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 . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 is unclear in that ‘mesh’ is not an appropriate term. Rather, applicants seem to refer to a rip or pore in the graphene and not a device containing a regular grid of barriers for size separation of solids. If 80 mesh is (for example) 650 microns and 120 mesh is 475 microns, why not just say that the graphene has all the holes therein being between 475-650 microns? What exactly is meant? The actually pre sizes (rather than mesh numbers) should be recited. See Miller ‘461 below.
Prior art rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoican-Loebick 11015128 taken with CN ‘714.
Zoican-Loebicke teaches, especially in fig. 2 and col. 4-5 and 7 and 12, contacting a hydrocarbon with a filter composed of graphene oxide. The liquid passes from the inside of the filter to the outside walls. The reference differs I not requiring the RGO; rather teaching it as an option. Thus, it is obvious to choose it as an effective filter.
For claims 2 and 4, a tube shape is depicted.
This does not teach the material of the container, however CN ‘714 teaches stainless steel holder for the filter material, rendering the claimed material obvious (if in fact different) as a suitable rigid support. Having the holes aligned is obvious to optimize fluid flow through the filter.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. 20210023507 taken with CN ‘714.
Lee teaches, especially in figs. 1-4 and paras 11 and 50, a graphene filter within a filter and fluid passing therethrough, substantially as depicted in the present figures. While not requiring RGO, it is taught as an option and thus obvious.
This does not teach the material of the container, however CN ‘714 teaches stainless steel holder for the filter material, rendering the claimed material obvious (if in fact different) as a suitable rigid support. Having the holes aligned is obvious to optimize fluid flow through the filter.
For claims 2 and 4, a tube shape is depicted.
For claim 11, see paragraphs 54-57. Selecting the appropriate size is obvious to effectively treat the desired stream to remove the material of interest.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims do not require any particular level of performance (because they are product claims), so choosing an available option is obvious. Perhaps the increased efficiency of (modified) GO comes with greater cost and/or less applicability.
In view of the amendments, the rejections have been modified.
Additional citations of interest:
Coignet 20180161736 is noted. See Fig. 4 and para 66.
Cheng 20190070533 figure 1 and paragraph 46 are noted.
Miller 20130192461 Figures 1C and 6A are noted.
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 STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached on 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736