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 claims 1-8 and 13-15 in the reply filed on March 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant is advised that claim 1 reciting multiple species in view of multiple elements for M, A, and X, and thus claim 1 is considered generic. The originally submitted claims 2 and 5-6 which recite Ti3C2 as the product and TiAlC as the precursor material are deemed constructively elected species of A=Ti and X=C, AmXn = Ti2C3, A=Al.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. It is suggested that the film comprising 2-D AmXn particles be included in the title.
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 8 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 8 is indefinite because it is in self-contradictory. The particle is defined as “two dimensional”, yet it has a “thickness”. A 2D shape has no thickness nor height. How can a two-dimensional particle have a thickness which constitutes a three-dimensional object?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Mashtalir (“Intercalation and delamination of layered carbides and carbonitrides”, NATURE COMMUNICATIONS|4:1716, 2013) in view of KAMYSBAYEV (WO-2021226221)
Claims 1-2: Mashtalir teaches a film (“MXene paper”) comprising two-dimensional (2D) particles having one or plural layers comprising a layered body represented by a formula MₘXₙ (“MXene”): Ti3C2, Ti3CN and TiNbC (abstract). Thus, Mashtalir teaches the claimed MmXn, namely Ti3C2,
wherein "M" is group IV metal, Ti which meets the claimed “at least one Group 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 metal”,
"X" is a carbon atom,
"n" is 2 which meets the claimed range n= 1 to 4, and
"m" is 3 which meets the claimed definition “m” > "n" and "m" ≤ 5;
The film comprises at least one modifier or terminal "T" is present on a surface of the layer body, wherein each "T" is a hydroxyl group, a fluorine atom, and/or an oxygen atom (Mashtalir, page 2, left column, 3rd paragraph). Because DMF is an intercalant, it is inherently disposed between two adjacent layers of the one or plural layers, and a content of the N-methyl formamide in the film is 0.104 mol or more with respect to mol of MmXₙ.
Mashtalir teaches using N,N-dimethyl formamide (DMF) as intercalating agent (Mashtalir, page 2), instead of N-methyl formamide (NMF). In the same field of endeavor, namely making MXene film including film of 2D Ti3C2 particles, KAMYSBAYEV teaches incorporating NMF as additive into the MXene particles after delamination in order to stabilize the delaminated particles (Kamysbayev, paragraphs 0085-0086). In light of Kamysbayev, the POSITA would be motivated to incorporate NMF into the intercalated Ti3C2 particles of Mashtalir in order to stabilize the delaminated particles as taught by Kamysbayev.
Claim 3: Mashtalir teaches a method for producing a film, the method comprising: (a) preparing a precursor represented by a formula:
MmAXₙ, in particular, Ti3AlC2, and thus "M” is Ti as claimed;
"X" is a carbon atom,
"A" is aluminum which is group-13 element atom,
"n" is 2, and
"m" > "n" and "m" = 3
(b) removing at least a portion of the "A" element atoms from the precursor using an etching solution to obtain an etched product;
(c) cleaning the etched product to obtain an etched and cleaned product;
(d) mixing the etched and cleaned product with an intercalator to obtain an intercalated product;
(e) stirring the intercalated product to obtain a delaminated product in which the intercalated product is delaminated[
(h) forming a precursor film using the mixed solution; and
(i) drying the precursor film under normal pressure to form the film.
See Mashtalir, pages 3-5 and page 6, left column.
Mashtalir does not teach adding NMF. In the same field of endeavor, namely making MXene film including film of 2D Ti3C2 particles, KAMYSBAYEV teaches incorporating NMF as additive into the MXene particles after delamination in order to stabilize the delaminated particles (Kamysbayev, paragraphs 0085-0086). In light of Kamysbayev, the POSITA would be motivated to incorporate NMF into the intercalated Ti3C2 particles of Mashtalir in order to stabilize the delaminated particles as taught by Kamysbayev.
Claim 4: Mashtalir teaches drying at step after the formation of the film at 120°C (Mashtalir, page 3, Table 1 and Figure 1), which meets the claimed range of a drying temperature of 190°C or lower.
Claims 5-6: Mashtalir teaches a film comprising Ti3C2 particles, thus M= Ti and X=C.
Claim 7: Mashtalir shows Ti3C2 film with a thickness of one layer being 20-26Ao (page 4, figure 3) which is equivalent to 2 nm to 2.6 nm which is well within the claimed range of 0.8 nm to 3 nm.
Claim 8: As discussed in the rejection under 35 USC 112 above, a 2-D particle cannot have a thickness; thus, the thickness here is treated as the thickness of monolayer in the film which is between 2-2.6 nm as discussed in claim 7.
Claims 13-15: Mashtalir teaches the use of the film in capacitors and electrodes (page 2, left column and page 5).
Claims 3-4 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashtalir in view of KAMYSBAYEV as applied to claims 1-8 above and further in view of Naguib et al. (“Two-Dimensional Nanocrystals Produced by Exfoliation of Ti3AlC2, Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, 4248–4253).
Mashtalir and Kamysbayev teach the claimed product and process as discussed above. Mashtalir discloses the precursor as prepared by a known method. Naguib teaches a process of preparing the precursor represented by a formula MmAXₙ, as claimed; in particular, Ti3AlC2 (Naguib, page 4252, right column). Thus, it would have been obvious to produce the precursor based on the method of Naguib as matter of choice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOA (Holly) LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00 am to 7:00 pm.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
HOA (Holly) LE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/HOA (Holly) LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights