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.
Claims 3 and 9 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.
Claim 9 is unclear in that the aspect ratio cannot be below 1. Claim 3 is a tautology.
Claims 1-9, 11, 14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nafradi 20200302328.
Nafradi teaches, especially in pgs. 7-10, carbon nanospheres and other products with D/G values of 0.8-1.2. While the process is not identical to the claimed steps, no difference is seen in the actual product.
For claims 2, 3 and 14, the C content is 90.2% (para 80).
For claims 4 and 16, the O content is 9.8% (para 80).
For claim 5 and 17, the ratio is about 0.5-0.66 (para 102).
For claims 6, 7, 18 and 19, the D/G values are 1.2 and 1.7.
For claims 8, 9 and 20, spheres have a ratio of 1. Note fig. 5.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Teng article.
Teng teaches, especially on pg. 5 and fig. 4, making graphene from O2/C2H2 at various ratios.
For claims 5-7 and 17-19, the D/G is about 1 (fig. 4 and pg. 5 right column).
The discussion of the other product claims in the above rejection are noted.
Claims 1-9, 11, 14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nafradi.
In so far as there is not one single material having all the properties fully characterized, the overlapping ranges render the claims obvious. Choosing the claimed values is obvious to make a product with the desired properties, as extensively discussed in the pages cited.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Given that 100% is the most anything can be, claim 3 is unnecessary. For claim 9, the aspect ratio is the ratio between the largest and smallest dimensions of an object. Since the ‘largest’ dimension must by definition be larger than the smallest (or else it wouldn’t be the largest), then by definition an aspect ratio cannot be less than 1. If ‘about’ is intended to include values less than 1, this is mathematically impossible as just explained. If 1 or greater is meant then this merely confirms mathematical reality. Claims 3 and 9 should thus be cancelled.
The arguments are primarily directed to the process/starting materials recited. However these do not limit the product per se, and no property is directly tied thereto. In so far as the hybridization implies a particular amount of hydrogen (by hydrogenating a double bond to make sp3 carbon), then it is noted that decomposition of acetylene makes hydrogen. More to the point, the claimed hybridization is taught/rendered obvious by the actual values taught by the references.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights