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 3/19/26 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in 202210379125 on 4/12/22. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the patent application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is suggested to amend Claim 1, line 1 in the following way: “A
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 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.
Claim 1, line 1-2 describes a molybdenum trioxide (line 1) that has the formulas: Mo8O24 (line 2). It is unclear because MoO3 is not the same as Mo8O24. It seems that this composition claim either means to describe a Mo8O24 composition that is composed of MoO3 units or is made from MoO3 compounds. Clarification is required.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amarante et al. “Investigation of Molybdenum Tetracarbonyl Complexes as Precursors to Moiv Catalysts for the Epoxidation of Olefins” and in view of Jain et al. “Surfactant free-synthesis and characterization of alpha-MoO3 nanoplates: A feasibility study to remove methylene blue from aqueous medium”.
The Claims describe molybdenum trioxide and that the formula of the molybdenum trioxide is: Mo8O24 (See Claim 1). From the specification, it describes MoO3 that is used to generate a product with the formula: MexMo8O(24 + αx) (see Published Specification, para. 60). Therefore, based on the disclosure, MexMo8O(24 + αx) is made up of MoO3.
Amarante describes a hybrid molybdenum trioxide material (MoO3(bipy)) (abstract). The molybdenum trioxide material is then processed with a solution to make a Mo8O24(di-t-Bu-bip)4) product (page 884, right col, last para).
As to the structure of the material, Amarante shows in Figure 2, a cube-like structure where several MoO3 units are attached to form Mo8O24(di-t-Bu-bipy)4 (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 1) and produces a “windmill-type complex” (page 885, left col, lines 10-11).
As to the structure matching the claimed molybdenum trioxide structure of Claim 1, the entire cube of Amarante shows a molybdenum and oxygen cube-like structure (Fig. 2 at the center). It is assumed that the smaller spheres represent hydrogen atoms since the legend shows they are approximately the same color designation. The central cube represents the central (larger) cube of Claim 1.
As to the side structure of Claim 1, the part that shows the molybdenum is bonded to several extra oxygen atoms, in Fig. 2 of the Amarante reference, the side view shows one molybdenum bonded to 6 oxygen atoms (similar to each molybdenum in the structure of Claim 1) and that the one oxygen O4 is then bonded to extra oxygens, O1i , O5 and O6 (see Fig. 2 “Side View”). That is, based on the figure in Claim 1, 3 oxygen atoms are outside the normal bonds of the cube (see structure of claim 1, where three oxygen atoms are outside of the cube-structure).
Since the oxygens of the compound in the Amarante reference are bonded to the ligands, the bonds on the side of the structure of Claim 1 would not be closed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the extra oxygen bonds of the structure shown in Fig. 1 would have the same structure shown in the Amrante reference.
That the oxygens of MoO3 if unbonded to the ligand of Amarante would form the bonded structure of Claim 1.
As to the chiral feature, Amarante explains that the product made is a windmill-type complex and is an asymmetric unit (page 886, left col., lines 9-12). Although Amarante does not state that this structure is chiral, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the mirror image of Figure 4 is not superimposable on itself. Similarly, Amarante also shows the structure of the smaller building block of Mo8O24, which is MoO3 (see Fig. 1). Although Amarante does not state that this is chiral, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the mirror image of Figure 4 is not superimposable on itself.
As to the alpha feature, the Mo8O24 compound is made-up of MoO3 units, but Amarante does not states that these are in the form of the alpha-variety of MoO3.
Jain explains that molybdenum trioxide occurs in varied crystal phases, like monoclinic (β-MoO3), hexagonal (h-MoO3) and orthorhombic (α-MoO3) (Introduction, para. 1). Jain explains that the orthorhombic (α-MoO3) is more thermodynamically stable in comparison to the other phases (Introduction, para. 1). Also, this orthorhombic phase also shows superior electrochemical, chemical, catalytic and electronic properties (Introduction, para. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the α-MoO3-form of MoO3, as taught by Jain for use with the MoO3 of Amarante because Jain explains that this form is the most stable and also shows superior electrochemical, chemical, catalytic and electronic properties.
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 May 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights