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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I invention with species A1 (claims 1-12 and 20) in the reply filed on 10/24/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 13-19 are thus withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and a non-elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/24/2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: instant specification describes the “a carbon hybridization ratio Psp3/Psp2 of at least about 0.0”, and “a carbon hybridization ratio Psp3/Psp2 of not greater than about 5.0” (see instant filed specification in the published application US2023/0278870 para. [0050]). But claim 10 recited range of a carbon hybridization ratio Psp3/Psp2 of at least about 4.0 encompass ranges outside of such described range of not being more than 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-12 and 20 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. In this case, claim 1and 20 respectively recite “nanomaterial” and “nanosphere”, but one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what dimension or size of material or sphere can be considered as “nanomaterial” or nanosphere, such as 1-100 nm or 5-500 nm or 100-1000nm? Instant specification does not give a clear explanation what size of dimension of material or sphere being nanomaterial or nanosphere either. Therefore, such limitations render claim indefiniteness. All claim 1’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 4-9 and 20 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. In this case, claim 4-9 and 20 recite chlorine content being at least 2% or not being greater than 50%, or recite the carbon content being at least 60%, or not greater than 99%, or recite the oxygen content being at least 1% or not greater than about 35% based on elemental analysis of the carbon-based nanomaterial, but such chlorine content, oxygen content and carbon content has no basis, such as being mol percentage, weight percentage of volume percentage. Therefore, such content(s) renders claim indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a) (1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tang et al. (CN105600780) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been used for citations hereof).
Tang et al. teaches chlorine-doped graphene quantum dots wherein such chlorine-doped graphene quantum dots obtained via combustion a carbon containing material and a chlorine material (chloroform), followed ultrasonic liquid phase exfoliating of (para. [0009], [0010]-[0012],[0021], [0022]). Since any physical or chemical process including the ultrasonic liquid phase exfoliating has a maximum conversion less than 100%, therefore, not all of such chlorine-doped carbon nanospheres will be converted to chlorine-doped graphene quantum dots. Hence. Tang et al. disclosed chlorine-doped graphene quantum dots comprising chlorine doped carbon nanospheres. Since Tang et al. disclosed graphene quantum dots read onto the instantly claimed carbon nanomaterial.
Regarding claim 1, as for the claimed “formed from a forming mixture comprising a gas mixture and a chlorine powder, wherein the gas mixture comprises a carbon-based gas, an oxygen gas, and a hydrogen gas”, such limitation is a product by process limitation, “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see MPEP§ 2113). In the instant case, Tang et al. already teaches a same or substantially the same carbon nanomaterial as that of instantly claimed.
Claim 2-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tang et al. (CN105600780) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been used for citations hereof) as applied above, and in view of Zhou (Facile synthesis of halogenated carbon quantum dots as an important intermediate for surface modification, RSC Adv., 2013, 3, 9625–9628).
Regarding claim 2-3, Tang et al. does not expressly teach the chlorine doped graphene quantum dots diameter. However, it is well-known in the art that a chlorine doped carbon quantum dots having diameter about 3-5 nanometers as shown by Zhou (page 9625 2nd last para.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known carbon quantum dot size as shown by Zhou to modify the chlorine doped graphene quantum dots because applying a known technique of such quantum dot diameter to a known product of chlorine doped graphene quantum dot of Tang et al. for improvement would yield predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 4-9 and 20, Tang et al doe not expressly teach the claimed chlorine content being at least 2% or not being greater than 50%, or the claimed carbon content being at least 60%, or not greater than 99%, or the claimed oxygen content being at least 1% or not greater than about 35% based on elemental analysis of the carbon-based nanomaterial.
Zhou et al. teaches a halogenated carbon quantum dots (CQDs), specifically chlorine doped CQDs(Cl-CQDs) having chlorine content of 5.36%, carbon content of 67.801 and oxygen content of 26.84 based on elemental analysis of such Cl-CQDs material. (page 9625 right col. 2nd para., page 9626 scheme 1, table 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known chlorine content, carbon content and oxygen content in a chlorine doped carbon quantum dot as shown by Zhou to modify the chlorine doped graphene quantum dots of Tang et al. because by doing so can help provide chlorine doped graphene quantum dots as useful rection intermediate thus providing an alternative source for further functionalization of chlorine doped carbon (specifically) graphene quantum dots as suggested by Zhou (page 9627 left col. 3rd para.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known chlorine content, carbon content and oxygen content in a chlorine doped carbon quantum dot as shown by Zhou to modify the chlorine doped graphene quantum dots of Tang et al. because applying a known technique of such chlorine content, carbon content and oxygen content in a chloride doped quantum dot to a known product of chlorine doped graphene quantum dot for improvement would yield predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Claim 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tang et al. (CN105600780) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been used for citations hereof) as applied above, and in view of Zhang (Impact of Chlorine Functionalization on High-Mobility Chemical Vapor Deposition Grown Graphene).
Regarding claim 11 and 12, Tang et al does not expressly teach “a carbon hybridization ratio Psp3/Psp2 of not greater than about 5.0” or “D/G ratio not greater than about 0.5”.
Zhang teaches chlorine functionalized (i.e. doped) graphene having ID/IG ratio (i.e. D/G ratio) being 0.16 (page 7263 left col. last para., page 7264 left col. last para. -right col. first para. Fig. 2A, page 7268 first para., Fig. 5 A and B), and a carbon hybridization ratio p3/ sp2 (i.e. Psp3/Psp2) being 0.06 or 0.21 (page 7268 last para. -page 7269 right col first para., Fig. S1-S2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well known D/G ratio and hybridization ratio of p3/ sp2 as shown by Zhang to modify the chlorine doped graphene quantum dot because doing so can help control the interaction between the carbon basal plane with chlorine thus graphene crystal structure can be largely maintained as suggested by Zhang (page 7268-page 7269 right col. first para. Fig. 5-6).
Claim 1-3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sorensen et al. (US 2014/0335010 A1) in view of Tang et al. (CN105600780) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been used for citations hereof).
Sorensen teaches a method of producing graphene powder having particle size of 35 to 250 nm (para. [0026], [0032]), wherein such powder comprising spherical particles (Fig. 6-7, para. [0052]). Sorensen also teaches a process for producing such graphene powder ( i.e. a carbon based nanomaterial) comprising providing a mixture comprising a combustible carbon-containing material and an oxidizing agent for graphene; and detonating said mixture at a temperature of at least 3000 K (i.e., about 2726.85°C), wherein the carbon containing material is a hydrocarbon, particularly preferably acetylene (i.e., a carbon-based gas, as well as a hydrogen containing gas, i.e., a hydrogen gas), and the oxidizing agent is selected from O2, N2O, NO, and mixtures thereof (i.e., an oxygen gas) ( claim 1, para. [0027], [0028]).
Regarding claim 1, Sorensen et al. does not expressly teach the obtained nanosphere being doped with chlorine.
Tang et al. has been described as above. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt chlorine as shown by Tang et al. to modify the graphene powder of Sorensen et al. because by doing so can help obtaining a chlorine doped graphene (comprising chlorine doped nanospheres) with improved energy levels as suggested by Tang et al. (para. [0021], [0022]).
As for the claimed “formed from a forming mixture comprising a gas mixture and a chlorine powder, wherein the gas mixture comprises a carbon-based gas, an oxygen gas, and a hydrogen gas”, such limitation is a product by process limitation, “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see MPEP§ 2113). In the instant case, Sorensen et al. in view of Tang et al. already teaches a same or substantially the same carbon nanomaterial as that of instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 2-3, Sorensen et al. teaches such limitations as discussed above.
Regarding claim 10-11, Sorensen et al does not expressly teach “a carbon hybridization ratio Psp3/Psp2 of at least about 4.0 or of not greater than about 5.0” or “D/G ratio not greater than about 0.5”.
However, Sorensen et al already teaches a substantially the same process as that instant application for combusting a gas mixture containing a carbon, oxygen and hydrogen under substantially the same temperature as that of instant application (see instant filed specification in the published application US2023/0278870 para.[0006], [0007], [0028], [0037]), while Tang et al suggests that chlorine containing material can be added into such mixture for combusting to form a chlorine doped graphene. Therefore, Sorensen et al. in view of Tang et al. discloses a substantially the same process of producing a same or substantially the same carbon-based nano material doped with chlorine as that of instant application, therefore, same or substantially the same properties as that of instantly claimed, i.e. “a carbon hybridization ratio Psp3/Psp2 of at least about 4.0”, “a carbon hybridization ratio Psp3/Psp2 of not greater than about 5.0” and “D/G ratio not greater than about 0.5” as those of instantly claimed would be expected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights