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. Election/ Restriction Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claims 1-17, drawn to a graphene foam network, classified in C01B/32/182. II. Claims 18-20, drawn to an anode for a battery, classified in H01M4/587. The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions Group I and Group II are related as mutually exclusive species in an intermediate-final product relationship. Distinctness is proven for claims in this relationship if the intermediate product is useful to make other than the final product, and the species are patentably distinct (MPEP § 806.05(j)). In the instant case, the intermediate product is deemed to be useful as a material for absorption applications, electronics applications, etc. and the inventions are deemed patentably distinct because there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: 808.02(A) Separate classification thereof : Each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. 808.02(C) A different field of search is required : Searching for one of the inventions is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. During a telephone conversation with Joan Simunic on November 24, 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-17. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 18-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babenko et al. US20170216923A1 , as provided on the IDS dated 5.2.2023, hereinafter Babenko, in view of Veerasamy US20110033688A1 , as provided on the IDS dated 5.2.2023 as US10167572 . Regarding Claim s 1 and 3-10 , B a benko discloses graphene foam that is porous [Babenko abstract , 0062, and throughout] with a high surface area [Babenko 0005 ] and includes monolayer, bilayer or few-layer graphene that do not need to be of the same size, morphology or coverage [Babenko 0040 and throughout] and forming a 3D graphene network [Babenko 0046 and throughout , Fig. 2, Fig. 3 ], which reads on a multilayer graphene foam network comprising a plurality of interconnected graphene sheets arranged in a 3D network as claimed. Babenko further teaches a method for making the multilayer graphene foam network. The process includes the use of a porous scaffold upon which the two-dimensional graphene nanomaterial is deposited using CVD. The porous scaffold is obtained by heating a powder comprising metal particles such that the metal particles fuse to form a three-dimensional porous structure upon which growth of the two-dimensional nanomaterial can take place [Babenko 0026-0027]. The metal particles , such as at least 99.5%, e.g. 99.9%, pure nickel particles [0028] , can be 100 nm to 100 µm in size and may be spherical, dendritic, regularly shaped, or irregularly shaped [Babenko 0030]. To form the porous scaffold, the metal particles are heated to a temperature from 900 °C to 1100 °C with or without hydrogen gas to form a fused 3D structure [Babenko 0031-0034 , 0077 ]. Then the graphene is formed on the porous scaffold with hydrogen and a precursor such as methane [ Babenko 0044 , 0077 provides detail flow rates ] , at a pressure ranging from 1 atm to below atmospheric pressure in the range of mTorr to tens of Torr pressure range [ Babenko 0048- 0049], preferably at a temperature from about 1000 °C to about 1100 °C [ Babenko 0050] . The composite is then cooled to room temperature [ Babenko 0052] and the metal is removed by using an etchant, such as hydrochloric acid or nitric acid, and then the etchant is removed using water [ Babenko 0054]. Veerasamy also teaches the deposition of graphene and that the pressure range of 10-100 mTorr produces faster growth of graphene [Veerasamy 0036]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to combine Veerasamy’s refinement of the deposition pressure with Babenko’s process for making the graphene foam network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Babenko and Veerasamy with the predictable expectation of a multilayer foam network [Babenko abstract and throughout ] of graphene suitable for electrode materials [Babenko 0005 and throughout; Veerasamy 0003 and throughout]. Further, the combination of Babenko and Veerasamy teach es graphene formed by substantially identical method as the instant invention. Therefore, the skilled artisan would expect the multilayer foam graphene networks produced by their combined method will necessarily have the same or sufficiently similar structure and properties as the instant claims, including the claimed “incommensurate stacking occupancy from about 19% to 93%, and wherein the graphene foam network has a selected area electron diffraction (SAED) pattern of sheets rotated relative to each other at angles of 5 ° to 30 °” in claim 1 . Further, it would be expected that Babenko ’s teachings of multilayer foam graphene networks and method for making combined with Veerasamy’s refined pressure would have the same o r sufficiently similar properties as the instantly claimed: Claim 3 pore size; further, Babenko discloses pore sizes of 10 nm to 100 µm [Babenko 0062 ] , which overlaps and obviates the claimed range of greater than about 70 nm. ( Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ) ; Claim 4 and Claim 5 crystallite size ; Claim 6 and Claim 7 I2D/IG ; Claim 8 and Claim 9 FWHM of Raman 2D band , and the Claim 10 x-ray diffraction peak of 002. See MPEP 2112 . MPEP 2112.01 I: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, the limitations of claim s 1 and 3-10 are met by the prior art combination of Babenko and Veerasamy. Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babenko and Veerasamy as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Zhamu et al. US20130202945A1, as provided on the IDS dated 5.2.2023, hereinafter Zhamu. Regarding Claim 2 , modified Babenko teaches the graphene foam network of claim 1 as described above and teaches the graphene has a high surface area [Babenko 0005, 0024, 0064, Fig. 4] but is silent to the claimed BET surface area range. Zhamu discloses an anode material comprising multilayer graphene foam [Zhamu 0030 , 0049, and throughout] where the surface area is 100 m2/g or more [Zhamu abstract, 0024 and throughout] , which overlaps and obviates the claimed range of 50 m2/g to about 150 m2/g. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select Zhamu’s surface area range in modified Babenko’s graphene foam network of claim 1 with the predictable result of graphene suitable for use as an anode material with a surface area sufficient to receive lithium ions [Zhamu abstract, 0051, 0066, 0071-0073], which enabl es high charge and discharge rates combined with higher power densities [Zhamu 0034]. Regarding Claim 11 , modified Babenko teaches the graphene foam network of claim 1 as described above and teaches the graphene for use in lithium batteries [Babenko 005, 0064, claim 24, claim 38]. Zhamu discloses an anode material comprising multilayer graphene foam [Zhamu 0030, 0049, and throughout], where the anode material receives lithium ions [Zhamu abstract, 0051, 0066, 0071-0073], which reads on the claimed graphene network further comprises lithium. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Zhamu’s teaching of multilayer graphene foam as a lithium ion battery anode material using modified Babenko’s graphene foam network of claim 1 with the predictable result of graphene suitable for use as an anode material to receive lithium ions [Zhamu abstract, 0051, 0066, 0071-0073], which enables high charge and discharge rates combined with higher power densities [Zhamu 0034]. Claim(s) 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babenko et al. US20170216923A1, as provided on the IDS dated 5.2.2023, hereinafter Babenko, in view of Veerasamy US20110033688A1, as provided on the IDS dated 5.2.2023 as US10167572 , and in further view of Zhamu et al. US20130202945A1, as provided on the IDS dated 5.2.2023, hereinafter Zhamu. Regarding Claim s 12 -17 , Babenko discloses graphene foam that is porous [Babenko abstract, 0062, and throughout] with a high surface area [Babenko 0005] and includes monolayer, bilayer or few-layer graphene that do not need to be of the same size, morphology or coverage [Babenko 0040 and throughout] and forming a 3D graphene network [Babenko 0046 and throughout, Fig. 2, Fig. 3], which reads on a multilayer graphene foam network comprising a plurality of interconnected graphene sheets arranged in a 3D network as claimed. Babenko further teaches a method for making the multilayer graphene foam network. The process includes the use of a porous scaffold upon which the two-dimensional graphene nanomaterial is deposited using CVD. The porous scaffold is obtained by heating a powder comprising metal particles such that the metal particles fuse to form a three-dimensional porous structure upon which growth of the two-dimensional nanomaterial can take place [Babenko 0026-0027]. The metal particles, such as at least 99.5%, e.g. 99.9%, pure nickel particles [0028] , can be 100 nm to 100 µm in size and may be spherical, dendritic, regularly shaped, or irregularly shaped [Babenko 0030]. To form the porous scaffold, the metal particles are heated to a temperature from 900 °C to 1100 °C with or without hydrogen gas to form a fused 3D structure [Babenko 0031-0034, 0077]. Then the graphene is formed on the porous scaffold with hydrogen and a precursor such as methane [ Babenko 0044 , 0077 provides detail flow rates ] , at a pressure ranging from 1 atm to below atmospheric pressure in the range of mTorr to tens of Torr pressure range [ Babenko 0048- 0049], preferably at a temperature from about 1000 °C to about 1100 °C [ Babenko 0050] . The composite is then cooled to room temperature [ Babenko 0052] and the metal is removed by using an etchant, such as hydrochloric acid or nitric acid, and then the etchant is removed using water [ Babenko 0054]. Veerasamy also teaches the deposition of graphene and that the pressure range of 10-100 mTorr produces faster growth of graphene [Veerasamy 0036]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to combine Veerasamy’s refinement of the deposition pressure with Babenko’s process for making the graphene foam network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Babenko and Veerasamy with the predictable expectation of a multilayer foam network [Babenko abstract and throughout] of graphene suitable for electrode materials [Babenko 0005 and throughout; Veerasamy 0003 and throughout]. Further, the combination of Babenko and Veerasamy teaches graphene formed by substantially identical method as the instant invention. Therefore, the skilled artisan would expect the multilayer foam graphene networks produced by their combined method will necessarily have the same or sufficiently similar structure and properties as the instant claims, including the claimed “incommensurate stacking structure wherein the graphene foam network has a selected area electron diffraction (SAED) pattern of sheets rotated relative to each other at angles of 5 ° to 30 °” in claim 1 2 . See MPEP 2112 . MPEP 2112.01 I: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, modified Babenko teaches the graphene foam network of claim 12 as described above and teaches the graphene for use in lithium batteries [Babenko 005, 0064, claim 24, claim 38]. Zhamu discloses an anode material comprising multilayer graphene foam [Zhamu 0030, 0049, and throughout], where the anode material receives lithium ions [Zhamu abstract, 0051, 0066, 0071-0073], which reads on “and lithium” of claim 12 . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Zhamu’s teaching of multilayer graphene foam as a lithium ion battery anode material using modified Babenko’s graphene foam network as described above with the predictable result of graphene suitable for use as an anode material to receive lithium ions [Zhamu abstract, 0051, 0066, 0071-0073], which enables high charge and discharge rates combined with higher power densities [Zhamu 0034]. Thus, the limitations of claim 12 are met by the prior art combination of Babenko, Veerasamy, and Zhamu. Regarding Claim 13 for the reasons described in claim 12 above , it would be expected that Babenko’s teachings of multilayer foam graphene networks and method for making combined with Veerasamy’s refined pressure for use as an anode material as taught by Zhamu would have the same or sufficiently similar properties as the instantly claimed crystallite size per MPEP 2112. Further regarding Claim 13, Babenko teaches the graphene foam network has a high surface area [Babenko 0005, 0024, 0064, Fig. 4] but is silent to the claimed BET surface area range. Zhamu discloses an anode material comprising multilayer graphene foam [Zhamu 0030, 0049, and throughout] where the surface area is 100 m2/g or more [Zhamu abstract, 0024 and throughout], which overlaps and obviates the claimed range of 50 m2/g to about 150 m2/g. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select Zhamu’s surface area range in modified Babenko’s graphene foam network of claim 12 with the predictable result of graphene suitable for use as an anode material with a surface area sufficient to receive lithium ions [Zhamu abstract, 0051, 0066, 0071-0073], which enables high charge and discharge rates combined with higher power densities [Zhamu 0034]. Regarding Claim 1 4 for the reasons described in claim 12 above, it would be expected that Babenko’s teachings of multilayer foam graphene networks and method for making combined with Veerasamy’s refined pressure for use as an anode material as taught by Zhamu would have the same or sufficiently similar properties as the instantly claimed incommensurate stacking occupancy per MPEP 2112. Regarding Claim 1 5 for the reasons described in claim 12 above, it would be expected that Babenko’s teachings of multilayer foam graphene networks and method for making combined with Veerasamy’s refined pressure for use as an anode material as taught by Zhamu would have the same or sufficiently similar properties as the instantly claimed crystallite size per MPEP 2112. Regarding Claim 1 6 for the reasons described in claim 12 above, it would be expected that Babenko’s teachings of multilayer foam graphene networks and method for making combined with Veerasamy’s refined pressure for use as an anode material as taught by Zhamu would have the same or sufficiently similar properties as the instantly claimed I2D/IG per MPEP 2112. Regarding Claim 1 7 for the reasons described in claim 12 above, it would be expected that Babenko’s teachings of multilayer foam graphene networks and method for making combined with Veerasamy’s refined pressure for use as an anode material as taught by Zhamu would have the same or sufficiently similar properties as the instantly claimed FWHM of Raman 2D band per MPEP 2112. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1681 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8:30-5 EST . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Miriam Stagg can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5256 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /M. T. LEONARD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724