DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 were subject to restriction requirement mailed on 02/12/2026.
Applicant filed a response, and elected Group I, claims 1-3, and withdrew claim 4, without traverse on 03/12/2026.
Claims 1-4 are pending, and claim 4 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-3 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3 in the reply filed on 03/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/12/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 1-2, it is suggested to amend
“MoXa (in the formula, X is a Group 14 element, a Group 15 element, or a Group 16 element, and a is 0.5, 1, or 2)” to
“MoXa, in the general formula, X is a Group 14 element, a Group 15 element, or a Group 16 element, and a is 0.5, 1, or 2”,
to ensure proper antecedent basis and be clear that the limitation within the parenthesis is not optional.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozheyev et al., Properties of copper and molybdenum sulfide powders produced by self-propagating high-temperature synthesis, Advanced Materials Research, 2013 (Bozheyev), in view of Wright et al., Controlling the surface hydroxyl concentration by thermal treatment of layered double hydroxides, Inorganic Chem., 2017 (Wright).
Regarding claims 1-3, Bozheyev teaches molybdenum sulfide (i.e., MoS2) nanopowders was prepared by self-propagating high-temperature synthesis in argon; the average particle size of molybdenum disulfide was about 80 nm (Bozheyev, Abstract).
Bozheyev further teaches molybdenum disulfide is used for the production of non-aqueous lithium batteries, catalytic hydrodesulfurization material and anti-wear products (Bozheyev, page 1, 3rd paragraph of Introduction).
Bozheyev does not require adding functional groups to surface of the molybdenum disulfide.
Further regarding claim 1, Bozheyev does not explicitly disclose having number of functional groups per unit area on the surface of the molybdenum disulfide of 100 per nm2 or less.
With respect to the difference, Wright teaches controlling surface hydroxyl concentration by thermal treatment (Wright, Title, Abstract). Wright specifically teaches the hydroxyl number refers to the concentration of surface hydroxyls, given as the number of OH groups per square nanometer (OH nm-2); as the treatment temperature is increased, the degree of surface hydroxylation falls following an exponential decay pattern (Wright, page 6, left column, 2nd paragraph); material treated at 300˚C has a hydroxyl number of 3.7 OH nm-2 (Wright, page 6, Table 2).
As Wright expressly teaches, these materials (i.e., treated at elevated temperature and with reduced number of OH groups per square nanometer) can be used for air and moisture sensitive organometallic complexes (Wright, page 7848, Conclustion).
Wright is analogous art as Wright is drawn to controlling surface hydroxyl concentration by thermal treatment.
In light of the motivation of controlling surface hydroxyl concentration by thermal treatment, as taught by Wright, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use thermal treatment to reduce the surface hydroxyl concentration on the molybdenum disulfide of Bozheyev, and produce a molybdenum disulfide with a hydroxyl number of 3.7 OH nm-2, in order for the molybdenum disulfide to be used for air and moisture sensitive applications.
Conclusion
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