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 November 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have not significantly changed the scope of the claimed invention, and the previous prior art rejection still stands.
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 amendments made to the claims to address the previous claim objections and 112 rejections. In response, the Examiner has withdrawn the previous objections and most of the previous 112 rejections. However, the Examiner notes that a couple of 112 rejections remain.
On pages 5-6, Applicant begins arguments against the previous 103 prior art rejection on independent Claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues that Ibrahim is “a review paper” and asserts that in the different disclosed examples, the “embodiments” that were claim mapped do not have “a motivation for why a person of skill in the art would combine these paragraphs”. Applicant asserts that the first embodiment of Ibrahim is a composition comprising a chitosan-cellulose-MXene hydrogel in which it comprises hydrophilic surface-modified two-dimensional MXene nanosheets integrated into cellulose microfibers, noting that it draws from different passages in the paper, such as pages 9, 16 and 2. Applicant also argues that one would have to combine all of these passages to result in an embodiment, but no motivation has been provided to do so. Applicant notes that the excerpt from page 9 allegedly demonstrates that one would select EHL functionalized MXenes, not chitosan-functionalized MXene. Applicant continues on, arguing that page 19 details alginate spheres with MXene, but that alginate and chitosan are distinct from each other, such that one would have to replace alginate with chitosan. Applicant asserts no reason has been provided to do so.
In response to these arguments presented by Applicant, the Examiner notes that the recited portions of the first embodiment of Ibrahim, while they are present in different parts of the paper, do not present distinctly different compositions. The Examiner notes that the first excerpt cited was the passage from page 9, specifically citing the chitosan-functionalized MXene. While one of ordinary skill could look at the different examples provided here in page 9, the fact is that any one of those examples is known in the art so selecting chitosan to functionalize the MXene does not require a reason to modify or combine, when it is the first embodiment chosen. The Examiner notes that the passages presented from page 19 and page 2 are used to demonstrate the inherent characteristics of an already recited feature. The passage from page 2 shows that MXene is hydrophilic as claimed, and that it is formed in the manner of nanosheets. The Examiner also notes that Applicant has not commented that a second embodiment of Ibrahim was already used to further demonstrate combining the three-dimensional neutral hydrogel feature from page 19 into the first embodiment cited, making the MXene structure have hydrogel characteristics for the reason of increasing stability of these hydrogel spheres in a variety of pH conditions thereby increasing its adsorption capacity, (See pages 20-21, Ibrahim). The Examiner notes that Applicant’s remark stating why one would replace sodium alginate with chitosan is unpersuasive because the first embodiment cited already started with chitosan in page 9, and modified this example with hydrogel three-dimensional spheres which were in page 19, not the other way around. The Examiner finds Applicant’s remarks here unpersuasive as a whole.
Then, Applicant argue that it would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the first embodiment of Ibrahim with the polymer-based foam in Shafiq. Applicant argues that in the currently claimed invention, the chitosan-cellulose-MXene hydrogel is adsorbed into the polymer-based foam, but in Shafiq a polyurethane foam is coated with chitosan and then an MXene layer is applied, which is not the same thing. However, the Examiner takes the position that the combination of chitosan and MXene results in them being bound to the polymer-based foam using “strong electrostatic interactions of negatively charged MXene with positively charged chitosan on PUF surface” as recited in Shafiq, (“3.1. Effect of adsorbent…and surfactant…coating”). These interactions behave in the same manner adsorbing the MXene and chitosan in the surface of the PUF which is porous. For this reason, the Examiner finds Applicant’s remarks here unpersuasive.
The remainder of Applicant’s remarks are directed towards other secondary references and dependent claims in which no specific arguments have been made against the teachings or motivations of those references. Thus, they are considered moot.
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.
Claims 2, 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 2 recites the limitation “the MXene” on line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “a polymer-based foam” on line 13. It is not clear if this is the same as or different from “a polymer-based foam” as in Claim 1. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 & 12-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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), in view of 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).
Claims 1-4, 12-25 are directed to a foam composite, a device or composition type invention group.
Regarding Claims 1-4, 12-25, a first embodiment of Ibrahim discloses a composite, comprising a chitosan-cellulose-MXene, (See page 9, “a novel MXene compound...chitosan” and See page 16, “nanofiber composites were synthesized…addition of…cellulose”), material wherein the chitosan-cellulose-MXene hydrogel comprises hydrophilic surface-modified two-dimensional MXene nanosheets integrated into one-dimensional activated cellulose microfibers, (See page 2, “merits of MXene, such as hydrophilicity, large surface area, activated metallic hydroxide sites, accessible adsorption sites”, and “The interlayer spacing between MXene nanosheets”).
This embodiment of Ibrahim does not disclose a polymer-based foam. However, Ibrahim contemplates incorporating its composition into a polymer, (See page 24, “The stability…of Ti3C2Tx and other MXenes for removal of toxic metals from wastewater could be improved significantly via recombination with low-cost, abundant, and stable polymers…”).
A second embodiment of Ibrahim discloses a MXene hydrogel, (“MXene flakes…has hydrogel characteristics”, See page 19), and three-dimensional neutralized hydrogel, (“MXene core-shell spheres…hydrogel characteristics” and “pH 6-8 was attainted”, See page 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of the first embodiment of Ibrahim by incorporating a MXene hydrogel and three-dimensional neutralized hydrogel as in the second embodiment of Ibrahim in order to provide a form which “exhibited outstanding adsorption ability of Hg(II)” with a “wide range of adsorption capacities of these spheres…given the stability increase of these spheres in a variety of pH conditions”, (pages 20-21, Ibrahim).
Shafiq discloses a foam composite using MXene and chitosan adsorbed into a polymer-based foam, (See Abstract, and “bio-surfactant acting as a binder interface between MXene and PUF for Pb2+ removal”, See “1. Introduction”, See page 1, and “coating of MXene on chitosan coated PUF”, See “3. Results and discussions”, See page 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of Ibrahim by incorporating a foam composite using MXene and chitosan adsorbed into a polymer-based foam as in Shafiq in order to provide “low-cost support material…which can host the active material [MXene] in a way that maximum surface of material is exposed, and consumption of nanomaterial per-unit volume is minimum”, (See “1. Introduction”, page 1, Shafiq), such that “highly efficient, inexpensive, lightweight and ecofriendly MXene coated polyurethane foam”, (See Abstract, Shafiq), is prepared in which Ibrahim calls for “the stability of Ti3C2Tx and other MXenes for removal of toxic metals from wastewater could be improved significantly via recombination with low-cost, abundant, and stable polymers”, See page 24, Ibrahim).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The foam composite of claim 1, wherein the MXene nanosheets are of the formula: Mn+1XnTx wherein M is an early transition metal selected from scandium (Sc), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), zirconium (Zr), niobium (Nb), molybdenum (Mo), mercury (Hf), and tantalum (Ta); X is carbon and/or nitrogen, (See page 24, “The stability…of Ti3C2Tx and other MXenes for removal of toxic metals from wastewater could be improved significantly via recombination with low-cost, abundant, and stable polymers…” or see page 2; M is Ti (titanium) and X is C carbon); and, Tx is a hydroxyl, oxygen, and/or fluorine-terminating functional group on the surface of the MXene, (Tx is…OH, O…or F”, See page 2, Ibrahim).
Claim 3: The foam composite of claim 2, wherein the MXene nanosheets are of the formula M3X2Tx, (See page 24, “The stability…of Ti3C2Tx and other MXenes for removal of toxic metals from wastewater”, Ibrahim).
Claim 4: The foam composite of claim 1, wherein the polymer-based foam comprises polyurethane, (See Abstract, and “bio-surfactant acting as a binder interface between MXene and PUF for Pb2+ removal”, See “1. Introduction”, See page 1, and “coating of MXene on chitosan coated PUF”, See “3. Results and discussions”, See page 3, Shafiq).
Claim 12: The foam composite of claim 1, for the removal of at least one heavy metal from water wherein the at least one heavy metal is selected from zinc, cadmium, lead, chromium, copper, mercury, and barium, (See Abstract, Ibrahim, and See Abstract, Shafiq).
Claim 13: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the removal of at least one heavy metal from water is conducted at room temperature, atmospheric pressure, and without electricity, (See Table 1, several at “room temperature” or “25oC”; no mention of electricity and performed in typical conditions hence atmospheric pressure, Ibrahim).
Claim 14: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the foam composite adsorbs at least about 70% of the at least one heavy metal from the water within less than about 5 minutes, (See Table 1, (MoS2/MX), 98.5% 2 min, Ibrahim).
Claim 15: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the foam composite adsorbs at least about 80% of the at least one heavy metal from the water within less than about 5 minutes, (See Table 1, (MoS2/MX), 98.5% 2 min, Ibrahim).
Claim 16: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the foam composite adsorbs at least about 90% of the at least one heavy metal from the water within less than about 5 minutes, (See Table 1, (MoS2/MX), 98.5% 2 min, Ibrahim).
Claim 17: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the foam composite adsorbs at least about 95% of the at least one heavy metal from the water within less than about 5 minutes, (See Table 1, (MoS2/MX), 98.5% 2 min, Ibrahim).
Claim 18: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the foam composite adsorbs about 100% of the at least one heavy metal from the water within less than about 5 minutes, (See Table 1, (MoS2/MX), 98.5% 2 min, Ibrahim; 98.5 is “about” 100).
Claim 19: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the at least one heavy metal is adsorbed from the water within less than 3 minutes, (See Table 1, (MoS2/MX), 98.5% 2 min, Ibrahim).
Claim 20: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the at least one heavy metal is adsorbed from the water within less than 1 minute, (“contact times that range from seconds to two hours”, “4.2. Removal and Reduction of Chromium Ions by MXenes”, See page 11, Ibrahim).
Claim 21: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the at least one heavy metal is adsorbed from the water within less than 30 seconds, (“contact times that range from seconds to two hours”, “4.2. Removal and Reduction of Chromium Ions by MXenes”, See page 11, Ibrahim).
Claim 22: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the at least one heavy metal is zinc and/or cadmium, (See Abstract, Ibrahim).
Claim 23: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the water is acidic, (See Table 1, “pH” is “acidic”, “2”, “4.5” or “5”, Ibrahim).
Claim 24: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the water is neutral, (See Table 1, “pH” is “7”, Ibrahim).
Claim 25: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the water is alkaline, (See Table 1, “pH” is “2-11”, Ibrahim).
Claim(s) 5 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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), in view of Shafiq et al., (“Shafiq”, “Rational design of MXene coated polyurethane foam for the removal of Pb2+”, Materials Letters, Volume 304, 1 Decmeber 2021, 4 total pages), in further view of Eid et al., (“Eid”, US 2020/0254396).
Claims 5 & 7 are directed to a foam composite, a device or composition type invention group.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Ibrahim discloses the foam composite of claim 1, but does not disclose characterized by an atomic percentage of carbon as measured by EDX of about 70%.
Eid discloses a composite characterized by an atomic percentage of carbon as measured by EDX of about 70%, (See Figure 2A; Examiner interprets “65.39%” for “C” to round up to 70%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating it being characterized by an atomic percentage of carbon as measured by EDX of about 70% as in Eid for “introducing various surface functionalities’, (See paragraph [0182], Eid), in which “combinations of improved physical and/or chemical properties of the combination of the inorganic compound with the organic compound allows for improved efficiency for water treatment(s)”, (See paragraph [0058], Eid).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Ibrahim discloses the foam composite of claim 1, but does not disclose characterized by an atomic percentage of oxygen as measured by EDX of about 5%.
Eid discloses a composite characterized by an atomic percentage of oxygen as measured by EDX of about 5%, (See Figure 2A; Examiner interprets “6.91%” for “O” to be “about” 5%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating it being characterized by an atomic percentage of oxygen as measured by EDX of about 5% as in Eid for “introducing various surface functionalities’, (See paragraph [0182], Eid), in which “combinations of improved physical and/or chemical properties of the combination of the inorganic compound with the organic compound allows for improved efficiency for water treatment(s)”, (See paragraph [0058], Eid).
Claim(s) 6 & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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), in view of Shafiq et al., (“Shafiq”, “Rational design of MXene coated polyurethane foam for the removal of Pb2+”, Materials Letters, Volume 304, 1 Decmeber 2021, 4 total pages), in further view of Anasori et al., (“Anasori”, US 2023/0174787).
Claim 6 is directed to a foam composite, a device or composition type invention group.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Ibrahim discloses the foam composite of claim 1, but does not disclose characterized by an atomic percentage of titanium as measured by EDX of about 10%.
Anasori discloses a composite characterized by an atomic percentage of titanium as measured by EDX of about 10%, (See paragraph [0139], Anasori, Examiner interprets “9%” for “Ti” to be “about” 10%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating it being characterized by an atomic percentage of titanium as measured by EDX of about 10% as in Anasori to make “new composites containing MXenes”, (See paragraph [0003], Anasori), to create “a network…which can be used for multi-functional structural and/or conductive metal composites” which is “scalable to form large batches”, (See paragraph [0143], Anasori).
Claim 8 is directed to a foam composite, a device or composition type invention group.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Ibrahim discloses the foam composite of claim 1, but does not disclose characterized by an atomic percentage of fluorine as measured by EDX of about 1%.
Anasori discloses a composite characterized by an atomic percentage of fluorine as measured by EDX of about 1%, (See Figure 7, “F” “Atomic Percentage” “1.0”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating it being characterized by an atomic percentage of fluorine as measured by EDX of about 1% as in Anasori to make “new composites containing MXenes”, (See paragraph [0003], Anasori), to create “a network…which can be used for multi-functional structural and/or conductive metal composites” which is “scalable to form large batches”, (See paragraph [0143], Anasori).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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), in view of Shafiq et al., (“Shafiq”, “Rational design of MXene coated polyurethane foam for the removal of Pb2+”, Materials Letters, Volume 304, 1 Decmeber 2021, 4 total pages), in further view of Eid et al., (“Eid”, US 2020/0254396), in further view of Anasori et al., (“Anasori”, US 2023/0174787), in further view of Fasching et al., (“Fasching”, US 2016/0049655), in further view of Swett et al., (“Swett”, US 10,418,143).
Claim 9 is directed to a foam composite, a device or composition type invention group.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Ibrahim discloses the foam composite of claim 1, but does not disclose it exhibits an atomic ratio of carbon:titanium:oxygen:fluorine (C:Ti:O:F) of the foam composite as measured by EDX is about 80:14:5:1.
Anasori discloses a composite characterized by an atomic percentage of fluorine as measured by EDX of about 1%, (See Figure 7, “F” “Atomic Percentage” “1.0”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating it being characterized by an atomic percentage of fluorine as measured by EDX of about 1% as in Anasori to make “new composites containing MXenes”, (See paragraph [0003], Anasori), to create “a network…which can be used for multi-functional structural and/or conductive metal composites” which is “scalable to form large batches”, (See paragraph [0143], Anasori).
Eid discloses a composite characterized by an atomic percentage of oxygen as measured by EDX of about 5%, (See Figure 2A; Examiner interprets “6.91%” for “O” to be “about” 5%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating it being characterized by an atomic percentage of oxygen as measured by EDX of about 5% as in Eid for “introducing various surface functionalities’, (See paragraph [0182], Eid), in which “combinations of improved physical and/or chemical properties of the combination of the inorganic compound with the organic compound allows for improved efficiency for water treatment(s)”, (See paragraph [0058], Eid).
Fasching discloses a composite characterized by an atomic percentage of titanium of 14%, (See paragraph [0117], Fasching).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating it being characterized by an atomic percentage of titanium of 14% as in Fasching for “improved rate performance”, (See paragraph [0149], Fasching).
Swett discloses a composite characterized by an atomic percentage of carbon of 80%, (See column 6, lines 60-67, column 7, lines 1-20, Swett).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating it being characterized by an atomic percentage of carbon of 80% as in Swett for “conditioning sheets” and “reduce the mobility…or reduce the volatility” of the carbon based material, (See column 2, lines 56-60, Swett).
Claim(s) 10 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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), in view of Shafiq et al., (“Shafiq”, “Rational design of MXene coated polyurethane foam for the removal of Pb2+”, Materials Letters, Volume 304, 1 Decmeber 2021, 4 total pages), in further view of Ma et al., (“Ma”, “Degradable Ti3C2Tx MXene Nanosheets Containing a Lignin Polyurethane Photothermal Foam (LPUF) for Rapid Crude Oil Cleanup”, ACS appl. Nano Mater., 5, 2848-2858, 2022).
Claims 10 & 11 are directed to a foam composite, a device or composition type invention group.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Ibrahim discloses the foam composite of claim 1 wherein the foam composite is porous, but does not disclose the average pore diameter of the foam is between about 250 microns and 150 microns.
Ma discloses a foam composite the average pore diameter of the foam is between about 250 micron and 150 micron, (See page 2853, “We control the pore size…100-200 micron pore size”, Ma; anticipates the claimed range from 150 to 200 microns).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating the average pore diameter of the foam is between about 250 microns and 150 microns as in Ma because “within a certain extent, the appropriate increase in the size of the pores can help to improve the adsorption rate”, (See page 2853, Ma).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Ibrahim discloses the foam composite of claim 1 wherein the foam composite is porous, but does not disclose the average pore diameter of the foam is between about 210 microns and 190 microns.
Ma discloses a foam composite the average pore diameter of the foam is between about 210 microns and 190 microns, (See page 2853, “We control the pore size…100-200 micron pore size”, Ma; anticipates the claimed range from 190 to 200 microns).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating the average pore diameter of the foam is between about 210 microns and 190 microns as in Ma because “within a certain extent, the appropriate increase in the size of the pores can help to improve the adsorption rate”, (See page 2853, Ma).
Claim(s) 26 & 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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), in view of Shafiq et al., (“Shafiq”, “Rational design of MXene coated polyurethane foam for the removal of Pb2+”, Materials Letters, Volume 304, 1 Decmeber 2021, 4 total pages), in further view of Eid et al., (“Eid”, US 2020/0254396), in further view of Priestley et al., (“Priestley”, US 2022/0348507).
Regarding Claims 26 & 27, modified Ibrahim discloses a method for the synthesis of the foam composite of claim 1, (See rejection of Claim 1), comprising:1) etching Ti3C2Al in a solution of HF to form the MXene nanosheets as a powder, (“etching Ti3AlC2 powder using 40% HF”, See page 8, Ibrahim); 2) synthesizing the one-dimensional activated cellulose microfibers by dissolving cellulose powder in an aqueous solution of NaOH and subsequently drying under vacuum to form a cellulose powder, (“a NaOH solution…followed by addition of…cellulose…and then autoclaved”, See page 16, Ibrahim); 3) mixing the powder from step (1) and the cellulose powder from step (2) in water to form an aqueous solution; 4) dissolving chitosan in an aqueous solution of acetic acid, (“supernatant was collected and added to…acetic acid…that contained 0.1 g of CS [chitosan]”, See page 9, Ibrahim), and 5) adsorbing the chitosan-cellulose-MXene hydrogel into a polymer-based foam via an impregnation approach, (“adsorbent was synthesized by simple dipcoating”, “4. Conclusion”, Shafiq).
Modified Ibrahim does not disclose adding the aqueous solution of powder and cellulose powder from step (3) dropwise to form the chitosan-cellulose-MXene hydrogel or annealing to form the foam composite.
Eid discloses a method of adding the aqueous solution of nanosheet powder and cellulose powder from step (3) dropwise to form the chitosan-cellulose-MXene hydrogel, (See paragraph [0177], Eid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Ibrahim by incorporating adding the aqueous solution of nanosheet powder and cellulose powder from step (3) dropwise to form the chitosan-cellulose-MXene hydrogel as in Eid in order to “remove any air bubbles”, (See paragraph [0177], Eid).
Priestley discloses a method of annealing to form the foam composite, (See Abstract and paragraph [0048], Priestley).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Ibrahim by incorporating annealing to form the foam composite as in Priestley in order to “alter the pore structures formed through self-assembly”, (See paragraph [0038], Priestley), to develop a composite that is “environmentally-friendly” and “heat-resistant”, (See paragraph [0005], Priestley).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 27: The method of claim 26, wherein the foam is polyurethane foam, (See Abstract, and “bio-surfactant acting as a binder interface between MXene and PUF for Pb2+ removal”, See “1. Introduction”, See page 1, and “coating of MXene on chitosan coated PUF”, See “3. Results and discussions”, See page 3, Shafiq).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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