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 § 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.
Claims 1, 4, 11-12, 14-15, 20-24, 27-35 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (“Reduced Graphene Oxide/ZnO Composite: Reusable Adsorbent for Pollutant Management”, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, Vol 4, Issue 6, June 7, 2012, pp. 3084-3090) in view of Jang (US Pat 10,008,723).
Regarding claim 1, 4 and 34, Wang et al. teaches a composite obtained by the following process and a process for forming a composite with the process steps comprising providing a 2D material in a solvent wherein the 2D material is graphene (graphene nanosheets) and adding a particulate material (PVP-capped ZnO) to the solvent wherein the particulate material is a polymer (PVP-capped ZnO) and providing a flocculating agent in the solvent where the flocculating agent a non-basic flocculating salt (NaCl is taught) wherein the 2D material and particulate material are mixed prior to the addition of the flocculating salt to form a dispersion and the presence of the flocculating agent in the solvent results in an interaction between the particulate material and the 2D material to form a composite [Section 2.3].
Wang et al. are silent regarding the graphene being pristine. However, Jang teaches use of pristine graphene because it provides higher electrical conductivity and also less chemicals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pristine graphene of Jang in Wang et al. in order to provide higher electrical conductivity and also less chemicals and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, the 2D material is present in the solvent as a dispersion [Section 2.3].
Regarding claim 12, the 2D material and particulate material are substantially insoluble in the solvent at the operating temperature of the process according to the definition of substantially insoluble in the present specification.
Regarding claim 15, Wang et al. teaches a process comprising providing a dispersion of a bulk layered material in a solvent, adding a particulate material to the dispersion, exfoliating the layered material before or after the addition of the particulate material (exfoliation is taught occurring before in section 1), to form a 2D material in the dispersion and wherein the process comprises introducing a non-basic flocculating salt into the dispersion prior to or following any one of steps a) to c); wherein the presence of the flocculating salt to the solvent results in an interaction between the particulate material and 2D material to form a composite [section 1 and 2.3].
Regarding claim 20, the particulate material and the 2D material are mixed together to form a dispersion [section 2.3].
Regarding claim 23-24, the solvent comprises water [section 2.3].
Regarding claim 28, Wang et al. teach washing step so removing or recovering the
flocculating salt present in the solvent is taught.
Regarding claim 29, the process is performed in the absence of a surfactant.
Regarding claim 30, Wang et al. teaches the ratio of 2D material (graphene) to particulate material (PVP capped ZnO) in a solvent is in the claimed range [section 2.3 and Figure 1].
Regarding claim 31, the process is conducted at a temperature in the claimed range [sections 2.1-2.3].
Regarding claim 33, Wang et al. teach interaction between the particulate material and the 2D material to form a composite and therefore also teaches such interaction results in an increase in particle size of the formed composite (via the interaction) relative to the particle size of the particulate material.
Regarding claim 14, Wang et al. teach the 2D material is provided by exfoliation of the bulk layered material [taught in section 1]. Wang et al. are silent regarding the exfoliation occurring in the solvent. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to exfoliate the 2D material in the solvent in order to make the process more efficient and save time.
Regarding claims 21-22, Wang et al. are silent regarding the formation of the flocculating salt in-situ. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to form the flocculating salt in-situ by either transforming a source of salt into a flocculating salt
by any of the claimed means or by adding two or more precursor salts to the solvent, adding an
antisolvent to the solvent causing a reaction and forming the flocculating salt as is known in the
art in order to make efficient use of materials and save time.
Regarding claim 27, Wang et al. are silent regarding drying the composite after flocculation. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dry the composite after flocculation in order to remove solvent and obtain a solid dry composite as known in the art.
Regarding claim 28, Wang et al. teach washing step so removing or recovering the
flocculating salt present in the solvent is taught. Further, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to remove or recover the flocculating salt in order to reuse the material
and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 32, Wang et al. teach the particulate material is nanoparticles and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include nanoparticles in the claimed size of 5nm – 1 micrometer since nanoparticles are taught.
Regarding claims 35 and 37, Wang et al. teach a composite comprising a 2D material (graphene), a particulate material (PVP capped ZnO) and a salt (NaCl which is a non-basic flocculating salt), wherein the 2D material (graphene), polymer particulate material (PVP capped ZnO) and salt are attached to one another (the patent does not define “attached” for the salt portion and there is ionic association, trapped residue and coprecipitation which happens in flocculation) in a flocculated product. The particulate material is a polymer. Wang et al. teaches an aqueous NaCl which inherently and obviously (obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention) involves using a solid salt initially (NaCl).
Wang et al. are silent regarding the graphene being pristine. However, Jang teaches use of pristine graphene because it provides higher electrical conductivity and also less chemicals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pristine graphene of Jang in Wang et al. in order to provide higher electrical conductivity and also less chemicals and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 38, Wang et al. are silent regarding the size of the composite particle size. However, Wang et al. teach nanoparticles that would have been obvious to one on the claimed range and also teach inclusion of nanosheets and flocculation and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed particle size of the composite in order to affect pollutant absorbent properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Reduced Graphene Oxide/ZnO Composite: Reusable Adsorbent for Pollutant Management”, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, Vol 4, Issue 6, June 7, 2012, pp. 3084-3090) in view of Jang (US Pat 10,008,723).in view of Jeevananthem et al. (“PHOTODEGRADATION ACTIVITY OF PURE, PVP CAPPED AND CHITOSAN CAPPED ZnO NANOPARTICLES AGAINST AZO RED DYE UNDER UV IRRADIATION”, 14:4, 269-275, Aug. 2018.
Regarding claim 41, Wang et al. teach PVP as the particulate material, but the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed specific particulate material. However, Jeevananthem et al. teaches chitosan capped zinc oxide particles in lieu of PVP capped ZnO for improved photodegradation activity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the chitosan-capped zinc oxide of Jeevananthem et al. in the previous combination because of improved photodegradation and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Reduced Graphene Oxide/ZnO Composite: Reusable Adsorbent for Pollutant Management”, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, Vol 4, Issue 6, June 7, 2012, pp. 3084-3090) in view of Jang (US Pat 10,008,723) in view of Liyong et al. (“Salt-assisted direct exfoliation of graphite into high-quality, large-size, few-layer graphene sheets”, Nanoscale, 2013, 5, pp. 7202-7208).
Regarding clam 18, The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed specific exfoliation process. However, Liyong et al. teach exfoliation of bulk layered material performed in the presence of a non-basic flocculating salt which also acts as an exfoliant as a low cost method of exfoliation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the exfoliation process of Liyong et al. in the previous combination for cost efficiencies and arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Wang does not teach the newly claimed pristine graphene. However, Jang teaches use of pristine graphene because it provides higher electrical conductivity and also less chemicals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pristine graphene of Jang in Wang et al. in order to provide higher electrical conductivity and also less chemicals and arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the present claims are not allowable. Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Art Not Used But Relevant
PG Pub. 2015/0072162 teaches salt induced flocculation of graphene
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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights