A CORAL-LIKE COMPOSITE MATERIAL AND A METHOD OF PREPARING THE SAME
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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 11/12/2025:
Claims 1-3 have been amended; claim 7 has been canceled. No new matter has been entered.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 102(a)(1) have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 103 of Xu in view of Zhang have been withdrawn.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 103 of Huang in view of Zhang have been upheld.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: Huang et al. teaches a composite material comprising uniform iron carbide nanoparticles (Fe3C, approximately 10 nm) embedded in 3D porous nitrogen-rich graphene (NGr). Further, the teachings of Huang et al. are directed at forming small iron carbide nanoparticles/3D porous nitrogen-rich graphene for efficient electrocatalysis and it is not specifically directed for use in lithium-sulfur batteries.
On the other hand, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date reading Zhang et al. would be taught that two dimensional transition metal carbides, carbonitrides and nitrides, so-called MXenes, are ideal for confining the polysulfides shuttling effects due to their high conductivity, layered structure as well as rich surface terminations. However, there is nothing in Huang et al. that would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to as of the priority date to confine polysulfide shutting effects since Huang et al. is not for use in Li-S batteries. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date would not have thought to combine the teachings of Zhang et al. with Huang et al. in the first place, let alone to modify the metal carbide nanoparticle of Huang et al. with either the metal nitride or metal carbonitride of Zhang et al.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. While Huang does not disclose the composite is for use in Li-S batteries (which would be a convincing argument), this is not commensurate within the scope of the claims. Further, the claims (claims 1-8 in this circumstance) do not indicate an electrochemical device at all. The claims merely state a composite material. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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).
The Applicant discloses: “The Examiner has further alleged that although Huang et al. does not teach wherein the metal carbide, metal nitride or metal carbonitride nanoparticles further comprises surface metal oxides, a person of ordinary skill in the art upon reading Zhang et al. which teaches surface termination on the MXenes with functional groups such as oxygen (which would be a metal oxide), would then be able to arrive at the claim 7 (now claim 1) of present invention.
As mentioned above, the teachings of Huang et al. are directed at forming small iron carbide nanoparticles/3D porous nitrogen-rich graphene for efficient electrocatalysis and it is not specifically directed for use in lithium-sulfur batteries. On the other hand, Zhang et al. teaches surface terminated MXenes are more efficient in chemisorption of the polysulfides (page 621 column 1 lines 12 to 15). However, suppressing of polysulfide shutting effect or increasing of sulfur loading was not desired or taught in Huang et al. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date upon reading Huang et al. would reasonably not have consulted Zhang et al. to increase the conductivity when Zhang et al. specifically teaches such surface terminated MXenes for Li-S batteries.
The Examiner respectfully traverses. As stated previously, claims 1-8 do not disclose the composite being used in a lithium-sulfur battery or any electrochemical device for that matter. The limitation of such is not commensurate within the scope of the claims. Further, the Examiner does not cite the advantage of chemisorption of polysulfides in Zhang when modifying Huang. The advantage of the surface terminations occurring on the surface of MXenes with functional groups such as oxygen increases hydrophilicity. Which is an advantage cited by Zhang and relied on by Examiner.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Xu in view of Zhang were persuasive. Therefore, the reference of Xu has been withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (J. Mater. Chem. A, 3, 4976-4982, (2015)) and further in view of Zhang et al. (InfoMat, 2, 613-638, (2020))
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 4, Huang et al. teach a coral-like composite material comprising highly dispersed conductive metal nitride, metal carbide or metal carbonitride nanoparticles on mesoporous carbon nanosheets, wherein the metal element from the metal nitride, metal carbide or metal carbonitride nanoparticles is scandium, titanium, vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, yttrium, zirconium, niobium, molybdenum, technetium, ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, silver, cadmium, hafnium, tantalum, tungsten, rhenium, osmium, iridium, platinum, or their combinations thereof (Abstract discloses uniform iron carbide nanoparticles embedded in 3D porous N-rich graphene. Further, Fig. 1D and Scheme 1 disclose coral-like structures. Further, Section 3, 2nd paragraph discloses the in Fig. 1D, the uniform 3D porous structures in the form of graphene nanosheets.).
Further, while Huang et al. teach a metal carbide (Abstract discloses Fe3C.), they do not teach wherein the metal carbide can comprise niobium carbide, titanium carbide, tungsten carbide, molybdenum carbide, vanadium carbide, hafnium carbide, niobium titanium carbide, chromium carbide, niobium tungsten carbide, niobium molybdenum carbide, niobium vanadium carbide, niobium hafnium carbide, titanium tungsten carbide, titantum molybdenum carbide, titanium vanadium carbide, titanium vanadium chromium carbide, titanium hafnium carbide, tungsten molybdenum carbide, tungsten vanadium carbide, tungsten hafnium carbide, molybdenum vanadium carbide, molybdenum hafnium carbide, vanadium hafnium carbide or their mixtures thereof.
Zhang et al. two-dimensional transition metal carbides, carbonitrides and nitrides, so-called MXenes (Abstract). Further, they comprise formula Mn + 1X nTx -wherein M is a transition metal, X is carbon and/or nitrogen, and Tx stands for a surface termination (Page 614).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the metal nitride nanoparticle of Huang with either the metal carbide or metal carbonitride of Zhang in order to improve conductivity.
Regarding claim 2, Huang and Zhang et al. teach the coral-like composite material of claim 1. Further, Huang teaches wherein the size of the metal nitride, metal carbide or metal carbonitride nanoparticles is in the range of about 2 nm to about 20 nm (Abstract discloses the Fe3C nanoparticles are around 10 nm.).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Huang and Zhang et al. teach the coral-like composite material of claim 1. Further, Zhang teaches wherein the nanoparticles are metal nitride or metal carbonitride nanoparticles.
Zhang et al. two-dimensional transition metal carbides, carbonitrides and nitrides, so-called MXenes (Abstract). Further, they comprise formula Mn + 1X nTx -wherein M is a transition metal, X is carbon and/or nitrogen, and Tx stands for a surface termination (Page 614).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the metal nitride nanoparticle of Huang with either the metal carbide or metal carbonitride of Zhang in order to improve conductivity.
Regarding claim 8, Huang and Zhang et al. teach the coral-like composite material of claim 1. Further, Huang teaches wherein the coral-like composite material has:
a) a surface area larger than 100 m2/g (Section 3 discloses a surface area of 282 m2/g.);
b) a pore volume in the range of about 0.5 cm3/g to about 2 cm3/g (Section 3 discloses a pore volume of 1.12 cm3/g.); or
c) a pore size in the range of about 2 nm to about 50 nm.
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 DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 November 24th, 2025