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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Li et al. (US 10,967,363) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Li et al. (US 10,967,363)
In regard to claims 1, 4, Li teaches metal carbide catalyst have Pt and MXene (abstract). The catalyst is an intermetallic Pt/MXene nanoparticle catalyst comprising platinum and MXene of a formula I having Mn+1Xn where X is C or N, n is 1 to 3 and M is early transition metal(s) such as titanium, tungsten etc., (i.e., Ti3C2 or Nb2C or W2TiC2 etc.) and wherein Pt (i.e., late transition metal) provides the late transition metal of claim 4 (column 3 lines 1 – 26). The platinum loading of the catalyst is from about 0.5% to about 20%, or less than about 5% (column 3 line 27 – 32). In Fig 6, Li teaches Pt Nb2CTx having the typical layered structure of MXene, and thus it appears that the platinum would be layered on the basal plane of the MXene.
The catalyst can have a size of 0.5 nm to about 20 nm, or about 2nm (column 3 lines 38 – 44). In FIG 1, the catalyst is Nb2CTx nanosheets with reserved hexagonal basal plane (column 5 lines 34 – 42). Thus, the delaminated MXene of the claims appears to be provided and/or anticipated.
In regard to claims 2, 3, Li teaches the claimed limitations as previously stated.
In regard to claim 5, 6, Li teaches the delaminated compound having the claimed limitations as previously stated.
In regard to claim 7, Li teaches the compound as previously stated. The claim is a product by process limitation. Since the product is taught by Li, the product by process limitation of the claim is met.
In regard to claim 8, Li teaches the compound which can have the claimed structure as previously discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 – 25 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art by Li fails to teach the process of hydrogenolysis of polymers using the MXene catalyst of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights