DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of electing Group I (claims 1-19) in the reply filed on May 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 20-24 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a canceled invention. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 15, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “PEEK” is read as polyether ether ketone (PEEK). 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 7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the term "substantially" is relative term which render the claims indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ghidiu et al. (WO 2016/049109 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Ghidiu teaches an article ([0038], Fig. 14A), comprising at least one coated layer such as MXene ([0038]), the at least one coated layer comprising: a substrate and a coating disposed on the substrate such as polyetherimide substrate ([0038]), the coating comprising a layered nanomaterial such as MXene nanoplatelets and a solute embedded and distributed in the layered nanomaterial ([0018], [0020]), wherein the solute comprises at least one salt soluble such as lithium salt in a solvent ([0025], [0072]), and the substrate comprises a polymer ([0077]).
Regarding claim 2, Ghidiu teaches wherein the layered nanomaterial has a thickness of 92 nm for example ([0037]).
Regarding claim 3, Ghidiu teaches wherein the layered nanomaterial comprises nanosheets of MXene, wherein MXene is a layered nitride, carbide , or carbonitrides of at least one transition metal (M) having a formula of Mn+iXnTx, wherein X is nitrogen or carbon, n is an integer representing a number of layers of nitrogen or carbon, n+1 is a number of layers of the at least one transition metal, T is a functional group, and x is in a range of from 0 to 2 ([0056], [0080], [0177]).
Regarding claim 4, Ghidiu teaches wherein n is in the range of from 1 to 3 ([0056]).
Regarding claim 5, Ghidiu teaches wherein the MXene has a formula of Ti3C2Tx ([0083], [0087], [0236]).
Regarding claim 6, Ghidiu teaches wherein T is selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, O, OH, and a combination thereof ([0025], [0132], [0241], [0242], claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Ghidiu teaches wherein the layered nanomaterial is oriented in a plane substantially parallel to a surface of the substrate ([0053]).
Regarding claim 8, Ghidiu teaches wherein the layered nanomaterial is hydrophilic while the substrate is hydrophobic ([0013], [0077]).
Regarding claim 9, Ghidiu teaches wherein the polymer in the substrate is in a form of a film for example ([0038]).
Regarding claim 10, Ghidiu teaches wherein the polymer is polyether ether ketone (PEEK) for example ([0077]).
Regarding claim 11, Ghidiu teaches wherein the polymer is polyether ether ketone (PEEK) ([0077]).
Regarding claim 12, Ghidiu teaches wherein the at least one salt comprises a metal cation and an anion ([0072], [0091], [0097]).
Regarding claim 13, Ghidiu teaches wherein the metal ion is Li+ for example, the anion is F- for example, and the at least one salt is water-soluble ([0242], [0244]).
Regarding claim 14, Ghidiu teaches wherein the coating is electrically and thermally conductive, and the article is configured to be used for thermal management ([0020], [0221]).
Regarding claim 15, Ghidiu teaches further comprising at least two electrodes connected with the coating and configured to provide Joule heating ([0061], [0096], [0177], [0180]).
Regarding claim 16, Ghidiu teaches wherein the at least one coated layer comprises a first coated layer and a second coated layer the same as the first coated layer ([0056], [0066]).
Regarding claim 17, Ghidiu teaches further comprising a separation layer disposed between the first coated layer and the second coated layer ([0056], [0066]).
Regarding claim 18, Ghidiu teaches wherein the article is configured to be wearable and protective ([0077], [0227]).
Regarding claim 19, Ghidiu teaches wherein the article is a protective garment or gear ([0023], [0077], [0227]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-19 unpatentable over claims 13, 15-24 of copending Application No. 19/025275 (‘275). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is generic to all that is recited in claim 13 of copending application '275. That is, claim 13 of copending application falls entire within the scope of claim 1 or, in other words, claim 1 is anticipated by claim 13 of copending application.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/288278 (‘278). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of copending application '278. That is, claim 1 of copending application falls entire within the scope of claim 1 or, in other words, claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of copending application.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI YAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7181. The examiner can normally be reached on MTTHF.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAH-WEI YUAN can be reached on 5712721295. 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.
/HAI Y ZHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights