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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 18, 2026 have been fully considered.
On page 5 of the Remarks section as indicated by the page number at the bottom of each page, Applicant discusses the claim status, and the claim amendments made to the claims.
On pages 5-8, Applicant begins arguments against the previous 103 prior art rejection on independent Claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues against the previous combination of references using primary reference Ibrahim et al., (“Ibrahim”, “Unveiling Fabrication and Environmental Remediation of MXene-Based Nanoarchitectures in Toxic Metals Removal from Wastewater: Strategy and Mechanism”, Nanomaterials, 2020, 10, 885, 29 total pages, provided by Applicant), and previous secondary reference Li et al., CN109535476A, (“Li”, “Machine Translation of CN109535476A”, published 2019, 59 total pages). Applicant argues that these references do not disclose the limitation “a three-dimensional neutralized chitosan matrix neutralized in situ within the pores; wherein the hydrogel fully covers the interior walls of the pores impregnating hydrogel into internal foam pores”. Applicant specifically argues that the references do not disclose fully covering the interior wall or interior pore. The Examiner withdraws the previous prior art rejections as a result.
The remainder of Applicant’s remarks are considered moot since no specific arguments have been presented in regard to the previous references and their disclosures for the highlighted dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 26 and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the added limitation “a three-dimensional neutralized chitosan matrix neutralized in situ within the pores”. However, it is not clear that this limitation is supported in the Specification because lines 19-22 of page 15 of the Specification indicate that it is not just chitosan matrix, but also chitosan-cellulose-MXene hydrogel that is adsorbed onto/within the pores and then neutralized, making this potential new matter. It is also not clear what the term “in situ” is meant to convey versus the alternative “ex situ”, making this also potential new matter.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “in situ” as well, in which It is also not clear what the term “in situ” is meant to convey versus the alternative “ex situ”, making this also potential new matter.
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 12, 26 and their dependent claims 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 12 recites the limitation “the atomic percentage”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “MXene nanosheets” on line 2, “activated cellulose microfibers” on lines 2 & 3, “a chitosan-cellulose-MXene hydrogel” on line 6, “the hydrogel” on lines 8 & 10, “internal pores” on line 8. It is not clear if these limitations are the same or different from similar limitation already recited in Claim 1 or not.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the impregnated foam” on line 9 and “the pore structure” on line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: after withdrawing the previous prior art rejections for the reasons stated above, the Examiner has conducted further searching and consideration of the prior art in the relevant fields of endeavor. After doing so, the Examiner has determined that the claim feature “wherein the hydrogel fully covers the interior walls of the pores” in combination with the other claimed features of independent Claim 1 is allowable over the closest prior art including Ibrahim et al., (“Ibrahim”, “Unveiling Fabrication and Environmental Remediation of MXene-Based Nanoarchitectures in Toxic Metals Removal from Wastewater: Strategy and Mechanism”, Nanomaterials, 2020, 10, 885, 29 total pages, provided by Applicant), Li et al., CN109535476A, (“Li”, “Machine Translation of CN109535476A”, published 2019, 59 total pages), and Shafiq et al., ("Shafiq", "Rational design of MXene coated polyurethane foam for the removal of Pb2+", Materials Letters, Volume 304, 1 December 2021, 4 total pages). Thus, the Examiner indicates that the claims would be allowable once the 112 issues above are resolved.
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 JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
