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.
112 rejections
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; the aspect ratio cannot be below 1. Claim 3 is similarly a tautology.
Prior art rejections
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-16, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anzelmo et al. 9997334.
Anzelmo teaches, especially in Fig. 1 e and cols. 5-6, 20, a layered carbon allotrope (‘onion’) with sp3 hybridization is between 50-90+ %; col. 20. This overlaps the claimed amounts (9-83%, see claims 5 and 19), rendering them obvious. While the process is not identical to the claimed steps, no difference is seen in the actual product; the Office need not show the process of a product-by-process claim.
For claim 2-4, 16 and 18, the amount of carbon is greater than 95%; see col. 22. This leaves only 5% for other elements.
For claim 6, the D/G is about 0.4-0.8, see figs. 4a, 5b and 5d.
For claims 8 and 9, the aspect ratio is about 2; fig. 1e.
For claims 10-12, 15, the process/apparatus limitations do not impart any additional limitations to the product.
Claim 14 is an amalgamation of limitations discussed herein.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-16, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nafradi 20200302328.
Nafradi teaches, especially in pgs. 7-10, solid carbon nanospheres and other products with D/G values of 0.8-1.2 (claim 6). While the process is not identical to the claimed steps, no difference is seen in the actual product.
For claims 2, 3 and 16, the C content is 90.2% (para 80).
For claims 4 and 18, the O content is 9.8% (para 80).
For claims 5 and 19, the ratio is 0.5-0.66.
For claims 8 and 9, spheres have a ratio of 1. Note fig. 5.
For claims 10-12, 15, the process/apparatus limitations do not impart any additional limitations to the product.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Teng article.
Teng teaches, especially on pg. 5 and fig. 4, carbon nanomaterials having sp3/sp2 (see also claim 5) of about 1 based on the Raman data and discussion thereof. Page 288 teaches that some spheres are made.
Claims 3 and 9 are axiomatic, as noted above.
For claim 6, the D/G is 1.
For claim 8, clusters are depicted in the micrographs.
For claims 10-12, the process/apparatus limitations do not impart any additional limitations to the product.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-16, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cross et al. 20180265359.
Cross teaches, especially in pgs. 2 and 10, carbon onions having sp2 and sp3 hybridization. While the exact relative amounts are not given (see also claim 5), from the extended discussion of pgs. 7-8, the claimed ratio is obvious to provide the desired structure and properties. Cross does not teach the process, however no difference is seen in the product.
For claims 2-4, 16 and 18, it is referred to as a carbon allotrope, implying pure or nearly pure carbon.
For claim 6, the D/G is about 0.33; see fig. 2.
For claim 8, see figs. 5.
Claim 9 is met by solid materials, note the rejection under ‘112.
For claims 10-12 and 15, the Office need not show the same process or apparatus details; no difference in the product is seen.
Claims 14-19 contain various combinations of limitations discussed herein.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-16, 18, 19 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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng article.
Teng above is noted. Claim 4 is obvious from the optimization of oxygen content discussed on pg. 5 to make the desired material. Claim 2 is obvious (if not inherent) to make a pure carbon product.
Claims 1-16, 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11, 14, 16-20 of copending Application No. 18/069517 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common, nearly identical, subject matter.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-16, 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17, 19, 20 of copending Application No. 18/069589 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common, nearly identical, subject matter.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-16, 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11, 13, 14, 16, 18-20 of copending Application No. 18/069558 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common, nearly identical, subject matter.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-16, 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12371326. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common subject matter; very similar conditions and product parameters. Note the presently claimed products (see claim 18) are open to non-carbon ingredients.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 3 and 17 were not duplicates. Since it is impossible for a material to be greater than 100% carbon, claim 3 is meaningless. Claim 9 is similarly defective, in that an aspect ratio must be, by definition, at least 1. The arguments are primarily drawn to process conditions, however these do not limit the product. The allegation that the hybridization is a direct effect of the conditions has not been established and is not relevant if the prior art can make these ratios in a different way. The features of Nafradi have been mapped to the product limitations claimed. Given that the actual product has been limited to nanospheres/onions, Joo is withdrawn, but it is only for this reason. The fluids discussed by Teng are obtained by adding nanoparticles to liquids, and it is the nanoparticles that the reference focuses on. Nafradi teaches a range of D/G values (para 112). Minor typographical corrections have been made in the Teng rejections as to which claims are rejected. It is believed that no confusion to applicant resulted therefrom.
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