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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-8 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment, filed 3/5/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Liu.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (“Chemical Vapor Deposition Growth of Linked Carbon Monolayers with Acetylenic Scaffoldings on Silver Foil”, reference is made to the Applicant provided publication and the Supporting Information for that publication previously supplied).
Regarding claims 1-7, Liu teaches a method of preparing graphyne (last paragraph of first page and Figure 1) comprising: supplying a precursor, 1,3,5-triethynylbenzene
PNG
media_image1.png
177
285
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(first full paragraph, page 4) to a chamber using an inert gas (Figure 1a), comprising a first zone where the precursor is vaporized (Figure 1a and 2nd full paragraph, page 4) and then to a second zone where the precursor is deposited on a Ag substrate to form the graphyne by a surface-coupling reaction (Figure 1a and 2nd full paragraph, page 4). Liu teaches that forming the graphyne comprises binding the precursor to the metal substrate; performing a surface-coupling reaction between the precursors; and then separating atoms of the substrate bound to the precursor during the surface-coupling reaction (Figure 1b). Additionally, Liu teaches the first zone having a temperature of 60 ºC and the second zone having a higher temperature of 150 ºC. Liu fails to teach the temperature in the first zone is 30-50 ºC and the temperature in the second zone is 50-80 ºC.
However, adjusting the temperature will adjust the rate of vaporization as well as the rate the reaction occurs and the resultant structure and uniformity of the deposited graphyne. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
2. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Zhang et al. (“Nitrogen-Doped Graphdiyne Applied for Lithium-Ion Storage”).
Regarding claim 8, Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach the graphyne being doped. However, Zhang teaches doping graphyne with nitrogen (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu’s process by treating the as prepared graphyne to dope it with nitrogen as disclosed by Zhang. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Zhang teaches the nitrogen doped graphyne yields enhanced electrochemical properties (abstract).
Conclusion
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Claims 1-8 are rejected.
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 ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
March 22, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717