DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
3. The applicant’s amendment dated 08 June 2026 has been entered into the record. The response is considered fully responsive and the amendment did not add any new matter. The applicant has cancelled Claims 4 and 5. Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are currently pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhai et al., Liu, and Fukugaichi.
Zhai et al. (CN111892330A – EPO translation – previously presented) is directed toward a glass fiber cotton felt with photocatalytic activity (title). Liu (CN106076438A – EPO translation of CN document) is directed toward a method for preparing a textile fiber/graphene/TiO2-NER1 composite environmental catalytic material (title). Fukugaichi (“Fixation of Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles on Glass Fiber Cloths for Photocatalytic Degradation of Organic Dyes,” ACS Omega 2019, 4(12), 15175-15180) is directed toward photocatalytic degradation of organic dyes using TiO2 on grass fiber clothes (pg. 15175: title).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhai et al. discloses a glass fiber felt comprises 6 to 8 wt.% photocatalytic nanoparticles, 1 to 3 wt.% bonding system, and 83 to 92 wt.% superfine glass fibers as per the abstract and ¶n0010. According to Zhai et al., the photocatalytic nanoparticles are selected from nano zinc oxide, nano titanium oxide, or reduced graphene oxide (¶n0012). The bonding system (analogous the binder system of the instant application) disclosed by Zhai et al. comprises a mixture of a binder (0.5 to 2.0 wt.%), a coupling agent (0.3 to 0.8 wt.%), a hydrophobic agent (0.1 to 0.5 wt.%) and a curing agent (0.1 to 0.5 wt.%) with all weight percentages based on total weight of the glass fiber cotton (¶n0014).
Ex. 2 of Zhai et al. discloses a glass fiber felt comprised of 5 wt.% nano zinc oxide (i.e.: photo catalytic nanomaterial) and a bonding system (~3.1 wt.%) comprised of 2.0 wt.% acrylic resin adhesive, 0.6 wt.% trimethylchlorosilane coupling agent, 0.2 wt.% hydroxy silicone oil hydrophobic agent, and 0.3 wt.% ethyl sulfate curing agent with the remaining weight being the glass fibers (¶n0025-6). Since Zhai et al. discloses the use of multiple photocatalytic nano materials (¶n0012), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to derive the use reduced graphene oxide at a loading of 1 to 3 wt.% and nano zinc oxide at 5 wt.% given the total photocatalytic nanoparticle level of 6 to 8 wt.% based on the total weight of the glass fiber felt. Incorporation of reduced graphene oxide into a glass fiber wool would render the material an effective electrode since reduced graphene oxide is an excellent electrical conductor at low loading levels. Therefore, Zhai et al. teaches an electrode material as per Claim 1. It has been found that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges discloses by the prior art (e.g.: metal oxide weight percentages of glass fiber). See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Zhai et al. further discloses the electrode material comprising: a main body of the glass fiber cloth; a composite material layer of graphene (e.g.: reduced graphene oxide) and a photocatalytic nano-material (e.g.: ZnO) grown in-situ on a surface of the glass fiber cloth; and a nano-binder layer (e.g.: acrylic resin, trimethylchlorosilane, hydroxy silicone oil, and ethyl sulfate) formed on the composite material layer as described in Ex. 2 (¶n0025-6). In particular, the reduced graphene oxide and zinc oxide can be prepared by microwave synthesis reaction method, precipitation method, sol-gel method, hydrothermal method or a redox method resulting in in-situ grow of said compositions on the glass fiber cotton (¶n0012). The nano-binder is formed during the curing/heating process at elevated temperatures (e.g.: 130 °C) in ¶n0026 during which the hydroxy functionalities of the acrylic resin and the silicone oil will react with trimethylchlorosilane or with the each other through the action ethyl sulfate.
Pertaining to amended Claim 1, Zhai et al. is silent on the dimensions of fibers in the glass fiber cloth. Fukugaichi is directed toward the photocatalytic degradation of organic dyes on TiO2 supported on glass fiber cloths meaning it is analogous art to Zhai et al. Fukugaichi uses a commercially available glass fiber cloth with fiber length of 20 mm according to section 4.2. “Preparation of Samples” on pg.15179. The fiber diameter can be derived from the SEM image in Figure 2a which shows the under modified GFC. The SEM image has been reproduced below showing four measurements of the fiber diameter. Spots A, B, C, and D (white bands) give the approximate width of the fibers. Spots A and B are ~5 microns in width and Spots C and D are ~4 microns in width when compared to the scale inset in the SEM micrograph. The dimensions of the glass fiber of Fukugaichi et al. are similar to the dimensions in amended Claim 1. Moreover, the applicant has provided no support for the criticality of the glass fiber dimensions of Claim 1 as per ¶57 and ¶77 of the instant application cited as US Pub. No. 2022/0336808 A1 merely list the dimensions recited in Claim 1. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed range approaches or overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art (e.g.: metal oxide weight percentages of glass fiber). See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode material of Zhai et al. with the GFC of Fukugaichi with the reasonable expectation of forming an electrode material that is sufficiently covered by the nano-photocatalyst ensure effective photochemical processes. The SEM image of the treated GFC material in Fig. 2b shows the complete coverage of the fiber by the deposited TiO2.
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image1.png]
Modified Fig. 2a from Fukugaichi (pg. 15176).)]
Further pertaining to amended Claim 1, Zhai et al. does not offer a detailed procedure for the in-situ synthesis of graphene (oxide) nor the photocatalytic material. Liu is directed toward a TiO2/graphene composite on a fiber material for use as an environmentally relevant catalytic material (¶2, 4, 7, 8, and 10). As per ¶23, the composite material comprising graphene and TiO2 of Liu is capable of undergoing photocatalytic reactions meaning it is analogous art to Zhai et al. and Fukugaichi Liu teaches the formation of graphene from graphite oxide as per ¶11 citing Hummers method. Hummers method oxidizes graphite using KMnO4 to form an expanded graphite oxide structure which is then treated with hydrogen peroxide to form graphene oxide (¶13 of Liu). The graphene oxide is converted in-situ into graphene by reduction using NaBH4 or glucose to deposit onto the fiber material which in the case of a GFC would result in the formation of Si-O-C bonds since the graphene oxide (i.e.: pendant hydroxyl group) would react with the silanol functionalities on the GFC surface, thus meeting the amendments to Claim 1 (i.e.: “wherein the graphene is prepared by in-situ growth from at least one carbon source selected from glucose and graphite oxide, and the graphene is covalently bonded to glass fibers of the glass fiber cloth via Si-O-C). Moreover, Liu teaches the in-situ formation of TiO2 (i.e.: the nano photocatalyst) from titanium tetrachloride in ¶32 directly onto the graphene coated fiber. According to Liu in ¶23, this method provides the following advantages: high specific surface area, high (electrical) conductivity from the graphene, effectively dispersed semiconductor materials (i.e.: TiO2), and more reactive sites for photocatalytic reactions, and more efficient photochemical processes.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode material of Zhai et al. and Fukugaichi by depositing the graphene and TiO2 using the in-situ deposition method of Liu with the reasonable expectation of forming a more efficient and effective photocatalyst as explained by Liu in ¶23).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhai et al. in view of Fukugaichi and Liu disclose the electrode material according to Claim 1, wherein the glass fiber cloth comprises a mixture of metal oxides as per Zhai et al. and the composition of the glass fiber cloth is listed in the table below. It has been found that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges discloses by the prior art (e.g.: metal oxide weight percentages of glass fiber). See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS
Glass Fiber Cloth Composition of Zhai et al. (¶n0010)
Metal Oxide Component of Glass Fiber Cloth
Glass Fiber Cloth Composition of
US17/724,569
63.0 to 72.5 wt.%
SiO2
56.5 to 65.5 wt.%
1.0 to 3.5 wt.%
Al2O3
3.0 to 8.0 wt.%
2.5 to 4.5 wt.%
MgO
4.5 to 8.5 wt.%
2.0 to 5.5 wt.%
CaO
1.5 to 4.5 wt.%
4.0 to 9.0 wt.%
B2O3
3.0 to 6.0 wt.%
1.5 to 5.5 wt.%
Fe2O3 + ZnO + BaO
4.5 to 5.5 wt.%
9.0 to 12.0 wt.%
Na2O + K2O (“R2O”)
8.0 to 9.5 wt.%
Regarding Claim 3, Zhai et al. in view of Fukugaichi and Liu disclose the electrode material according to Claim 2, wherein the alkali metal oxide is a mixture of Na2O and K2O (¶n0010 of Zhai et al.).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhai et al. in view Liu and Fukugaichi disclose the electrode material according to Claim 1, wherein the glass fiber cloth has three-dimensional porous structure with different diameter fibers are overlapped with each other as per Zhai et al. in ¶n0004 and ¶n0011. Zhai et al. indicates in ¶n0004 and ¶n0011 that the electrode material (i.e.: glass fiber cotton) has an obvious hierarchical structure with two types of ultrafine glass fibers (with beating degrees of 39±1 and 32±1) and the porosity of the fiber network structure is ≥96.5%.
Regarding Claim 7, Zhai et al. in view of Fukugaichi and Liu disclose the electrode material according to Claim 1, wherein the binder system comprises one or more binders at different ratios as taught in Ex. 2 where the bonding system comprises 2 wt.% acrylic resin (first binder) and 0.2 wt.% hydroxy silicone oil (second binder) in ¶n0025-0026 of Zhai et al.
Regarding Claim 8, Zhai et al. in view of Fukugaichi and Liu disclose the electrode material according to Claim 1, wherein the binder system comprises a pure acrylic emulsion (e.g.: acrylic resin in ¶n0014 of Zhai et al.) or an acetate acrylic emulsion (e.g.: vinyl acetate resin in ¶n0014 of Zhai et al.). Zhai et al. discloses the use of a pure acrylic resin in Ex. 2 (¶n0025-6).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhai et al. in view of Fukugaichi and Liu disclose the electrode material according to Claim 1, wherein the photocatalytic material comprises zinc oxide or titanium dioxide as per ¶n0014 of Zhai et al. In Ex. 2, Zhai et al. discloses the photocatalytic material as zinc oxide (¶n0025-6).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhai et al. in view of Fukugaichi and Liu disclose an electrode material of Claim 1, wherein the composite material of graphene and the photocatalytic nano-material is closely and uniformly distributed on the glass fiber cloth as discussed in ¶n0021 (i.e.: “improving the uniformity of the distribution of the bonding system and photocatalytic nanoparticles in the ultrafine glass fiber cotton felt”) according to Zhai et al.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-9, filed 08 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of amended Claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are generally persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhai et al., Fukugaichi, and Liu. The specific reasons for the amended rejection are discussed above.
8. The examiner notes that the new amendment to Claim 1 still fall under a product-by-process claim and accordingly the patentability is based on the product itself (see MPEP 2113.I - PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS). However, the examiner has modified the rejection to reflect a specific procedure directed toward in-situ generation of the graphene and photocatalytic material.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al. (“Toward anti-fouling capacitive deionization by using visible-light reduced TiO2/graphene nanocomposites,” MRS Comm. 2015, 5, 613-617) is directed toward anti-fouling capacitive deionization by using visible light (pg. 613: title).
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is 703-756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 PM 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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
11. 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.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights