DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This application is a 371 of App. No. PCT/CN2023/086946, filed on 04/07/2023, which is entitled to and claims the benefit of priority of CN Patent App. No. 202210383624.0, filed 04/12/2022. The preliminary amendment filed on 05/29/2024 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
3. Claims 1-8, 11-18 are pending. Claims 1-8, 11-18 are under examination on the merits. Claims 9-10 are cancelled.
Drawings
4. The drawings are received on 05/29/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Priority
5. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted on 05/29/2024 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested that “Ti3C2 MXene, g-C3N4" be deleted and "Ti3C2 MXene, g-C3N4" be inserted in its stead so as to engender claim language clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
7. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested that “the organic solvent is one or a combination of more of" be deleted and "the organic solvent is one or a combination of" be inserted in its stead so as to engender claim language clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-8, 11-18 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 applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "S2: heating the mixed solution obtained in step S1" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-8, 11-18 being depended on claim 1 are rejected as well.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 1 is construed to recite “S2: heating the mixed solution obtained in the step S1”.
10. Claims 1-8, 11-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the sulfide is selected from one of thiourea, amino thiourea and thioacetamide”, and “the two-dimensional nano material is selected from one of Ti3C2 MXene, g-C3N4, graphene and their oxides”. Regarding claim 1, the improper phrasing of the Markush group renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which members of the group are part of the claimed invention. Markush groups must be stated in the alternative, of which one acceptable form is “…selected from the group consisting of A, B and C.” See MPEP § 2173.05(h).
For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 1 is construed to recite “the sulfide is selected from the group consisting of thiourea, amino thiourea and thioacetamide”, and “the two-dimensional nano material is selected from the group consisting of Ti3C2 MXene, g-C3N4, graphene and their oxides”.
11. Claims 2, 12 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 applicant regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites the limitation "wherein in step S1" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 being depended on claim 2 is rejected as well.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 2 is construed to recite “wherein in the step S1”.
12. Claims 3, 13 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 applicant regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites the limitation "wherein in step S1" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 being depended on claim 3 is rejected as well.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 3 is construed to recite “wherein in the step S1”.
13. Claims 4, 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 applicant regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites the limitation "wherein in step S1" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 being depended on claim 4 is rejected as well.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 4 is construed to recite “wherein in the step S1”.
14. Claims 4, 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 applicant regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites the term “1: (2-5)”, wherein, the inclusion of a term within parentheses renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the included term is part of the claimed invention. Claim 14 being depended on claim 4 is rejected as well.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 4 is construed to recite “1: 2-5”.
15. Claims 5, 15 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 applicant regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites the limitation "wherein in step S2" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 being depended on claim 5 is rejected as well.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 5 is construed to recite “wherein in the step S2”.
16. Claims 6, 16 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 applicant regards as the invention. Claim 6 recites the limitation "wherein in step S2" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 being depended on claim 6 is rejected as well.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 6 is construed to recite “wherein in the step S2”.
17. Claims 7, 17 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 applicant regards as the invention. Claim 7 recites the limitation "wherein in step S2" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 being depended on claim 7 is rejected as well.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 7 is construed to recite “wherein in the step S2”.
18. Claims 8, 18 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 applicant regards as the invention. Claim 8 recites the limitation "wherein in step S2" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 being depended on claim 8 is rejected as well.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 8 is construed to recite “wherein in the step S2”.
Allowable Subject Matter
19. Claims 1-8, 11-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection(s) and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
20. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The most pertinent prior art known by the Examiner is in the attached PTO-892.
Li et al. (CN111892095A, hereinafter, “Li”) is considered to be the closest prior art. Li teaches step 1, preparing a nanostructure MoO3 precursor, wherein the nanostructure of the MoO3 precursor is a MoO3 nanorod, a MoO3 nanosphere and a MoO3 nanosheet (equivalent to the two dimensional nanomaterial), step 2, preparing a multi-element transition metal composite material, adding the MoO3 precursor prepared in the step 1 to a mixed solution of water and ethanol having a volume ratio of 1: 1, after uniform ultrasonic dispersion, adding metal acetate, wherein a mass ratio of the MoO3 precursor to the metal acetate is 1:7-9, performing uniform ultrasonic dispersion, then transferring same to a reaction kettle, first reacting at 65-75°C for 0.75-1.25 hours, then heating to 85-95°C to react for 4.75-5.25 hours, finally, performing centrifugal separation, washing with ethanol and drying to obtain a nanostructure multi-element transition metal composite material, wherein the metal acetate comprises one or more of nickel acetate, cobalt acetate, ferrous acetate, copper acetate and manganese acetate (equivalent to dissolving metal acetate such as copper acetate and nickel acetate, etc., in an organic solvent, then adding the two-dimensional nanomaterial for reaction, and uniformly dispersing and mixing to obtain a mixed solution), and step 3, preparing a multi-element transition metal sulfide composite material.
Li does not expressly teach a preparation method for a high-entropy alloy sulfide/two-dimensional nano composite material, comprising the following steps: S1: dissolving zinc acetate, copper acetate, ferric acetate, nickel acetate, and cadmium acetate in an organic solvent, then adding a sulfide and a two-dimensional nano material, dispersing and uniformly mixing to obtain a mixed solution, and S2: heating the mixed solution obtained in the step S1 to 140-220°C for reaction, cooling to room temperature after heat preservation, performing centrifugal separation at room temperature, and washing and drying the centrifuged product to obtain the high-entropy alloy sulfide/two-dimensional nano composite material, wherein the zinc acetate, the copper acetate, the ferric acetate, the nickel acetate and the cadmium acetate are added at an equal or approximately equal molar ratio, the sulfide is selected from one of thiourea, aminothiourea and thioacetamide; and the two-dimensional nano material is selected from one of Ti3C2 MXene, g-C3N4, graphene and their oxides. Therefore, the instant claims are distinguished over the prior art.
Examiner Information
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
07/27/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights