DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 07/21/2025:
claims 1-3, 5-9 and 11-20 are currently pending
claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further considerations
claims 1, 5-7, 9 and 12-13 are amended
claim objections are withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claim
112b rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims
prior art grounds of rejection applying Pan, Musso, Tong and Hoang are withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims
new prior art grounds of rejection applying Muthusami and Tour are presented herein
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is dependent upon claim 1 and recite “wherein the carbon based nanomaterial further comprises Bernal stacked graphene”. Claim 1 recites “the carbon based nanomaterial is turbostratic graphene”. Thus, claim 5 fails to further limit the turbostratic graphene of claim 1 as set forth.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is dependent upon claim 1 and recite “wherein the carbon based nanomaterial further comprises nanoplatelets”. Claim 1 recites “the carbon based nanomaterial is turbostratic graphene”. Thus, claim 5 fails to further limit the turbostratic graphene of claim 1 as set forth.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthusamy et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0152314 A1), hereinafter referred to as MUTHUSAMY, in view of Tour et al. (WO 2020/051000 A1), hereinafter referred to as TOUR.
Regarding claim 1, MUTHUSAMY teaches a cementitious composite binder composition (see MUTHUSAMY at paragraph [0011]: cement composition comprising cementitious materials, aqueous base fluids, graphene nano-platelets) comprising
at least about 99% binder by weight based on the total weight of the cementitious composite binder compositions (see MUTHUSAMY at Table 1: water + class H cement = binder), MUTHUSAMY teaches 99.2-99.8% binder by weight, which is within the claimed range; and
at least about 0.001% by weight carbon-based nanomaterial (see MUTHUSAMY at paragraph [0011]: cement composition comprising … graphene nano-platelets) based on the total weight of the cementitious composite binder composition (see MUTHUSAMY at Table 1: water + class H cement = binder), MUTHUSAMY teaches 0.0014-0.007% graphene by weight, which is within the claimed range;
wherein a composite made from the composition is characterized by
(a) a compressive strength of at least about 15% greater than a compressive strength of the same composite made without the carbon-based nanomaterial (see MUTHUSAMY at Table 2: slurry 3: 22% increase in compressive strength), MUTHUSAMY teaches compressive strength increase of 22%, which is within the claimed range; or
(b) a tensile strength of at least about 15% greater than a tensile strength of the same composite made without the carbon-based nanomaterial (see MUTHUSAMY at Table 2: slurry 3: 72% increase in tensile strength), MUTHUSAMY teaches tensile strength increase of 72%, which is within the claimed range;
(c) both (a) and (b).
While MUTHUSAMY teaches binder composition comprising graphene nano-platelets. MUTHUSAMY is silent with respect to the carbon-based nanomaterial being turbostratic graphene.
However, TOUR discloses methods for the synthesis of turbostratic graphene (see TOUR at Abstract). TOUR also discloses obtaining flash graphene (FG) by heating of many inexpensive carbon sources, such as coal, petroleum coke, biochar, carbon black, discarded food, rubber tires and mixed plastic waste (see TOUR at paragraph [0005]). TOUR teaches that FG is turbostratic; and that FG is particularly attractive since mixed plastic waste can be converted into a single component graphene while discarded food waste can become fixed carbon FG rather than carbon dioxide and methane in landfills; the electrical energy cost for FG synthesis is only around 7.2 kJ·g-1; his renders FG suitable for use in bulk composites of plastic, metals, paints, concrete and other building materials; its turbostratic nature facilitates FG’s good dispersion in this wide range of composites and solvents. (see TOUR at paragraph [0005]). Additionally, TOUR teaches a composite material that includes turbostratic graphene and a second material (see TOUR at paragraph [0168]), wherein the second material can be selected from a group consisting of concrete, cement (see TOUR at paragraph [0170]). TOUR discloses that the composite material can include between 0.001 wt% and 10 wt% of the turbostratic graphene, and that the tensile and compressive strength of the composite material can be greater than tensile or compressive strength of the second material without the turbostratic graphene (see TOUR at paragraphs [0172-175]).
MUTHUSAMY’s and TOUR’s disclosure describe composite material comprising cementitious materials and graphene, and the increase in strength of the composite material as compared to the material without the graphene (see MUTHUSAMY at Table 2 and TOUR at paragraphs [0172-175]). According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of MUTHUSAMY by utilizing the turbostratic graphene as disclosed by TOUR based on teachings of TOUR describing that FG is particularly attractive since mixed plastic waste and discarded food waste can be converted into a single component graphene; the electrical energy cost for FG synthesis is only around 7.2 kJ·g-1, and its turbostratic nature facilitates FG’s good dispersion in this wide range of composites and solvents. (see TOUR at paragraph [0005]).
The rationale for such modification would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP §2143(I) (Exemplary rationale (A)).
Regarding claim 2, MUTHUSAMY as modified by TOUR teaches the cementitious binder composition of claim 1, wherein the carbon nanomaterial comprises less than 10 layers (see rejection of claim 1 and TOUR at paragraph [0296]: about 10 layers of turbostratic graphene).
Regarding claim 3, MUTHUSAMY as modified by TOUR teaches the cementitious binder composition of claim 1, wherein the carbon nanomaterial comprises more than 10 layers (see rejection of claim 1 and TOUR at paragraph [0296]: about 10 layers of turbostratic graphene).
Regarding claim 6, MUTHUSAMY as modified by TOUR teaches the cementitious binder composition of claim 1, wherein the carbon-based nanomaterial further comprises nanoplatelets (see MUTHUSAMY at paragraph [0011]: cement composition comprising cementitious materials, aqueous base fluids, graphene nano-platelets).
Regarding claim 7, MUTHUSAMY as modified by TOUR teaches the cementitious binder composition of claim 1, wherein the carbon-based nanomaterial is derived from a coal selected from anthracite, bituminous, sub-bituminous, lignite, or a mixture thereof, or wherein the carbon-based nanomaterial is derived from carbon black, calcined petroleum coke, charcoal, or a mixture thereof (see rejection of claim 1 above and see TOUR at paragraph [0005]: many inexpensive carbon sources, such as coal, petroleum coke, biochar, carbon black, discarded food, rubber tires and mixed plastic waste).
Regarding claim 9, MUTHUSAMY as modified by TOUR teaches the cementitious binder composition of claim 1, wherein the turbostratic graphene is derived from any single or combination of the following: graphite, feces, a plastic selected from a high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polypropylene (PP), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or a mixture thereof, vinyl polymers, condensation polymers, step-growth polymers, chain- growth polymers, living polymers, rubbers, humic acid, carbohydrates, rice powder, food waste, food, coal, organic waste, organic material, bituminous coal, coke, shungite, asphaltenes, acetylene black, carbon black, petroleum coke, oil, petroleum products, carbon from the stripping of the non-carbon atoms off of natural gas or oil or carbon dioxide, wood, cellulose, leaves, branches, grass, biomass, animal carcasses, fish carcasses, proteins, and mixtures thereof (see rejection of claim 1 above and see TOUR at paragraph [0005]: many inexpensive carbon sources, such as coal, petroleum coke, biochar, carbon black, discarded food, rubber tires and mixed plastic waste).
Regarding claim 11, MUTHUSAMY as modified by TOUR teaches the cementitious binder composition of claim 1, wherein a composite made from the composition is characterized by at least a 10% increase in thermal conductivity, electrical conductivity, Young modulus, or durability and at least 5% decrease shrinkage than the same composite made without the carbon-based nanomaterial (see rejection of claim 1 above and TOUR at paragraph [0177]: the Young’s modulus of the composite material can be at least 10% different than the Young’s modulus of the second material without the turbostratic graphene). Since it has been held that “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent” (see MPEP §2112.01 (I)), “at least 5% decrease shrinkage than the same composite made without the carbon-based nanomaterial” is inherently disclosed because MUTHUSAMY as modified by TOUR teaches all structural limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, MUTHUSAMY as modified by TOUR teaches the cementitious composite binder composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises from about 0.001% to about 10% by weight of the carbon-based nanomaterial based on the total weight of the cementitious composite binder composition (see MUTHUSAMY at Table 1: 0.2-1.0% bwoc of graphene; water + class H cement = binder), MUTHUSAMY teaches 0.0014-0.007% graphene by weight, which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, MUTHUSAMY as modified by TOUR teaches the cementitious composite binder composition of claim 1, wherein the carbon-based nanomaterial is functionalized with one or more atoms selected from a group consisting of oxygen, carbon, metals, sulfur, phosphorous, non-metals, metalloids, and combination thereof (see rejection of claim 1 above and TOUR at paragraph [0197]: chemical covalent functionalization of turbostratic graphene; the functionalization atom is selected from a group consisting of oxygen, carbon, metals, sulfur, phosphorous, non-metals, metalloids, and combinations thereof).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
TOUR discloses the chemical covalent functionalization of turbostratic graphene; the functionalization atom being selected from a group consisting of oxygen, carbon, metals, sulfur, phosphorous, non-metals, metalloids, and combinations thereof (see TOUR at paragraph [0197]). Thus, the prior art fails to teach the limitations of claim 8, such as the carbon-based nanomaterial (turbostratic graphene as set forth in claim 1) being oxidized.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 7 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731