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 .
This application has been transferred from Examiner Katie Hammer to Examiner Matthew Diaz.
This action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment/remarks filed 03/21/2026.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection of claim 1 is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
The rejection of claims 1, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhai et al. ("MoO3–x QDs/MXene (Ti3C2Tx) self-assembled heterostructure for multifunctional application with antistatic, smoke suppression, and antibacterial on polyester fabric", J Mater Sci, 2022, 57, 2597-2609) is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
The current rejection also utilizes a new reference, Wang et al. (CN 111501326 A), in addition to the prior Zhai et al. reference under a new ground(s) of rejection which renders obvious the instant claims as amended. See the new 103 rejection, below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhai et al. ("MoO3–x QDs/MXene (Ti3C2Tx) self-assembled heterostructure for multifunctional application with antistatic, smoke suppression, and antibacterial on polyester fabric", J Mater Sci, 2022, 57, 2597-2609) in view of Wang et al. (CN 111501326 A). An English language machine translation of Wang et al. is attached to the Office’s supplied copy of the reference, and citations to Wang et al. are with respect to the English language machine translation of the reference unless specified otherwise.
As to independent claim 1, Zhai et al. teach a preparation method of an intelligent fireproof textile based on a nano-composite material (see Abstract & Fig. 7: “smoke suppression” of the coated fabric in Zhai et al. corresponds to “fireproof textile” in claims; QDs = quantum dots), comprising the following steps:
(1) preparing a mixed solution of lithium fluoride (LiF) and hydrochloric acid (HCl), adding titanium aluminum carbide (Ti3AlC2) into the mixed solution, reacting at a water bath temperature of 40-50˚C for 18-28 h, washing the obtained reactant to be neutral, centrifuging and ultrasonically dispersing in deionized water (see PDF pg. 2: “Materials”; PDF pg. 3: “Preparation of MXene nanoflakes”: 1 g of Ti3AlC2 powder was gradually dissolved in the solution containing 1.5 g of LiF and 20 mL of HCl (9 M) followed by reacting at 45˚C water bath for 24 h, thereafter the resultant Ti3C2Tx was centrifuged at 4000 rpm and washed with deionized water; see PDF pg. 2, last ¶ in 1st col.: “MXene (Ti-3C2Tx)” in Zhai et al. corresponds to “titanium carbide” in the claims);
(2) dissolving ammonium molybdate powder in the solution prepared in step (1), reacting under ultraviolet (UV) radiation for 20-40 min, and then dialyzing and drying to obtain the molybdenum oxide quantum dot titanium carbide composite material (see PDF pg. 3: “Preparation of MoO3-x QDs/MXene heterostructure nanocomposites”: (NH4)6Mo7O24 was added to 40 mL of deionized water and installed 10 mL of MXene dispersion under magnetic stirring, the MoO3-x QDs/MXene was obtained after the above solution is irradiated under UV light (< 365 nm) for 30 min; see Fig. 1 explaining the overall synthesis process, reproduced here from PDF pg. 4, the solid composite material shown in the end step implies that “drying” occurs:
PNG
media_image1.png
134
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
(3) preparing the molybdenum oxide quantum dot titanium carbide (MoO3-x QDs/MXene in Zhai) composite material obtained in step (2) into a dispersion, and performing rolling-baking-roasting on a washed and dried fabric to obtain an intelligent fireproof textile (see PDF pg. 3: “Coating process”: In a typical preparation, polyester fabrics were impregnated in the bath (liquor ratio 1:30) to ensure that the remaining dispersion was equal to its mass, which was regulated by the padder [“rolling” in claim 1] and, after coating, fabrics were pre-dried at 90˚C for 3 min [“baking” at 80-110°C in claim 1], therewith dried at 110˚C for 2 min [“roasting” in claim 1]) where the amount of the molybdenum oxide quantum dot titanium carbide composite material is 2-6 wt% relative to the weight of the fabric (see Table 2 on PDF pg. 4: the concentration of MoO3-x QDs/MXene in the treatment bath can be 20, 30, 40, 50 g/L and the Run Rate is 100%, thus the range of MoO3-x QDs/MXene added to the resulting fabric falls within the scope of the claim; it can be known by calculation that the amounts with respect to the fabric are 2.9 wt%, 3.8 wt% and 4.8 wt%).
Zhai et al. fail to explicitly disclose the concentrations and amounts of raw materials and other processing parameters recited in claim 1: 7-10 mass% mixed solution of LiF and HCl and 5-8 mass% titanium aluminum carbide (Ti3AlC2) in method step (1), 2-3% mass percentage ammonium molybdate ((NH4)6Mo7O24) and ultraviolet irradiation condition/power of 72 W in method step (2), roasting condition/temperature of 120-140°C in method step (3).
However, it is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would discover the optimum or workable ranges for the amounts of raw materials in the preparation method based on routine experimentation with conventionally known ranges and the disclosure of Zhai (see PDF pgs. 1-6). Burden is shifted to the Applicant to provide evidence that the claimed ranges produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness is established by Zhai et al.
Regarding the “UV irradiation condition” (power) of 72 W, a person skilled in the art would recognize that this is a reaction parameter, and thereby a result effective variable. Finding the optimum or workable UV power is well within the purview of a skilled artisan from basic chemistry knowledge and disclosures of the prior art. A patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Similarly regarding the slightly higher roasting temperature of 120-140°C recited in the claim versus the exemplary roasting temperature of 110°C disclosed in the reference, a slightly higher roasting temperature would have be appropriately achieved by one of ordinary skill in the art because the temperatures are close and do not appear to give an unexpected technical effect to the solution. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Zhai et al. further teach their fabric coated with the molybdenum oxide quantum dot/titanium carbide composite is a polyester fabric and the provision/coating of the molybdenum oxide quantum dot/titanium carbide composite onto the fabric imparts smoke suppression, i.e., flame retardant/flameproofing, and antibacterial properties to the fabric (abstract and left col. PDF p.3).
While the claimed process steps and parameters are met/obvious over the cited teachings of Zhai et al. (Id.), Zhai et al. fail to teach or suggest treating/coating a cotton fabric as claimed.
However, Wang et al. similarly teach a polymer/MXene composite fabric and preparation method thereof, the method comprising making a MXene solution from addition of a MAX phase powder, e.g., Ti3AlC2 or Ti2AlC, i.e., titanium aluminum carbide, into an etching liquid solution comprising lithium fluoride and hydrochloric acid and soaking a polymer fabric in the MXene solution followed by drying/baking to obtain the coated fabric (abstract, p.3, and p.5). Wang et al. teach the polymer fabric is one or more of, among others, “terylene” (“PET”, i.e., polyester, per the working examples Embodiments 1 to 3 on p.5 & 6) and cotton (p.5). Similar to Zhai et al., Wang et al. teach the process imparts flame retardant and antibacterial properties to the fabric (abstract, etc.). In other words, Wang et al. serves as evidence polyester fabric and cotton fabric are art recognized equivalent fabrics for coating with MXene/titanium carbide to impart flame retardant and antibacterial properties to the fabric.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide/substitute a cotton fabric in place of Zhai et al.’s polyester fabric in order to obtain a method of making a molybdenum oxide quantum dot titanium carbide/MXene-coated fabric (and product thereof) with imparted, if not improved, flame retardant and antibacterial properties with a reasonable expectation of success because Wang et al. teach and serve as evidence polyester fabric and cotton fabric are art recognized equivalent fabrics for coating with MXene/titanium carbide to impart flame retardant and antibacterial properties to the fabric. Wang et al. essentially serves as evidence other fabric species may obviously be utilized in practicing Zhai et al.’s process of coating a fabric with molybdenum oxide quantum dot titanium carbide/MXene to impart and achieve improved flame retardant and antibacterial properties of the fabric. See MPEP 2144.06. Cotton fabrics are intrinsically (or may obviously be) knitted or shuttled/woven absent evidence to the contrary.
As to claim 5, Zhai et al. in view of Wang et al. teach an intelligent fireproof textile based on a nano-composite material obtained by the preparation method of claim 1 (see PDF pgs. 1-6 of Zhai et al.: “next-generation” fabrics coated with molybdenum oxide QD titanium carbide composite materials, where the fabrics are cotton per Wang et al.; see Figure 10 on PDF pg. 9 of Zhai et al.: schematic illustration for MoO3-x QDs/MXene smoke suppression mechanism on fabrics coated therewith). Even though Zhai et al. in view of Wang et al. teaches the method of claim 1, it is noted that claim 5 is a product by process claim, and the burden would be on Applicant to show how the textile product differs when produced by the claimed method before such a claim can be fully evaluated for novelty and non-obviousness. See MPEP 2113, which includes this guidance: “Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.”
As to claims 6 and 7, Zhai et al. in view of Wang et al. teach the intelligent fireproof textile based on a nano-composite material according to claim 5, but fail to explicitly disclose the claimed resistance temperature coefficient, sensitivity and response time recited in claims 6 and 7. However, the disclosed textile would necessarily possess the claimed properties in view of the substantially identical preparation method for the textile (in this case, the particular molybdenum oxide quantum dot titanium carbide composite materials coating the textiles/fabrics). See MPEP 2112.01. Alternatively, selecting different chemical reactants or varying synthesis conditions to arrive at the claimed/desired properties is achieved by one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation based on the prior art and general technical knowledge.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/21/2026 with respect to the prior 103 rejection over (solely) Zhai et al. have been considered but are moot primarily because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection. The current rejection also utilizes a new reference, Wang et al. (CN 111501326 A), in addition to the prior Zhai et al. reference under a new ground(s) of rejection which renders obvious the instant claims as amended. See the new 103 rejection, above.
Arguendo, Applicant's arguments to Zhai et al. have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Zhai et al. fail to teach or suggest the various ultraviolet radiation, molybdenum oxide quantum dot titanium carbide concentration treatment amount relative to the fabric, and rolling-baking-roasting process conditions, the prior grounds of rejection set forth rationale to these process conditions. In addition to Zhai et al. teaching/meeting many of the generic conditions outright (ultraviolet irradiation time, molybdenum oxide quantum dot titanium carbide concentration treatment amount relative to the fabric, liquid rolling rate, and baking temperature) for the reasons of record, the rationale of record set forth finding the optimum or workable UV power (already in an express UV irradiation reaction step in the reference) is well within the purview of a skilled artisan from basic chemistry knowledge and disclosures of the prior art and a slightly higher roasting temperature (120-140°C as claimed compared to 110°C as in the reference) would have be appropriately achieved by one of ordinary skill in the art because the temperatures are close and do not appear to give an unexpected technical effect to the solution. The burden previously shifted to and remains on Applicant to demonstrate the claimed parameters possess criticality and achieve unexpected results as compared to the prior art of record.
Regarding Applicant’s argument Zhai et al. is teaches a polyester fabric rather than a cotton or viscose fabric as newly claimed, this new limitation is met by the new Wang et al. reference which teaches polyester fabrics and cotton fabrics are obvious (art recognized equivalent) variants/fabrics for coating with MXene to impart flame retardant and antibacterial properties. See the new 103 rejection, above.
While it is also noted Applicant argues the claimed invention achieves superior and unexpected results, the examples in the original specification are of little probative value in the determining patentability of claims since they do not involve a comparison of applicant’s invention with the closest applied prior art. See In re De Blawe, 222 USPQ 191 (FED. Cir. 1984), and In re Fenn, 208 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1981). Even if, arguendo, the comparison was done between the Applicant’s invention and the closest prior art, the claims are not deemed patentable over the reference of record since they are not commensurate in scope with the probative value of data in the examples as the four limited, specific working example/embodiments, in addition to lacking any comparative example outside the scope of the claims, do not explore/test the entire scope of all the concentration and parameter ranges recited in the claims. See In re Clemens, 206 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1980).
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Shi et al. (CN 111849145 A) teach a halogen-free flame-retardant thermoplastic polyurethane nanocomposite material and preparation method thereof comprising, in parts by weight, 58.8-59.7 parts thermoplastic polyurethane and 0.3-1.2 parts of a layered titanium carbide-molybdenum trioxide as a hybrid flame retardant (abstract). The nanocomposite is made by (1) taking 20mL of hydrochloric acid, 1.56 parts of lithium fluoride, and 1 parts of carbon aluminium titanium (Ti3AlC2), stirring in a heated oil bath, acid washing, water washing, and ultrasonic peeling to obtain a layered titanium carbide (Ti3C2Tx), (2) taking 0.1 parts of ammonium molybdate in 30mL de-ionized water, 1.054mL the hydrochloric acid into the solution, ultrasonically stirring for 30min, slowly adding 0.33 parts of layered titanium carbide obtained in step (1), under the condition of introducing nitrogen, mechanically stirring for 2h, transferring the solution to the reaction kettle, reacting for 24h at 180 degrees centigrade, cooling, filtering, water washing, absolute ethyl alcohol washing, vacuum drying for 24h at 80 degrees centigrade to obtain the layered titanium carbide-molybdenum trioxide hybrid flame retardant, (3) adding the flame retardant into 25mL absolute ethyl alcohol, ultrasonically stirring for 3-3 to obtain the dispersion liquid, and (4) taking 58.8-60 parts of thermoplastic polyurethane in 250mLN-N dimethylformamide solution, stirring to completely dissolve at 80 degrees centigrade, adding the dispersion liquid obtained in step (3) where the adding amount of the hybrid flame retardant is any one of 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 wt.% based on the whole thermoplastic polyurethane nanometre composite material, ultrasonic stirring, adding and removing de-ionized water while stirring, obtaining the block material, drying the block material, banburying at 190 degrees centigrade, and pressing to obtain the halogen-free flame retardant thermoplastic polyurethane nano composite material (p.3). While some aspects of the disclosed method are similar, notably the steps that form a molybdenum oxide dot titanium carbide composite material from titanium aluminum carbide in a lithium fluoride and hydrochloric acid solution and coating a polymer with the material, the reference fails to teach or suggest obtaining the material by reacting with ultraviolet radiation or utilizing or coating a cotton or viscose fabric as claimed.
Du et al. (CN 112591754 A) teach a preparation method of carbon nano cage coupled molybdenum carbide quantum dot nano composite material comprising dissolving acid and ammonium molybdate in deionized water to form an ammonium molybdate solution, stirring to obtain the molybdenum-containing hydrogel, drying to obtain a molybdenum dry gel precursor, and heating in a furnace at 850 to 950°C in an inert atmosphere (abstract). However, Du et al. fail to teach or suggest a molybdenum oxide dot titanium carbide composite material or coating a cotton or viscose fabric as claimed.
Wang et al. (CN 112626630 A) teach a preparation method and application of two-dimensional nano titanium carbide conductive slurry comprising dissolving lithium fluoride in hydrochloric acid, adding titanium aluminium carbide, dispersing the obtained precipitate phase in absolute ethyl alcohol, performing ultrasonic treatment, dispersing in deionized water, centrifuging to obtain the upper layer of titanium carbide dispersion liquid, adding a settling agent and standing to obtain precipitate product, dispersing the base material solvent, and then adding dispersing auxiliary agent to obtain the two-dimensional nano titanium carbide conductive slurry (abstract). The invention uses etching method to prepare two-dimensional nano titanium carbide nano sheet, through sedimentation separation can efficiently prepare nano titanium carbide conductive slurry, with good dispersion stability, conductivity and antistatic property, which can be applied to the manufacturing of conductive wire and flexible circuit printing, realizing good conductive and antistatic performance of the base material (abstract). While some aspects of the disclosed method are similar, notably the steps that form a titanium carbide/MXene material from titanium aluminum carbide in a lithium fluoride and hydrochloric acid solution, the reference fails to teach or suggest forming a molybdenum oxide quantum dot alongside the titanium carbide or coating a cotton or viscose fabric as claimed.
Hu et al. (CN 112967891 A) teach a flexible composite electrode and preparation method thereof made by (1) mixing hydrochloric acid and lithium fluoride with Ti3AlC2 to obtain a mixed solution, (2) reacting the mixed solution, centrifuging, and intercalating to obtain a bottom precipitate, (3) mixing with water, performing ice bath ultrasonic treatment, and centrifuging to obtain Ti3C2/MXene solution, (4) mixing MoS2 nano-flowers with the Ti3C2/MXene solution, then performing ice bath ultrasonic treatment to obtain MoS2/Ti3C2/MXene mixed solution, (5) mixing the MoS2/Ti3C2/MXene mixed solution with the polytetrafluoroethylene solution to obtain MoS2/Ti3C2/MXene composite slurry, (6) carbon cloth dip coating the MoS2/Ti3C2/MXene composite slurry and drying to obtain the semi-finished MoS2/Ti3C2/MXene composite electrode, and (7) vacuum drying the semi-finished MoS2/Ti3C2/MXene composite electrode to obtain the flexible composite electrode (abstract and p.2-3). While some aspects of the disclosed method are similar, notably the formation of a molybdenum-containing and titanium carbide composite and coating on a cloth, the reference fails to teach or suggest obtaining a molybdenum oxide quantum dot titanium carbide material as claimed or utilizing/coating a cotton or viscose fabric as claimed.
The remaining references listed on Forms 892, 1449, and PCT 210 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon or discussed 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R DIAZ whose telephone number is 571-270-0324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/M.R.D./
July 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights