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 .
Response to Amendments
2. The applicant’s amendment dated 24 November 2025 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 Claim 5 (by incorporation into amended Claim 1). Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are currently pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhai et al.
Zhai et al. (CN111892330A – EPO translation included in office Action – previously presented) is directed toward a glass fiber cotton felt with photocatalytic activity (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.
Regarding the amendment to Claim 1, 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.
Regarding Claim 2, Zhai et al. discloses the electrode material according to Claim 1, wherein the glass fiber cloth comprises a mixture of metal oxides. 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. discloses the electrode material according to Claim 2, wherein the alkali metal oxide is a mixture of Na2O and K2O (¶n0010).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhai et al. discloses 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 ¶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. discloses 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.
Regarding Claim 8, Zhai et al. discloses the electrode material according to Claim 1, wherein the binder system comprises a pure acrylic emulsion (e.g.: acrylic resin in ¶n0014) or an acetate acrylic emulsion (e.g.: vinyl acetate resin in ¶n0014). Zhai et al. discloses the use of a pure acrylic resin in Ex. 2 (¶n0025-6).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhai et al. discloses the electrode material according to Claim 1, wherein the photocatalytic material comprises zinc oxide or titanium dioxide as per ¶n0014. In Ex. 2, Zhai et al. discloses the photocatalytic material as zinc oxide (¶n0025-6).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhai et al. discloses 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”).
6. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhai et al. as applied to Claim 1 with evidence of inherency provided by Tengzhou Xu et al.
Zhai et al. (CN111892330A – EPO translation included in office Action – previously presented) is directed toward a glass fiber cotton felt with photocatalytic activity (title). Tengzhou Xu et al. (“Ultrafine Glass Fiber Core Material Produced by Wet Method,” Adv. Research Mater. 2012, 430-432, 1343-1347 – previously presented) is directed toward ultrafine glass fibers (pg. 1343: title).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhai et al. discloses the material as per Claim 1 indicating that the glass fibers used in the cotton are ultrafine glass. However, Zhai et al. is silent on the dimensions of the ultrafine glass fiber regarding the fiber diameter and length.
Tengzhou Xu et al. is drawn toward the formation of ultrafine glass fibers (title). In the introduction on pg. 1343, Tengzhou Xu et al. discloses different methods of producing ultrafine glass fiber including flame-injection blowing, which results in fibers having a diameter of 0.5 to 3.0 microns and a fiber length of 0.2 to 1.5 mm. Since Zhai et al. uses the same method of glass fiber production as Tengzhou Xu, the characteristics of the resultant material would be the same. Therefore, Tengzhou Xu provides evidence for the inherent glass fiber properties produced in Zhai et al. pertaining to the fiber length and fiber diameter thus rendering the limitations of Claim 4 obvious.
Response to Arguments
7. The examiner withdraws the rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as the amendment has removed indefinite limitations pertaining to the term “closely.”
8. Applicant's arguments filed 24 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued on pg. 6-7 of their response that Zhai et al. does not teach “a graphene material.” The examiner disagrees with this contention as Zhai et al. discloses a series of photocatalytic species which are can be used individually or in combination with each other (¶15) . Two such photocatalytic species are graphene oxide and reduced graphene oxide (¶15), which both satisfy the limitation “a graphene material.” The applicant also contends that Zhai et al. does not teach the in-situ generation of “a graphene material” from a precursor, but the examiner finds that ¶15 of Zhai et al. rebuts this assertion. Zhai offers multiple means to form graphene oxide and reduced graphene oxide in situ by the following methods: microwave synthesis; precipitation; sol-gel synthesis; hydrothermal synthesis; or redox synthesis (¶15) . If the applicant seeks to narrow the graphene material or graphene material precursor, the limitations of the claim(s) pertaining to the graphene material should explicitly name those specific chemical species or chemical precursors.
9. The applicant has further argued that the formation process discloses by Zhai et al. would not results in the binder being formed or present on top of the photocatalyst/graphene material layer on pg. 7-8 of their response. The examiner disagrees with this argument as the process disclosed in Zhai et al. results in the cross-linking of the bind system during the heating process which would (at least in part) result in the formation of binder layers on top of the photocatalyst/graphene materials (that are present on the glass fibers).
10. As constructed, amended Claim 1 is 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). The limitations of Claim 1 are met by the disclosure as Zhai et al. as explained above in paragraphs 9-10 and in the rejection of Claim 1. Therefore, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhai et al. is maintained.
Conclusion
11. 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).
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794