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. The RCE is accepted.
Prior art rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 12-15 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 claim 2, the C content is 90.2% (para 80).
For claim 4, the O content is 9.8% (para 80).
For claim 5, the ratio is 0.5-0.66.
For claims 6 and 7, the D/G values are 1.2 and 1.7.
For claim 8, spheres have a ratio of 1. Note fig. 5.
For claims 13-15, the process/apparatus limitations do not impart any additional limitations to the product.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12-15 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.
For claim 8, clusters are depicted in the micrographs.
For claims 13-15, the process/apparatus limitations do not impart any additional limitations to the product.
Claims 1, 5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Cross 20180265359.
Cross teaches, especially on pgs. 4-5 and fig. 2, spherical carbon nano-material having D/G of 0.27. As it is derived from fullerene (pure sp2) and has the same closed structure, the sp3 amount appears minimal (claim 5) because this type of bonding is not conducive to closed-curved structures; rather, it appears to contribute to the inter-planar electron delocalization. See paras 8-12, 38-41 and 46. It may be doped with N (para 97). No difference is seen in the product, even though the process is not the same.
Also taught is buckyball C60 (essentially pure sp2) having D/G of 0.82 and a single peak in the Raman spectrum.
For claim 8, the material is spherical/onion-like.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Joo et al. 20230082231.
Joo teaches, especially in fig 7B and para 42-43, graphene (a nanomaterial) having D/G of about 1/12 based upon the heights of peaks 132 and 134. Graphene has an ideal structure of a graphite layer, which is sp2. See para 23. Thus, the D/G ratio is essentially the same as the sp3/sp2 ratio.
While the process is not the same, process details such as starting materials or reactor (claims 12-16) do not limit the product and no difference is seen.
For claim 2, the C content is essentially 100%.
For claim 4, the O content zero (para 43).
For claim 12, the D/G is about 1/6 (fig. 7A).
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cross.
Cross, above, does not explicitly teach the elemental amount of claims 2 and 12, however it is obvious to dope to the desired amount to achieve the desired properties; see para 97. For claims 13-15, the process steps do not limit the product.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nafradi.
Nafradi above is noted. 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, 2, 4, 5, 8, 12-15 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.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11-15, 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, 2, 4-8, 11-15, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16, 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.
Claims 11, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 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, 2, 4-8, 11-15, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8, 11-19 of copending Application No. 19/054294 (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, 2, 4-8, 11-15, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/176558 (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, 2, 4-8, 11-15, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/176549 (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 3/31/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Previous remarks apply. A copy of CN 107161978 A should be submitted. No differences are seen in the product and applicant has not recited any property to differentiate the product, in view of what the references teach. The PTO does not have the capability to test all the products of the prior art.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights