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 .
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.
Claims 14-19 and 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen et al. (US 2014/0335010 A1) (Sorensen) in view of Kim et al. (“Doping characteristics of iodine on as-grown chemical vapor deposited graphene on Pt”, 2015) (Kim).
Regarding claims 14 and 27-28, Sorensen teaches a process for high-yield production of graphene via detonation of carbon-containing material (Sorensen, Title; Abstract), comprising providing within an enclosed vessel a mixture comprising a combustible carbon-containing material and an oxidizing agent for said carbon-containing material; and detonating said mixture within said vessel at a temperature of at least 3000 K (i.e., about 2726.85°C), which overlaps with the range of the presently claimed (Sorensen, claim 1), 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) (Sorensen, [0027]), and the oxidizing agent is selected from O2, N2O, NO, and mixtures thereof (i.e., an oxygen gas) (Sorensen, [0028]). Further, Sorensen teaches the mixture may contain other fuels including hydrogen capable of generating heat through combustion or detonation along with the carbon-containing material (i.e., a hydrogen gas) (Sorensen, [0026]). Further, Sorensen depicts graphene powder prepared by detonation in Fig. 7 wherein the shape of the powder is spherical and size is in the nanometer range (i.e., a method of forming a carbon-based nanomaterial composition, the method comprising supplying a gas mixture comprising a carbon-based gas, an oxygen gas, and a hydrogen gas, and igniting the gas mixture to form the carbon-based nanomaterial composition, wherein the carbon-based nanomaterial composition comprises nanospheres).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
However, Sorensen does not explicitly teach (a) a forming mixture comprising the gas mixture and an iodine powder or (b) wherein the carbon-based nanomaterial composition comprises iodine doped nanospheres.
With respect to the difference, Kim teaches doping chemical vapor deposited graphene with iodine (Kim, Title; Abstract). Kim specifically teaches the doping of the graphene was performed by exposing graphene to saturated iodine vapor produced from iodine powder inside a sealed vessel (Kim, p. 471, Section 2. Experimental Methods, Paragraph 1).
As Kim expressly teaches, doping graphene with iodine significantly increases the work function of the monolayer graphene, wherein work-function as a function of iodine composition demonstrated the interplay between the chemical state and composition of iodine polyiodides species that underpins the charge transfer efficiency of the dopant (Kim, p. 475, 4. Conclusion).
Kim is analogous art as it is drawn to graphene materials formed using a chemical vapor deposition method (Kim, Abstract).
In light of the motivation of doping graphene with iodine as disclosed by Kim, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the graphene nanospheres of Sorensen by doping with iodine powder in order to significantly increase the work function of the monolayer of graphene, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Sorensen, in view of Kim, teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the graphene particles formed from detonation aggregate into particles having an average size of between about 35 to about 250 nm (Sorensen, [0032]), which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, Sorensen, in view of Kim, teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the amount of iodine after doping is around 4% (Kim, p. 475, 4. Conclusion), which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Sorensen, in view of Kim, teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the ratio of C to O in the formed graphene is 49:1 (Sorensen, [0049]). Therefore, the elemental percentage of carbon is 49/(49+1) = 98% and the elemental percentage of oxygen is 1/(49+1) = 2%, which fall within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 21-22 and 25-26, Sorensen, in view of Kim, teaches the method of claim 14, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the carbon-based nanomaterial composition comprises a carbon hybridization ratio Psp3/Psp2 of at least about 1.0, where Psp3 is the percent of carbon within the carbon-based nanomaterial composition having a sp3 hybridization and Psp2 is the percent of carbon within the carbon-based nanomaterial composition having a sp2 hybridization;
wherein the carbon-based nanomaterial composition comprises a carbon hybridization ratio Psp3/Psp2 of not greater than about 5.0, where Psp3 is the percent of carbon within the carbon-based nanomaterial composition having a sp3 hybridization and Psp2 is the percent of carbon within the carbon-based nanomaterial composition having a sp2 hybridization;
wherein the carbon-based nanomaterial composition comprises an aspect ratio of not greater than about 100; and
wherein the carbon-based nanomaterial composition comprises an aspect ratio of at least about 1.
However, as Sorensen, in view of Kim, teaches the method of forming graphene nanomaterials that is substantially identical to the claimed method of forming a carbon-based nanomaterial composition, the graphene nanomaterials of Sorensen, in view of Kim would inherently have:
wherein the carbon-based nanomaterial composition comprises a carbon hybridization ratio Psp3/Psp2 of at least about 1.0, where Psp3 is the percent of carbon within the carbon-based nanomaterial composition having a sp3 hybridization and Psp2 is the percent of carbon within the carbon-based nanomaterial composition having a sp2 hybridization;
wherein the carbon-based nanomaterial composition comprises a carbon hybridization ratio Psp3/Psp2 of not greater than about 5.0, where Psp3 is the percent of carbon within the carbon-based nanomaterial composition having a sp3 hybridization and Psp2 is the percent of carbon within the carbon-based nanomaterial composition having a sp2 hybridization;
wherein the carbon-based nanomaterial composition comprises an aspect ratio of not greater than about 100; and
wherein the carbon-based nanomaterial composition comprises an aspect ratio of at least about 1.
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). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Sorensen, in view of Kim, teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the intensity ratio of the D and G bands (D/G) in the graphene is between 1.33 to 0.28 (Sorensen, [0051]), which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 27 and 28, Sorensen, in view of Kim, teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the combustion temperature is at least 3000 K (i.e., 2726.85 °C) (Sorensen, [0007]), which overlaps with the range of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Sorensen, in view of Kim, teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the peak detonation pressure for embodiments having a molar ratio of O2 to C2H2 of 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8 is 13.8 atm (i.e., 202.8 PSI), 14.3 atm (210.2 PSI), and 14.3 atm (210.2 PSI), respectively (Sorensen, Table 1), which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 31, 32, and 34, Sorensen, in view of Kim, teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the molar ratio of oxidizing agent to carbon containing agent is between about 0.1 to about 1.5 (Sorensen, [0029]), wherein the carbon containing agent is particularly preferably acetylene (Sorensen, [0027]). Therefore, the molar ratio of carbon containing agent to the total moles of gas in the mixture is between 0.91:1 (i.e., 1/(1+0.1) = 0.9; i.e., 0.9:1) to 0.4:1 (i.e., 1/(1.5+1) = 0.4; i.e., 0.4:1), and the molar ratio of oxygen gas to the total moles of gas in the mixture is 0.09:1 (i.e., (0.1/(1+0.1) = 0.09; i.e., 0.09:1) to 0.6:1 (i.e., 1.5/(1.5+1) = 0.6; i.e., 0.6:1), which overlap with the ranges of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 33, Sorensen, in view of Kim, teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the reaction mixture may comprise other fuels, such as hydrogen, capable of generating heat through combustion or detonation along with the carbon containing material (Sorensen, [0026]).
Although there are no disclosures on the amounts of hydrogen gas at a molar ratio HGmol/GMmol of at least about 0.01 and not greater than about 0.55, where the HGmol is equal to the moles of the hydrogen gas in the gas mixture and GMmol is equal to the total moles of gas in the gas mixture as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of hydrogen gas, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to achieve the desired heat generated through combustion or detonation.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s amendments in the abstract and claim 31, the previous specification and 112b rejection for claim 31 are withdrawn from the record.
Applicant primarily argues:
“Sorensen discloses a method of producing graphene particles from a mixture of carbon-containing compounds and oxidizing agents. (Sorensen, Abstract). Kim discloses a method of doping iodine onto a monolayer of graphene material. (Kim, Abstract). However, the combination of Sorensen and Kim fails to disclose, teach, or even suggest a carbon-based nanomaterial composition including iodine doped carbon-based nanospheres is formed from igniting a reaction mixture that includes a gas mixture and iodine power as described in claim 14.
The Office admits that "Sorensen does not explicitly teach (a) a forming mixture comprising the gas mixture and an iodine powder or (b) wherein the carbon-based nanomaterial composition comprises iodine doped nanospheres." (Office Action, page 5, emphasis added). To allegedly cure this deficiency, the Office asserts that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dope the graphene described in Sorensen using the method as disclosed by Kim. (Office Action, page 5). However, as recognized by the Office (Office Action, page 6), Kim discloses a specific doping method of "exposing graphene to saturated iodine vapor." (Kim, page 475 & Office Action, page 6, emphasis added). Kim does not disclose, teach, or even suggest igniting a reaction mixture that includes a gas mixture and iodine power to form iodine doped nanospheres as recited in claim 14.”
Remarks, p. 7
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
It is noted that while Kim does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Kim is used as a teaching reference, namely to teach doping with iodine from iodine powder, in order to significantly increase the wok function of the monolayer graphene, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicant further argues:
“Further, Sorensen does not disclose the formation of nanospheres to be doped by any method, including the method described in Kim. To the contrary, Sorensen discloses the formation of "graphene particles." (Sorensen, ¶¶ [0030], emphasis added). Claim 14 recites a carbon-based nanomaterial composition that includes sulfur doped nanospheres.
Applicants specifically note that one of skill in the art would understand that "particles" of graphene as described in Sorensen are in no way the same as, or equivalent to, "nanospheres" as recited in claim 1. "Nanospheres" are a specific shape, while "particles" generally refer to materials with a different, non-structured geometry. The Office suggests that since Sorensen includes a figure that depicts graphene powder, which would be understood to be spherical and have a size in the nanometer range, the figure's
depiction would meet the "nanosphere" limitation. Again, Applicants respectfully disagree with this assertion and note that one of skill in the art would understand that graphene "powder" as shown in Sorensen is in no way the same as, or equivalent to, "nanospheres" as recited in claim 14. Again, "Nanospheres" are a specific shape, while "powder" also generally refers to materials with a different, non-structured geometry.”
Remarks, p. 7-8
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
While applicant argues that Sorensen does not teach nanospheres and that Fig. 7 does not meet the “nanosphere” limitation, it is the examiner’s position that as Fig. 7 does display particles that are spherical in shape, with or without the explicit teaching that the powder is composed of nanospheres, it is clear that the geometric shape of the particles is spherical. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that Sorensen does teach the nanosphere limitation.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Catriona Corallo whose telephone number is (571)272-8957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/C.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732