DETAILED ACTION
Claim 27 is rejected in Office Action mailed on 04/06/2026.
Applicant filed a response, amended claim(s) 27, and added claim(s) 29-31 on 04/06/2026.
Claim(s) 13-31 are pending, and claim(s) 13-26 and 28 are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 27 and 29-31 are rejected.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 27, 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suh et al., Reconfiguring crystal and electronic structures of MoS2 by substitutional doping, Nature Communication, 2018 (Suh).
Regarding claim 27, Suh discloses doping of Nb of MoS2 crystals (Suh, Abstract); the CBED patterns confirm the 2H and 3R stacking for the Nb-doped MoS2 (Suh, page 2, right column, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claims 29-30, as applied to claim 1, given Sun discloses an identical or essential identical material, with identical or essential identical structures, with those of the present invention, i.e., metal doped MoS2 crystals with 2H and 3R stacking, with those of the presently claimed invention (claims 27, specification, [3]), therefore it is clear that the Nb-doped MoS2 of Suh would necessarily and inherently meet the claimed limitations of: wherein in a spectrum of the metal-doped molybdenum sulfide powder obtained by powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) using Cu-Kα rays as an X-ray source, both a peak at about 39.5° and a peak at about 49.5° include a synthetic peak of the 2H crystal structure and the 3R crystal structure, and a half width is 1° or more; and wherein in a radial distribution function obtained from an extended X-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS) spectrum of a K absorption edge of molybdenum, a ratio (I/II) of peak intensity I caused by Mo-S to peak intensity II caused by Mo-Mo is more than 1.0.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiong et al., CN 111558383A (Xiong).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Xiong et al., CN 111558383A (Xiong). The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 27, Xiong discloses transition metal doped 3R type molybdenum disulfide catalyst (Xiong, Abstract).
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 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong.
Regarding claim 31, as applied to claim 27, Xiong teaches the obtained transition metal doped molybdenum disulfide catalyst has a 3 R-type crystal structure, further has a larger specific surface area, so as to improve the active number in the catalytic hydrodeoxygenation reaction (Xiong, page 3, 3rd paragraph).
Although there are no disclosures on the amounts of specific surface area as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of specific surface area, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to improve the active number in the catalytic hydrodeoxygenation reaction, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Furthermore, although there is no disclosure that the test method is conformity with BET method, given that the Xiong discloses specific surface area as the presently claimed and absent evidence criticality how the specific surface area is measured, it is an examiner's position that specific surface area disclosed by Xiong to meet the claim limitation.
Response to Arguments
In response to the amended claim 27, which recites, “wherein the metal-doped molybdenum sulfide powder contains molybdenum disulfide having a 3R crystal structure”, it is noted that Aslan would not anticipate/meet the present claims. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102a(1)/103 rejections over Aslan are withdrawn from the record. However, the amendments necessitate a new set of rejections over Suh and Xiong, as set forth above.
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 KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights