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 .
Response to Amendment
Upon entry of the amendment filed on 18 June 2026, Claim(s) 1-4 and 11 is/are amended and Claim(s) 5-10 and 13 is/are withdrawn. The currently pending claims are Claims 1-13.
Based on applicants’ remarks and amendments (e.g. the specific alkoxide moiety), the 112 rejections, the 102 rejections and the 103 rejections are withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejections are provided necessitated by the amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gogotsi (US-20210261415-A1).
Claim 1: Gogotsi discloses a 2D MXene TiCNTx surface-modified with various substituents such alkoxides, F, O and F. In particular, Gogotsi discloses the alkoxide covalently bonded to the surface without the metal. See abs, ¶ 10-16, 41, 54 and Fig. 1A with accompanying text). The Gogotsi reference discloses the claimed invention with the alkoxide but does not disclose the MXene with the claimed element with enough specificity to anticipate the claimed invention. Nevertheless, given that Gogotsi discloses the alkoxide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the chemical art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught components since Gogotsi teaches each one. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the reference is directed to a similar field of endeavor. It is also noted that the fact that many components are disclosed would not have made any of them, such as the alkoxide, less obvious. Here, Gogotsi discloses each of the claimed components and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Claim 2: It is noted that metal does not have to be present based on the amendment.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gogotsi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wojciechowski or Feng.
The Gogotsi reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the feature of the specific alkyl/aryl group in the alkoxide. It is noted that the Gogotsi reference discloses the alkoxide and the claim(s) call(s) for a carbon chain on the alkoxide. In an analogous art, the Wojciechowski or Feng reference discloses the alkyl or aryl group onto an alkoxide substituent attached to a MXene is well known in the art (Wojciechowski: pg. 1-4, Fig 1 with accompanying text & Feng: abs and examples). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known component of Wojciechowski or Feng to the teachings of Gogotsi would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the cited references shows the ability to apply such features into similar systems, methods and compositions for the benefit gain of tuning the spacing and surface reaction chemistry. See MPEP 2143. Further, it is noted that obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the substitution and/or optimization would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gogotsi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ghidiu or Cho.
The Gogotsi reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the feature of the ink application. In an analogous art, the Ghidiu or Cho reference discloses that inks comprising surface modified MXene are well known in the art (Ghidiu: abs, ¶18-21, 55, 58, 65, 77-80, 90, 237-257 and 278-285 & Cho: abs, ¶6-23, 49-62, 73-88, 109-132 and examples). Further, Ghidiu or Cho discloses the claimed organic solvents (e.g. ethanol) and concentration levels (Ghidiu: abs, ¶18-21, 55, 58, 65, 77-80, 90, 237-257 and 278-285 & Cho: abs, ¶6-23, 49-62, 73-88, 109-132 and examples ). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying and optimizing the known ink implementation of Ghidiu or Cho to the teachings of Gogotsi would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the cited references shows the ability to apply such features into similar systems, methods and compositions since Gogotsi aims to provide the MXene for various implementations (pg. 1). See MPEP 2143. Further, it is noted that obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the substitution/implementation would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5-10, filed 18 June 2026, with respect to the 112 rejections, the 102 rejections and the 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejections are provided as necessitated by the amendment.
It is noted that Wojciechowski or Feng is now a secondary reference and is relied upon to the carbon alkyl/aryl chain feature.
Further, claims 11 and 12 are now rejected over Gogotsi in view of Ghidiu or Cho – thus mooting the argument on pg. 10.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571.270.7026. 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.
/TRI V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights