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 .
This application is in response an amendment filed on 04/24/2026.
Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are pending. Applicant has amended claims 1, 4-7, cancelled claims 8-9 and claims 14-20 are withdrawn as non-elected claims. Claims 1-7 and 10-13 are under examination.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains less than 50 words and uses the implied phrase “the present disclosure relates to” in line 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5 recites “carbon nanospheres doped with oxygen” which is not supported in the applicant specifications. Although applicant specification throughout discloses oxygen doped nanospheres (for example see paragraphs 0009-0011, 0020, 0046, 0060, 0006, etc., ) wherein carbon-based nanomaterial include carbon-based nanospheres (see paragraph 0060) but no where in the specification discloses “carbon nanospheres doped with oxygen”. Clarification and/or corrections are required.
Claims 4-7 recites “at.%” is not supported in applicant specification. Further, applicant specification does not disclose any units including “at.%”. Clarification and/or corrections are required.
9. Claims 2-3 and 6-7 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.
Claims 2-3 recites “the oxygen doped nanospheres” which is not clear if oxygen doped nanospheres is same or different from “carbon nanospheres doped with oxygen” which is recited in claim 1 and claim 2-3 depend from claim 1. Further “the oxygen doped nanospheres” lack of antecedent basis. Clarification is requested.
Claims 6-7, recites “carbon content” which is not clear asto if a carbon content is of carbon-based nanomaterial or carbon-based gas as recited in claim 1. Clarification is requested. For purpose of examination, the examiner interprets carbon content of carbon-based nanomaterial.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ye et al (NPL: “Nitrogen and oxygen-codoped carbon nanospheres for excellent specific capacitance and cyclic stability supercapacitor electrodes, Chemical Engineering Journal, vol.330, 15 December 2017, pages 1166-1173).
Regarding claim 1, Ye discloses nitrogen and oxygen codoped carbon nanospheres (see title, abstract, see section 2.3 on page 1167, i.e., reads on wherein the carbon-based nanomaterial composition comprises oxygen-doped carbon nanospheres).
Although Ye does not explicitly teach the oxygen doped nanospheres are formed from a forming mixture comprising a gas mixture and a solid oxygen powder, wherein the gas mixture consist of a carbon-based gas, an oxygen gas, and a hydrogen gas as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven 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”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Ye meets the requirement of the claimed product, Ye clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Regarding claims 2-3, Ye teaches the carbon-based nanomaterial composition of claim 1, wherein the carbon spheres have diameters in the range of 130 nm (see abstract and results and discussion-left column on page 1168), which fall within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 4-5, Ye teaches the carbon-based nanomaterial composition of claim 1, wherein carbon-based nanomaterial composition comprises an oxygen content of at least 3.83 to 11.71 atomic% based on elemental composition of PANI/SA conducted using XPS (i.e., carbon-based nanomaterial, see table 1, see page 1167-1168) which falls within claimed range of oxygen content based on elemental analysis.
Regarding claims 6-7, Ye teaches the carbon-based nanomaterial composition of claim 1, wherein carbon-based nanomaterial composition comprises a carbon content of 84.67 to 88 atomic% based on elemental composition of PANI/SA using XPS (i.e., carbon-based nanomaterial, see table 1) which falls within claimed range of carbon content based on elemental analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al (NPL: “Nitrogen and oxygen-codoped carbon nanospheres for excellent specific capacitance and cyclic stability supercapacitor electrodes, Chemical Engineering Journal, vol.330, 15 December 2017, pages 1166-1173) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 10-11, Ye teaches carbon-based nanomaterial composition of claim 1 applied above, wherein as oxygen doped carbon nanosphere of Ye are substantially identical to the claimed carbon-based nanomaterial composition and further discusses carbonization (pages 1169-1171, fig 3, 4, table 2), it is clear that oxygen-doped carbon nanospheres of Ye would inherently comprise a carbon hybridization ratio Psp3/Psp2 of at least about 4.0 of claim 10 and not greater than about 5.0 of claim 11, 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.
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 12-13, Ye discloses D/G ratio measured by Raman spectra of the PANI/
SA-600, PANI/SA-700, PANI/SA-800, and PANI/SA-900 are 1.02,0.99,0.98,.096 respectively (see page 1168-Right column, figure 2a).
Ye does not explicitly disclose D/G ratio of not greater than 0.5 of claim 12 and of at least about 2.0 of claim 13 as presently claimed.
However, since Ye discloses carbon-based nanomaterial composition similar to presently claimed invention and further discloses D/G ratio measured by Raman spectra of the PANI/SA-600, PANI/SA-700, PANI/SA-800, and PANI/SA-900 are 1.02,0.99,0.98,.096 respectively (see page 1168-Right column, figure 2a), it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges that includes D/G ratio of not greater than 0.5 and at least of about 2.0 through optimization process by routine experimentation since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art which would provide excellent capacitive performances as taught by Ye (see page 1168-right column-second paragraph). See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), see MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant’s arguments, see applicant remarks on pages 6-9, filed on 04/24/2026 with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 over Ye, et. al. (NPL: "Nitrogen and oxygen- codoped carbon nanospheres for excellent specific capacitance and cyclic stability supercapacitor electrodes") and Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ye, et. al. (NPL: "Nitrogen and oxygen- codoped carbon nanospheres for excellent specific capacitance and cyclic stability supercapacitor electrodes") are not persuasive and therefore the rejections have been maintained.
Applicant mainly argues that Ye specifically describes carbon nanospheres that are co-doped with both nitrogen and oxygen and that claim 1 does not includes doped with both nitrogen and oxygen. In another words, doping with multiple material is not disclosed in claim 1.
However, Claim 1 discloses carbon-based nanomaterial composition comprises nanosphere doped with oxygen and Ye discloses co-doping with both oxygen and nitrogen but Claim 1 does not exclude co-doping with other elements as claim 1 recites “comprising” which is open ended language which can include other elements or materials. Therefore Ye teaches presently claimed invention. In addition Ye discloses doping of heteroatoms such as nitrogen and oxygen, in carbon matrix, can further enhance the energy density and specific capacitance of the carbon material electrodes (see page 1166). Further examiner does not find support for “carbon nanospheres doped with oxygen” although there is support for “oxygen doped with nanospheres” as disclosed above in the rejections therefore for examining purpose examiner has interpreted the claim language as oxygen doped nanospheres. Therefore the rejections are maintained using Ye reference.
Further, amendment to abstract does not overcome specification objection of record as abstract is still less than 50 words. See the rejection above.
Further, amendment to claims4-5 overcomes the 112(b) rejections of record. Further 112(b) rejection of claims 6-7 is maintained and amended claimed limitation necessitated new 112(b) rejection as set forth above.
Amended claimed limitation necessitated 112(a) rejections as set forth above.
Conclusion
15. 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 SMITA S PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5837. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-W.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached on 5712705713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SMITA S PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 06/10/2026
Prosecution Insights