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 election is noted. Claim 13 is withdrawn. 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 11 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 11 is unclear in that the aspect ratio cannot be below 1. Claim 3 is redundant.
Prior art rejections
Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18-20 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, 16, 17, the C content is 90.2% (para 80).
For claims 4, 5, 18 and 19, the O content is 9.8% (para 80).
For claim 5, 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 10, 11, spheres have a ratio of 1. Note fig. 5.
For claim 14, the process limitations do not impart any additional limitations to the product.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 11, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Teng article.
Teng teaches, especially on pg. 5 and fig. 4, graphene having sp3/sp2 of about 1 based on the Raman data and discussion thereof.
Claims 3 and 11 are axiomatic, as noted above.
For claim 10, clusters are depicted in the micrographs.
For claim 14, the process limitations do not impart any additional limitations to the product. The discussion of the other product claims in the above rejection are noted.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18-20 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng article.
Teng above is noted. Claims 4, 5, 18 and 19 are obvious from the optimization of oxygen content discussed on pg. 5 to make the desired material. Claims 2 and 16 are obvious (if not inherent) to make a pure carbon product.
Double Patenting:
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 14, 16, 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 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 1-5, 7-11, 14, 16, 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10, 12-17, 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 1-5, 7-11, 14, 16, 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12, 14-16, 18-20 of copending Application No. 18/069532 (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.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The aspect ratio is the ratio between the largest dimension and the smallest. It is thus impossible to be less than 1, and is 1 only for a perfect sphere. Claim 11 is thus unnecessary because it adds nothing, and should be cancelled. Similarly, in claim 3 it is impossible for the material to be more than 100% carbon- by definition- so it too adds nothing and should be cancelled.
The only property claimed in claim 1 is the hybridization ratio, which is taught/rendered obvious for the reasons expressed above. In so far as the process affects the properties of the product, there is no limitation which recites an actual difference. The Office is under no obligation to cite a reference which teaches the process steps of a product-by-process claim, and the processes of the references are similar to that claimed. It is noted that acetylene decomposes to form carbon and oxygen; presumably the hydrogen reacts with double bonds (sp2) carbon to hydrogenate them and make saturated bonds (sp3 bonding) which is reflected in the reported hybridization ratio. And if this analysis is incorrect, it does not matter because it is the properties of the product that are at issue. It is clear from the context of the rejection that it is the hybridization ratio which is what the overlapping range is, as can be seen by comparing the cited values versus those of the claims, although the confusion is regretted.
Applicant is thanked for providing the Teng reference. The contact information for the examiner and other administrative details can be found in a prior action.
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.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights