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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 7/8/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 6, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (WO 2021004424).
Wang describes a composition that can include molybdic acid, which is a precursor of molybdenum (para. 27, 59). The loading of the molybdenum is from 0.1-50mass% (para. 18). The size of the molybdenum is from 5-1nm (para. 23). Although Wang does not specifically state that the precursor is this size or this amount, since the molybdic acid is a precursor of the same composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the precursor is from 5-1nm or smaller and has a mass of about 0.1-50mass%.
As to the preamble, it has been held by the courts that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
As to how the molybdenum particles are measured, although Wang does not state measuring the particles using dynamic light scattering, since Wang describes a size, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that any method of measuring the particles would be effective.
As to Claim 2, Wang teaches that the molybdenum precursor can be any of those precursors listed in para. 60, one of which can include molybdic acid (para. 59). In example 1, when processing the molybdic acid, Wang teaches dispersing the metal mixture in water (para. 71). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that to disperse the molybdic acid in an aqueous solution since Wang teaches that any molybdenum precursor can be used and molybdic acid is one of those precursors and is a known alternative to ammonium molybdate tetrahydrate, which is the precursor used in example 1.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata (JP 2004131346).
Kawabata describes a permolybdic acid solution (para. 10), which is used to make particles with a size of less than 300nm (para. 7). The solution can include molybdic acid (para. 10).
Although Kawabata does not specifically teach that the molybdic acid-containing solution is 20nm or less, since 300nm or less overlaps the claimed range. This is considered to meet the claimed features.
As to the size of the molybdenum particles, although the reference does not state measuring the particles using dynamic light scattering, since Wang describes a size, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that any method of measuring the particles would be effective.
As to the preamble, it has been held by the courts that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
As to Claim 2, Kawabata teaches use of molybdic acid combined with water (example 6).
As to Claim 10, Kawabata teaches in example 6 that the particles are in a solution (see example 6).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xavier (US Pub.: 2021/0138440) and in view of Oki (WO 2021060375).
Xavier describes a catalyst (title) made by combining a molybdenum precusors, such as molybdic acid (para. 50) with an aqueous solution of ammonia and organic amines (para. 52). The product is used to make a catalyst (para. 52).
Xavier does not specifically teach that the size of the composition containing the molybdic acid.
Oki describes a method of making a molybdenum-based particle (abstract) by employing a molybdenum oxide precursor, such as molybdic acid (page 5, para. 1) that is put in an aqueous solution (page 5, para. 1).
The composition is used to make a molybdenum-based size of 10nm (page 3, lines 8-12).
As to the molybdic acid being 10nm or less, the product of Oki that combines a molybdenum precursor with a support (see example 1), such as alumina (see example 1) has the size range of 10nm or less (see page 3, lines 8-12). Therefore, since the molybdenum precursor, which can be molybdic acid (see page 5, para.1) is combined with the alumina to be made larger (see example 1, where a molybdenum oxide precursor is combined with alumina, heated to make the product (see example 1) has a size of 10nm or less (see page 3, lines 8-12), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the size of molybdic acid itself prior to reacting it with the alumina support (inorganic support), has a size of less than 10nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a molybdic acid with a size of less than 10nm, as taught by Oki for use with Xavier because a molybdenum oxide precursor of this size range is known to make a product with a useable molybdenum catalyst size of less than 10nm that has predictable and expected uses.
As to Claims 7 and 8, since Oki teaches a size of 10nm or less, the ranges overlap. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xavier and Oki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagai (JP 2004/033985).
Xavier and Oki do not describe the pH of the molybdic acid solution.
Nagai describes a molybdenum composition (abstract) that is made by combining a molybdic acid in an aqueous solution (para. 10, para. 3). When supported on a support, Nagai teaches that the pH of the solution is adjusted to 4-12 (para. 10, para. 3) in order to produce a molybdenum-supported catalyst composition (para. 10, para. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the pH of the molybdic acid-containing aqueous solution to 4-12, as taught by Nagai for use with the product of Xavier and Oki because Nagai explains that this pH aid in the production of a molybdenum-support catalyst composition.
Claim(s) 1, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 1888134).
Yu describes a molydate film (title) that include molybdic acid (abstract) and includes a crystal grain size of 10-500nm (abstract) and is coated as a film (abstract).
Although Yu does not specifically state that the molybdic acid has a crystal grain size of 10-500nm, since all the molybdenum-containing metals are contained in the coating solution and includes molybdic acid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the crystal grain size of Yu includes molybdic acid since it is a composition in the coating film.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 August 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights