejections in this OA including a combination of prior art of record and one or more new references.
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. The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. MPEP §2137.01.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. ("Enhanced piezoelectricity of a PVDF-based nanocomposite utilizing high-yield dispersions of exfoliated few-layer MoS2", Ceramics International, vol. 45, no. 9, March 5, 2019, pages 11347-11352; Jiang) (of record), in view of Huang et al. (Flower-Like Molybdenum Disulfide for Polarity-Triggered Accumulation /Release of Small Molecules, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2017, 9, 36431-36437) and Ran et al. (A novel molybdenum disulfide nanosheet self-assembled flower-like monolithic sorbent for solid-phase extraction with high efficiency and long service life, J. of Chromatography A, (2017) 18-24).
Regarding claims 1-7, Jiang discloses a piezoelectric and piezocatalytic material comprising MoS2 nanosheets embedded throughout a body comprising poly vinylidene difluoride (PVDF), wherein the material comprises 5-20 wt.% MoS2 nanoflowers based on the weight of MoS2 nanoflowers and PVDF (sections 1, 2.3, 3.1 and 3.3, where in sec., 3.1 – 3.3, weight percentages of 1 - 7% are noted (even if some of the range is experimental), which weight percentage overlaps the claimed range with sufficient specificity to render the claimed range prima facie obvious).
Therefore, Jian discloses the claimed invention, except for the use of MoS2 nanoflowers rather than MoS2 nanosheets. However, use of MoS2 nanoflowers for their piezoelectric and piezocatalytic properties is well known in the art, and is also admitted prior art (APA) in Applicant’s disclosure (specification, p. 2, lines 15-28).
Huang discloses flower-like molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) with rich edge sites prepared by the hydrothermal method, where the edge sites possess polarity due to the noncentrosymmetric Mo−S on exposed (100) facets and thus show a strong electrostatic attraction toward polar species (Abstract). Thus, one can use flower-like MoS2 as small molecule carriers with fast adsorption kinetics and fulfill a switchable accumulation/release by responding to a solvent environment (p. 36436, 1st col.). Also, the recycle of adsorption can be repeated 100 times without significant performance degradation, revealing an outstanding reusability (Id.).
Ran also discloses a novel material consisting of molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) nanosheet that self-assemble into flowerlike microspheres which aggregate to form a monolithic matrix with a micro or nano-scaled mesopore structure that is successfully synthesized and used as an efficient sorbent for solid-phase extraction (SPE) due to its large specific adsorption area and good stability (Abstract).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to experiment with and employ MoS2 nanoflowers in addition to or in place of MoS2 nanosheets, where such use would be advantageous for the particular application, since this is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, such as achieving the desired piezoelectric and piezocatalytic activity and achieving faster or more effective adsorption and/or liquid purification in a particular environment.
Moreover, since it is known that the weight percentages of MoS2 is important to the results achieved in different intended applications, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely experiment with weight percentages around the general known conditions to determine if there are both lower and upper weight percent ranges that would be workable, effective and optimum for different uses and applications.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 2: A material comprising 10-20 wt. % MoS2 nanoflowers based on the weight of MoS2 nanoflowers and PVDF (it would have been obvious to experiment with suitable wt. % to achieve a desired outcome; also see claim 1 analysis); Claim 3: A material wherein at least 70% of the material is PVDF (claim 2 analysis, where remainder could be PVDF); Claim 4: A material wherein at least 60% by weight of the PVDF is β phase PVDF (sec. 3.1 and claim 2 and 3 analyses); Claim 5: A material wherein the PVDF has a mass average molecular weight determined by GPC in the range 50,000-800,000 (this molecular weight range is implicit to the PDVF employed); Claim 6: A flexible piezoelectric and piezocatalytic layer, coating or sheet formed from a material according to claim 1 (secs. 2.2-2.3; also this is a product-by-process limitation where patentability is governed by the product rather than the forming process); and Claim 7: A layer, coating or sheet according to claim 6, having a thickness up to 2 mm (section 3.1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 10-28-2025 have been fully considered. The arguments with respect to Wu are moot in light of the modified rejections.
With respect to Jiang, a weight percentage of 7% is specifically disclosed even if Jiang states that “the elongation of the few-layer MoS2 nanosheet/PVDF composite film started to fall at 7 wt. % MoS2 content.” It does not mean that one of ordinary skill would not experiment beyond the 7% wt. to determine if there are suitability gaps, or if there are upper weight percent ranges that are also suitable. Contrary to applicant’s apparent contention, Jiang does not restrict the weight percentage to 1 wt% or less. Also, Jiang specifically describes the product as having enhanced piezolelectric properties (Title, Abstract, Introduction: “Recently, MoS2 has attracted more and more attention for its distinctive electronic, optical, and catalytic properties, as well as its importance for dry lubrication. Many reports also confirm that few-layer
MoS2 is predicted to be strongly piezoelectric. . .”), which Examiner views as an intrinsic property.
Further, Huang and Ran, the newly applied references, provide reasons that one may employ or substitute nanoflowers or a nanosheet that can become a nanoflower, rather than Jian’s typical nanosheet. That is, Applicant’s claims do not state an intended application, but it is well known that nanoflowers will be advantageous in selected applications and environments.
Applicant also mentions specific properties, including the degradation of dyes in an aqueous environment, However, such functionality is not found in the claims. Although the claims recite a specific product with intrinsic piezoelectric and piezocatalytic properties, there is no claimed functionality, such as the degradation of dyes, associated with the product.
With respect to the amended claims, Examiner has added new references and/additional or clarified rationales with respect to any amended limitations. As such, Examiner believes all claim limitations as well as each of Applicant’s relevant arguments are fully and properly addressed either in this section or in the modified patentability analysis above.
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.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571)270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779 'No Matter Where You Come from, So Long as You Are a Black Man [Woman], You Are an African' -- Peter Tosh.'No Matter Where You Come from, So Long as You Are a Black Man [Woman], You Are an African' -- Peter Tosh.
Prosecution Insights