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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed on 11/02/2025 has been made of record and entered.
Claims 1-6 & 10 have been amended.
Claim 11 has been added.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending in this application and under consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Second Paragraph)
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, it would appear that the carbon powders would be obtained in the first step of the claimed method and not the “conductive carbon colloidal powders” as recited in lines 4 & 5 of the claim. The instant specification, [0036], discloses “a carbon powder colloidal solution may be prepared by adding the carbon powders treated with the plasma via the above step to a water-based water solvent and stirring the mixed solution”. It is considered the claim limitations render the claim unclear, confusing, and not particularly point out the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 & 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luizi et al. (US 2014/0248442 A1), hereinafter “Luizi et al.”
The claimed invention relates to a method for treating a conductive carbon powder, comprising:
(a) subjecting a gas having 100% carbon dioxide (CO2) to a plasma reactor to obtain a plasma-treated reaction gas; and
(b) injecting the plasmas-treated reaction gas from (a) into a reaction container comprising the conductive carbon powder to obtain a treated carbon powder,
wherein the plasmas reactor and the reaction container are separated such that the conductive carbon powder is not exposed to the plasma reactor in (a),
wherein the treated carbon powder has increased water dispersibility when compared with the conductive carbon powder.
Luizi et al. discloses a method for functionalization of a pulverulent product in a plasma reactor comprising the steps of:
generating a plasma in a vertical reactor;
bringing the pulverulent product (from the feeding system) in contact with said plasma by letting said particles fall by gravity from top to bottom through said reactor (page 7, claim 1).
The pulverulent product comprises carbon nanotubes (page 7, claim 3).
The functionalization is performed in the presence of various substances including oxygen-containing gases, such as carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) (page 3, [0067]).
The reference appears to teach the claimed method for treating a conductive carbon powder (carbon nanotube, TNT) comprising step (a) and (b) as recited in the instant claim 1.
With respect to the claim limitation on “wherein the plasma reactor and the reaction container are separated such that the conductive carbon powder is not exposed to the plasma reactor in (a)”, this is met by the teaching of the reference method because the disclosed vertical reactor (where the plasma is generated) and the feeding system (where the pulverulent product is feeding into the reactor) are separated, thus the pulverulent product of the reference is also not exposed to the plasmas reactor and thus the treated pulverulent product of the reference would have the same feature as claimed, which is “the treated carbon powder has increased water dispersibility when compared with the conductive carbon powder”.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luizi et al. (US 2014/0248442 A1), hereinafter “Luizi et al.”
Luizi et al. discloses a method as discussed in the precedent paragraph, except for the following difference.
The reference does not teach the treatment time in step (b), it would have been prima facie obvious to a skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to treat the carbon powders of the reference for a treatment time of 10 to 30 minutes as claimed or for an effective amount of time since it involves only routine experimentation of a person within the level of ordinary skill in the art to do so. See In re Boesch and In re Aller.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 2, 3, & 11 are 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.
The prior art references appear to teach the claimed method for treating a conductive carbon powder comprising step (a) and step (b), however they do not teach the claimed features as further defined in these claims.
There is no motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references together to arrive to the claimed invention.
6. Claims 6-10 are allowable over the prior art made of record. The claims would be allowable if the claims are amended and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action are overcome. The following is a statement of reason(s) for allowing the claimed subject matter.
The prior art appears to teach a method for preparing a carbon powder by plasma jet or reacting the conductive carbon particles with a plasma-treated reaction gas to obtain treated carbon powders (as recited in the first step of the instant claim 6), however it does not teach to add the treated carbon powders to a solvent comprising water and stirring the treated carbon powders to obtain the carbon power colloidal solution (as recited in the second step of the instant claim 6).
There is no motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references together to arrive to the claimed invention.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
7. The remarks submitted with the amendment on 11/05/2025 have been fully reviewed and considered, the amendments to the claims appeared overcome the claim objections and rejection(s) made under 35 U.S.C 112(b), second paragraph. Thus, they have been withdrawn.
However, a new ground of rejections has been made in view of a newly discovered reference to Luizi et al. (US 2014/0248442 A1), which appears to read on the claimed subject matter of the instant claims 1, 4, & 5. See detailed discussions in the rejection paragraphs 3 & 4 above.
8. 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.
Citations
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for related art. See PTO-892 Form prepared attached.
Conclusion
10. Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 1 & 6-10 are rejected. Claims 2, 3, & 11 are objected. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov.
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, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached at 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/CNN/
February 12, 2026