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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 11 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is a lack of undue burden based on related and/or overlapping claimed inventions. This is not found persuasive because Groups I-II are directed to specific inventions (i.e. different process and composition) that require differing search strategies and databases (class/subclass) and/or the search for a particular invention would not necessarily lead to the same and overlapping prior art for the supplementary invention - thus leading to an undue burden on the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-10 and 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11 January 2026.
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.
Claims 2-4, 11 and 12 are 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.
Claims 2-4 and 11 recite the limitation "The metal alkoxide-surface modified MXene" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 is dependent on claim 11 thus inherits the same deficiency.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “halogen elements”, and the claim also recites “(F, Cl, Br, and I) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wojciechowski (NPL cited in the IDS).
Wojciechowski discloses a 2D Ti3C2 MXene surface-modified with Al/G/In/group 1 alkoxides (abs, sections 2 and 3, Fig 1 with accompanying text). Further, Wojciechowski discloses the halogen components and group 1 carbon/alkyl chain (pg. 1-4, Fig 1 with accompanying text).
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feng (CN-116459390-A, a machine translation is provided).
Feng discloses a Nb2C MXene material modified with sodium ethoxide (abs, examples).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojciechowski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ghidiu (US-20170294546-A1) or Cho (US-20200102444-A1).
The Wojciechowski 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 Wojciechowski 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 Wojciechowski aims to provide the MXeme 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.
Conclusion
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 Reuthers can be reached at 571.272.7026. 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