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 with traverse of Group I and Species (b), Claims 1-11 and 13, in the reply filed on 13 November 2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the grounds that the examination of all the claims is not believed to create an undue burden on the USPTO, that the subject matter among the groups is not independent and distinct as required by statute, and that different classifications are not independent adequate grounds for restriction since the USPTO has historically examined applications containing multiple sets of claims.
This is not found persuasive because for purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the Examiner may be prima facie shown if the Examiner appropriately explains a separate classification, separate status in the art when they are classifiable together, or a different field of search (as defined in MPEP 808.02). The mailed restriction clearly meets this requirement. While that prima facie showing may be rebutted by appropriate showings or evidence by the Applicant, an unsupported statement by Applicant that no serious burden would exist in the examination of all pending claims does not qualify as “appropriate showing’ or “evidence”. See MPEP 803.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12 and 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and Species (a), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 13 November 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that the applicant has listed a large number of documents for consideration in the information disclosure statements submitted in this application. As noted in MPEP 2001.05, if information is not material, there is no duty to disclose the information to the Office. Information is not material unless it comes within the definition of 37 CFR 1.56(b)(1) or (2). As noted in MPEP 2004 (Section 13), it is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. It is suggested that applicants eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant' s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. Consideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means that the examiner has considered the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search, 609.05(b). Foreign language documents have been considered for relevance in light of information provided by applicant under guidelines in MPEP 609.04(a)(III).
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.
Claims 2-11 and 13 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.
The term “about” in claims 2-11 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The quantity associated with the nanosphere diameter (claims 2-3), nitrogen content (claims 4-5), carbon content (claims 6-7), oxygen content (claims 8-9), hybridization ratio (claims 10-11), and D/G ratio (claim 13) of claims 1-11 and 13 is therefore rendered indefinite by the use of the term "about".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen (US 2014/0335010) in view of Yan (CN 109200059).
Regarding Claim 1, Sorensen discloses graphene particles with an average size of 35-250 nm (graphene particles with a size of 35-250 nm meets the limitation of a carbon-based nanomaterial composition; [0007], [0032]) formed from a carbon-containing mixture of a C1-C12 hydrocarbon compound (C1-C12 hydrocarbon compound meets the limitation of a carbon-based gas) and oxygen gas [0008]. Sorensen further discloses the reaction mixture may comprise other fuels, such as hydrogen [0026]. The graphene particles of Sorensen are nanospheres (Fig. 4, Fig. 6, Fig. 7). Sorensen further discloses the carbon-containing mixture may comprise a solid or liquid that is capable of being finely dispersed within the reaction vessel [0027].
Sorensen is silent to the solid being a nitrogen powder and the resulting nanospheres being nitrogen doped.
Yan discloses nitrogen-doped carbon nanospheres formed from adding melamine to a carbon precursor (melamine meets the limitation of a nitrogen powder; [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sorensen to incorporate the teachings of Yan to incorporate melamine as the solid for the claimed carbon-based nanomaterial with a reasonable expectation of success for preparing a carbon-based nanomaterial comprising nitrogen doped nanospheres, absent a showing of unexpected results, because Sorensen discloses a solid is capable of being finely dispersed in the reaction vessel [0027] and Yan clearly teaches it is well-known to add melamine to a carbon precursor to prepare nitrogen doped carbon nanospheres [0024].
Regarding Claim 2, Yan discloses the particle size of the nitrogen-doped nanospheres ranges from 20 to 200 nm [0015], which meets the limitation of at least 5 nm.
Regarding Claim 3, Yan discloses the particle size of the nitrogen-doped nanospheres ranges from 20 to 200 nm [0015], which meets the limitation of not greater than 500 nm.
Regarding Claim 4, Yan discloses the nitrogen-doped carbon nanospheres have a nitrogen doping ratio of 0.5-15 at% [0037]; where at% refers to the percentage of atoms [0050].
Regarding the nitrogen content in claim 4, it appears that 0.5-15 at% taught by Yan overlaps the claimed range of at least 2% based on elemental analysis of the carbon-based nanomaterial composition such that the range taught by Yan obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 5, Yan discloses the nitrogen-doped carbon nanospheres have a nitrogen doping ratio of 0.5-15 at% (0.5-15 at% meets the limitation of not greater than 50% based on elemental analysis of the carbon-based nanomaterial composition; [0037]).
Regarding Claim 6, Yan discloses the nitrogen-doped carbon nanospheres used in this invention have a nitrogen doping ratio of 0.5-15 at% [0037], such that the nitrogen-doped carbon nanospheres of Yan have a carbon content of 85-99.5 at%, as the nitrogen-doped carbon nanospheres of Yan appear to only contain elemental carbon and nitrogen (85-99.5 at% meets the limitation of at least 60% based on elemental analysis of the carbon-based nanomaterial composition).
Regarding Claim 7, Yan discloses the nitrogen-doped carbon nanospheres used in this invention have a nitrogen doping ratio of 0.5-15 at% [0037], such that the nitrogen-doped carbon nanospheres of Yan have a carbon content of 85-99.5 at%, as the nitrogen-doped carbon nanospheres of Yan appear to only contain elemental carbon and nitrogen.
Regarding the carbon content in claim 7, it appears that 85-99.5 at% taught by Yan overlaps the claimed range of not greater than 99% based on elemental analysis of the carbon-based nanomaterial composition such that the range taught by Yan obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 8, Sorensen discloses the XPS spectrum in FIG. 12(a) indicates that the graphene is very pure because the actual ratio of C to O is about 49:1 [0049], which is equivalent to 2% oxygen, and therefore, meets the limitation of at least 1% based on elemental analysis of the carbon-based nanomaterial composition.
Regarding Claim 9, Sorensen discloses the XPS spectrum in FIG. 12(a) indicates that the graphene is very pure because the actual ratio of C to O is about 49:1 [0049], which is equivalent to 2% oxygen, and therefore, meets the limitation of not greater than 35% based on elemental analysis of the carbon-based nanomaterial composition.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen (US 2014/0335010) in view of Yan (CN 109200059) and Osswald (“Control of sp2/sp3 Carbon Ratio and Surface Chemistry of Nanodiamond Powders by Selective Oxidation in Air”).
Regarding Claim 10, Sorensen and Yan teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Sorensen discloses the intensity of the D-band decreases with increasing O2 content [0051].
Sorensen is silent to a carbon hybridization ratio Psp3/Psp2.
Osswald discloses an sp3/sp2 ratio of 4.3 for UD98 as-received (4.3 meets the limitation of at least 4.0; pg. 11640, Table 2), wherein UD98 samples mainly consist of nanodiamond particles and amorphous carbon (nanodiamond particles and amorphous carbon meet the limitation of a carbon-based nanomaterial; Table 1), and the sp3/sp2 ratio may be adjusted based on oxidation conditions (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sorensen to incorporate the teachings of Osswald to teach a carbon hybridization ratio Psp3/Psp2 of at least about 4.0, 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, because the sp3/sp2 ratio of a carbon-based nanomaterial may be adjusted based on oxidation conditions, as recognized by Osswald (Abstract), and Sorensen recognizes changes in D/G ratio based on changes in oxygen content [0051].
Regarding Claim 11, Sorensen discloses the intensity of the D-band decreases with increasing O2 content [0051].
Sorensen is silent to a carbon hybridization ratio Psp3/Psp2.
Osswald discloses an sp3/sp2 ratio of 4.3 for UD98 as-received (4.3 meets the limitation of not greater than 5.0; pg. 11640, Table 2), wherein UD98 samples mainly consist of nanodiamond particles and amorphous carbon (nanodiamond particles and amorphous carbon meet the limitation of a carbon-based nanomaterial; Table 1), and the sp3/sp2 ratio may be adjusted based on oxidation conditions (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sorensen to incorporate the teachings of Osswald to teach a carbon hybridization ratio Psp3/Psp2 of not great 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, because the sp3/sp2 ratio of a carbon-based nanomaterial may be adjusted based on oxidation conditions, as recognized by Osswald (Abstract), and Sorensen recognizes changes in D/G ratio based on changes in oxygen content [0051].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen (US 2014/0335010) in view of Yan (CN 109200059) and Huh (KR 2017044836).
Regarding Claim 13, Sorensen and Yan teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Sorensen discloses the intensity of the D-band decreases with increasing O2 content [0051]. Sorensen further discloses an intensity ratio of the D- and G-bands in the carbon graphene nanosheets (GNs) decreases from 1.33 to 0.28 for 0.4 to 0.8 O2/C2H2 ratio [0051].
Sorensen is silent to the carbon-based nanomaterial composition comprises a D/G ratio of at least about 2.0.
Huh discloses nitrogen-doped carbon nanospheres (N-doped d-MCN) with a D/G ratio of 3.31 [0087].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sorensen to incorporate the teachings of Huh to produce a carbon-based nanomaterial composition comprises a D/G ratio of at least about 2.0, because Sorensen teaches the D/G ratio can be easily optimized by a change in O2 content [0051], absent a showing of unexpected results through routine experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLONE ELZABETH SIMKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/S.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735