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 .
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 6, 12, and 14 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 6 recites the limitation "second distance" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no second distance based on the dependency of the claims. Claims 12 and 14 are also rejected as they are dependent or otherwise require all of the limitations of claim 6.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3, 6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 changes the first distance as claimed in claim 1 into a second distance, which causes it to not further limit the scope of claim 1. Claim 6 changes a second distance into a third distance. Since claim 1 requires a first distance, different from the second and third distances, the scope of claims 3 and 6 extends outside the scope of the claims on which they depend, and thus the claims do not further limit the claims on which they depend. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim 11 is also rejected as it is dependent on claim 3 and claim 12 is rejected as it is dependent on claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (“The optical properties of Ce-doped SnS quantum dots with fast nanosecond lifetime”, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, Volume 799, Pages 425-432, 2019).
In regards to claim 1, Wang teaches a metal monochalcogenide-based material that consists of layers with interlayer spacing of a first distance and includes SnS (Page 425-426, “In this work, the crystal structure of SnS and SnS:Ce3+ had been investigated by XRD and TEM”; Fig. 2). In regards to being used as an ammonia synthesis catalyst, Wang teaches the same structure as required by the instant application. Absent structural differences between a claim and a prior art material or article, a recitation of the claimed material or article's intended use cannot alone patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 I-II, citing, e.g., Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987); MPEP 2111.02 II, citing Rowe v. Dror, 112, F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (stating that “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”). See also In re Zierden, 411 F.2d 1325, 1328 (CCPA 1969) (stating that “a mere statement of a new use for an otherwise old or obvious composition cannot render a claim to the composition patentable”). Thus, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, as Wang is, it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02 II, citing In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing, inter alia, In re Zierden).
In regards to claim 2, Wang teaches that the metal monochalcogenide-based material is doped by a lanthanide atom (Introduction, “Due to the short luminescent lifetime property of Ce (20ns) and the scarcity of reported data of Ce-doped SnS, we made this experiment and found Ce can effectively decrease the lifetime of pure SnS [14-17]”).
In regards to claim 7, Wang teaches that the lanthanide atom is Ce (Page 425-426, “In this work, the crystal structure of SnS and Sns:Ce3+ had been investigated by XRD and TEM”; Page 428, “In addition, with the increase of Ce3+ ions dopant, the intensity of the photo luminescence peak enhances a lot in comparison to the pure SnS, which indicates that the Ce3+ ions have been doped in the SnS nanoparticles successfully”).
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su (“Ce-Doped Sns Quantum Dots Sensitized SnS2 Nanocomposites for NO2 Monitoring”, ECS Meeting Abstracts, Volume MA2020-01, 2020)
In regards to claim 1, Su teaches a metal monochalcogenide-based material that consists of layers with interlayer spacing of a first distance and contains SnS (Synthesis of Ce3+ doped SnS@SnS2 nanoparticles, “The Ce3+ doped SnS@SnS2 nanoparticles are synthesized in the same method”; Fig.1). In regards to use as an ammonia synthesis catalyst, Su teaches the same structure as claimed in the instant application. Absent structural differences between a claim and a prior art material or article, a recitation of the claimed material or article' s intended use cannot alone patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 I-II, citing, e.g., Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987); MPEP 2111.02 II, citing Rowe v. Dror, 112, F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (stating that “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”). See also In re Zierden, 411 F.2d 1325, 1328 (CCPA 1969) (stating that “a mere statement of a new use for an otherwise old or obvious composition cannot render a claim to the composition patentable”). Thus, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, as Su is, it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02 II, citing In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing, inter alia, In re Zierden).
In regards to claims 2 and 7, Su teaches that the SnS material is doped by a lanthanide atom, which is Ce (Synthesis of Ce3+ doped SnS@SnS2 nanoparticles, “The Ce3+ doped SnS@SnS2 nanoparticles are synthesized in the same method”; Fig.1).
In regards to claim 4, Su teaches that the first and second layers of metal monochalcogenide-based material can be intercalated by a metal atom (Abstract, “Ce-doped SnS2 nanoflowers were also studied as anode electrodes materials for lithium ion batteries, whose reversible capacities and cycling performance is the best among the synthesized Ce SnS2 compounds because of larger lattice space provided by the larger-radius cerium ions replacement of Sn4+ for lithium intercalation and deintercalation”).
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chia (“Layered SnS versus SnS2: Valence and Structural Implications on Electrochemistry and Clean Energy Electrocatalysis”, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, Pages 24098-24111, 2016).
In regards to claim 1, Chia teaches a metal monochalcogenide-based material that consist of layers where the material includes SnS and has interlayer spacing (Page 24098-24099, “SnS and SnS2 are layered chalcogenides structurally akin to TMDs such that strong covalent bonding exists within the plane and weak van der Waals’ interactions occur between layers”; Page 24099, “Likewise, the interlayer spacing of Sn chalcogenides provides sites for intercalation of Li or Na ions”). In regards to being used as an ammonia synthesis catalyst, Chia teaches the same structure claimed in the instant application. Absent structural differences between a claim and a prior art material or article, a recitation of the claimed material or article' s intended use cannot alone patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 I-II, citing, e.g., Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987); MPEP 2111.02 II, citing Rowe v. Dror, 112, F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (stating that “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”). See also In re Zierden, 411 F.2d 1325, 1328 (CCPA 1969) (stating that “a mere statement of a new use for an otherwise old or obvious composition cannot render a claim to the composition patentable”). Thus, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, as Chia is, it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02 II, citing In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing, inter alia, In re Zierden).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (“Enhanced electrocatalytic nitrogen reduction activity by incorporation of a carbon layer on SnS microflowers”, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, Issue 39, 2020).
In regards to claim 1, Yu teaches a metal monochalcogenide-based material, such as SnS, that consists of layers and has interlayer spacing of a first distance as a catalyst for ammonia synthesis (Page 20678, “Herein, we report a novel hydrophobic carbon layer incorporation strategy via a facile one-pot hydrothermal method to significantly enhance the NRR activity on tin monosulfide (SnS)”; Fig. 1 c).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8-10, 13, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Chia (“Layered SnS versus SnS2: Valence and Structural Implications on Electrochemistry and Clean Energy Electrocatalysis”, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, Pages 24098-24111, 2016), Yu (“Enhanced electrocatalytic nitrogen reduction activity by incorporation of a carbon layer on SnS microflowers”, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, Issue 39, 2020), Wang (“The optical properties of Ce-doped SnS quantum dots with fast nanosecond lifetime”, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, Volume 799, Pages 425-432, 2019), and Su (“Ce-Doped Sns Quantum Dots Sensitized SnS2 Nanocomposites for NO2 Monitoring”, ECS Meeting Abstracts, Volume MA2020-01, 2020) are considered to be the closest prior arts to the claimed invention.
In regards to claim 5, Chia, Yu, Wang and Su do not teach that the metal intercalating atom is a transition metal atom that covalently bonds at a bonding site.
In regards to claim 8, Chia, Yu, Wang, and Su do not teach a general formula of Ay/Bx-MX, where A is the intercalating metal atom, B is the lanthanide atom, and MX represents the first and second layers of metal monochalcogenide-based material.
In regards to claim 9, Chia, Yu, Wang, and Su do not teach that the catalyst formula of MX is SnS, B is Ce and A is Pt.
In regards to claim 10, Chia, Yu, Wang, and Su do not teach that y is about 0.3 to 1.2 atomic percent or that x is about 0.1 to about 1 atomic percent.
In regards to claim 13, Chia, Yu, Wang, and Su do not teach that the intercalated first and second layers of metal monochalcogenide-based material is Pt0.9/Ce0.5-SnS.
In regards to claim 15, Chia, Yu, Wang, and Su do not teach that the catalyst has a Faradiac efficiency for ammonia of about 94.12% and a yield rate of about 0.3056 mmol cm-2 h-1 for ammonia at -0.5V vs. RHE.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is (703)756-4531. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30-6.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736