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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 are currently under examination. Claim 2 is amended. Claim 7 is newly added.
Previous Grounds of Rejection
In the light of the amendments, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, with respect to claim 2 is withdrawn.
The rejection under35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitazono et al. (US 2015/0259216 A1, applicant submitted in IDS) with respect to claims 1 and 3-5 is withdrawn because applicant’s Argument/Remarks filed on 10/22/2025 is persuasive.
New grounds of rejections are set forth below.
New Grounds of Rejections
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 2 is 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase of “…a ratio (Mo: Mm)… ” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it is based on a weight ratio or a molar ratio. For purpose of the examination, a ratio of Mo: Mm is interpreted as a molar ratio.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitazono et al. (US 2015/0259216 A1, applicant submitted in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Kitazono et al. teach a method of making antimony trisulfide ([0010]-[0040], FIG. 6 and 7, Table 1) via a reaction of antimony trioxide power and sulfur power and heating the mixture at 580 0C in a vessel as shown in the reaction formula below (FIG.7, [0015]):
PNG
media_image1.png
26
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Another reaction for making Sb2S3, a metal antimony powder reacts sulfur powder, and then heating the mixture at 580 0C in in the vessel as shown in the reaction formula below (FIG.6, [0014]):
PNG
media_image2.png
26
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As set forth in MPEP 2144,06, the combination of equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious in the absence of new and unexpected results. Here, Kitazono et al. teach that Sb metal is a composition reacting with S for the purpose of producing Sb2S3. Kitazono et al. also teach that Sb2O3 is a composition reacting with S for the purpose of producing Sb2S3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a process for preparing Sb2S3 as taught by Kitazono et. al. where Sb and Sb2O3 are combined to react with S to produce Sb2S3 since they are compositions known for this purpose absent evidence of new and unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, as we see above the reaction formula, a molar ratio of Mo: Mm is 2 as the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, the reaction temperature taught by Kitazono et al. is at 580 0C which is encompassed by the instant claimed ranges ([0038]).
Regarding claim 4, the particle size of antimony metal powder taught by Kitazono et al. is <10 micrometer as the instant claim ([0007]).
Regarding claim 5, the particle size of antimony trioxide powder taught by Kitazono et al. is <2 micrometer as the instant claim ([0016]).
Regarding claim 6, although Kitazono et al. do not specifically disclose a total mass of 1 Kg or more of the mixture as per applicant claim 6, Kitazono et al. teach all of the claimed reagents including metal antimony powder, antimony trioxide powder, and sulfur powder, and method of making antimony trisulfide, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed would expect to scaleup the raw material mixture to 1 Kg or more through routine experimentation in the art, in an effort to reduce the cost of antimony trisulfide product.
Regarding claim 7, Kitazono et al. teach a method of making antimony trisulfide ([0010]-[0040], FIG. 6 and 7, Table 1) via a reaction of antimony trioxide power and sulfur power and heating the mixture at 580 0C in a vessel as shown in the reaction formula below (FIG.7, [0015]):
PNG
media_image1.png
26
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Another reaction for making Sb2S3, a metal antimony powder reacts sulfur powder, and then heating the mixture at 580 0C in in the vessel as shown in the reaction formula below (FIG.6, [0014]):
PNG
media_image2.png
26
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As set forth in MPEP 2144,06, the combination of equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious in the absence of new and unexpected results. Here, Kitazono et al. teach that Sb metal is a composition reacting with S for the purpose of producing Sb2S3. Kitazono et al. also teach that Sb2O3 is a composition reacting with S for the purpose of producing Sb2S3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a process for preparing Sb2S3 as taught by Kitazono et. al. where Sb and Sb2O3 are combined to react with S to produce Sb2S3 since they are compositions known for this purpose absent evidence of new and unexpected results.
As we see above the reaction formula, a molar ratio of Mo: Mm is 2 as the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the previous Grounds of Rejection
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-6 filed on 10/22/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUN QIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
YUN . QIAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1732
/YUN QIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738