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 05/26/2026.
Claims 1-13 and 21-25 are pending. Applicant has amended claims 1-9, 12-13, added new claims 21-25, and cancelled claims 14-20.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-9 and 21-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is suggested to amend “wherein the” to “wherein the sodium doped nanospheres have the” to ensure proper antecedent basis and to ensure consistency in the claim 2 lines 1-2, Claim 3 lines 1-2 and claim 21 line 1.
It is suggested to amend “(XPS)” to “(XPS) of the carbon-based nanomaterial composition” to provide clarity and to ensure consistency in the claim 4-line 3.
It is suggested to amend “sodium to “sodium based on elemental analysis conducted using x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) of the carbon-based nanomaterial composition” to provide clarity and to ensure consistency in the claim 5-line 3.
It is suggested to amend “carbon” to “carbon based on elemental analysis using x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) of the carbon-based nanomaterial composition” to provide clarity and to ensure consistency in the claim 6-line 2, claim 7-line 2, claim 22 line 3.
It is suggested to amend “oxygen to “oxygen based on elemental analysis conducted using x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) of the carbon-based nanomaterial composition” to provide clarity and to ensure consistency in the claim 8-line 2, claim 9-line 2, claim 23-line 2, claim 24-line 2.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 21-25 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, 4-9, and 22-25 recites “60 atomic% carbon, 1.5 atomic% oxygen, 2 atomic% sodium, 50 atomic% sodium, 97 atomic% carbon, 0.5 atomic% oxygen, 1 atomic% oxygen, 85 atomic% carbon, 97 atomic% carbon, 0.5 atomic% oxygen, 1 atomic% oxygen, 2 atomic% sodium, 30 atomic% sodium but such atomic percentage of oxygen, carbon, sodium are described in the original disclosure. Rather instant specification only generic discloses such sodium content, carbon content and oxygen content elemental analysis based on XPS (see filed instant specification paragraphs 0044-0047).
Regarding dependent claims 2-3, 10-13 and 21 these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above and are rejected for the same rationale.
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.
8. Claim 1-13 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mahiko et al. (WO2020/195997-IDS cited reference by applicant, for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2022/0185676 has been used for citations hereof) in view of Kohl (WO2020/073102, for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US PGPUB No.: 2021/0380415 has been used for citations hereof).
Regarding claims 1-3, 8-9, 21, 23-24, Mahiko et al teaches a heteroatom-doped (specifically sodium-doped) nanodiamond (abstract, paragraph 0042) comprising from 70 to 99% by mass of carbon (paragraphs 0029, 0054) wherein such nanodiamond having a shape preferably being spherical, ellipsoidal or polyhedral (paragraphs 0028, 0066, example 9, 12, claim 11-12). Therefore, Mahiko et al. disclosed heteroatom-doped nanodiamond as mentioned above reads onto the instantly claimed a carbon-based nanomaterial comprising sodium doped nanospheres.
Mahiko et al. further teaches the heteroatom-doped nanodiamond having an average diameter of 10 mm or less, preferably 1 mm or less (paragraph 0078, overlaps claimed range 100 nm to not greater than 500 nm, reads on claims 1-3 and 21). 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).
Mahiko discloses carbon content of 70-99 mass% where such carbon content mass content suggesting a carbon atomic percentage overlapping that of instantly claimed carbon atomic content thus a prima facie case of obviousness exist and as far the claimed using XPS, it is noted that this is just a measure method for obtaining carbon content and Mahiko et al already teaches similar carbon content as that of instantly claimed (paragraph 0054, reads on claims 1 and 22). 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).
Mahiko does not explicitly disclose or suggest not greater than 1.5 atomic% oxygen based on elemental analysis conducted using x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS).
However, Kohl discloses graphitic material with hetero-atom including nitrogen, oxygen wherein the hetero-atom being oxygen its content being from about 0 to 20% measured by XPS (paragraphs 0118, 0120, reads on claims 1, 8-9, 23-24). Kohl discloses oxygen content suggesting an overlapping oxygen atomic percentage range as that of instantly claimed thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.05 I). 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).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to adopt such oxygen content as shown by Kohl to modify the carbon nanomaterial of Mahiko et al because by doing so can help provide a graphitic material with high conductivity as suggested by Kohl (paragraph 0134). Furthermore, adopting such well-known technique of oxygen content to modify a known sodium doped carbon nanomaterial containing oxygen for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP 2143 KSR).
Although Mahiko et al and Kohl does not explicitly teach the sodium doped nanospheres are formed from a forming mixture comprising a gas mixture and a sodium powder, wherein the gas mixture comprises 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 Mahiko et al. and Kohl already teaches a same or substantially the same carbon nanomaterial as that of instantly claimed.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 25, Mahiko et al. further discloses the heteroatom-doped nanodiamond comprising a heteroatom (i.e., sodium) content preferably from 0.0001 to 10.0 mass % (paragraphs 0042,0058) wherein such content overlapping with that of instantly claimed sodium content. As far the claimed using XPS, it is noted that this is just a measure method for obtaining sodium content and Mahiko et al already teaches similar carbon content as that of instantly 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 6-7 and 22, Mahiko et al. teaches the heteroatom-doped nanodiamond comprising from 70 to 99% by mass of carbon, more preferably from 80 to 97% by mass (para. [0054], claim 12). As far the claimed using XPS, it is noted that this is just a measure method for obtaining carbon content and Mahiko et al already teaches similar carbon content as that of instantly 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 10-11, Mahiko et al in view of Kohl teaches carbon-based nanomaterial composition of claim 1 applied above, wherein as sodium doped carbon nanosphere of Mahiko is substantially identical to the claimed carbon-based nanomaterial composition, it is clear that sodium-doped carbon nanospheres of Mehiko et al 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, Mahiko et al. further discloses the heteroatom-doped nanodiamond having a ratio (D/G) measured by Raman spectroscopy preferably from 0.2 to 9, wherein D/G ratio overlaps with that of instantly claimed D/G ratio (see paragraphs 0030, 0060). 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).
9. Claim 1-13 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sorensen et al. (US 2014/0335010 A1, IDS cited reference by applicant) in view of Mahiko et al. (WO2020/195997-IDS cited reference by applicant-for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2022/0185676 has been used for citations hereof) and in further view of Kohl (WO2020/073102, for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US PGPUB No.: 2021/0380415 has been used for citations hereof).
Regarding claims 1-3, 8-9, 21 and 23-24, Sorensen teaches graphene powder having particle size of 35 to 250 nm (para. [0026], [0032], reads on claims 1-3), 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]).
Sorensen et al. does not expressly teach the obtained nanosphere being doped with sodium and carbon-based nanomaterial composition comprising a sodium powder and not greater than 1.5 atomic% oxygen based on elemental analysis conducted using x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) of claim 1, at least about 0.5 atomic% of claim 8 and claim 23, not greater than about 1 atomic% of claim 9 and claim 24.
However, Mahiko et al teaches a heteroatom-doped (specifically sodium-doped) nanodiamond (abstract, paragraph 0042) comprising from 70 to 99% by mass of carbon (paragraph 0054, reads on claim 1 carbon content) wherein such nanodiamond having a shape preferably being spherical, ellipsoidal or polyhedral (paragraph 0066, claim 11-12, reads on claim 1 of carbon-based nanomaterial comprises sodium doped nanospheres). Mahiko et al. further teaches the heteroatom-doped nanodiamond having an average diameter of 10 mm or less, preferably 1 mm or less (paragraph 0078, overlaps claimed range 100 nm to not greater than 500 nm, reads on claims 1-3 and 21). In addition, Mahiko et al. also teaches mixing a dry powder of heteroatom containing compound (e.g. sodium containing compound powder, reads on sodium powder of claim 1) under explosive condition (i.e. combustion) for forming such carbon nanomaterial (para. [0071], [0072], [0141]). 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).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known technique of adding sodium containing powder for obtaining a sodium doped carbon nanomaterial as shown by Mahiko et al. to modify the process of producing graphene powder of Sorensen et al. because applying a known technique of adding sodium containing powder obtaining a sodium doped carbon nanomaterial to a known process of producing graphene for improvement would yield predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Sorensen and Mahiko does not explicitly disclose or suggest not greater than 1.5 atomic% oxygen based on elemental analysis conducted using x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) of claim 1, at least about 0.5 atomic% of claim 8 and claim 23, not greater than about 1 atomic% of claim 9 and claim 24.
However, Kohl discloses graphitic material with hetero-atom including nitrogen, oxygen wherein the hetero-atom being oxygen its content being from about 0 to 20% measured by XPS (paragraphs 0118, 0120, reads on claims 1, 8-9, 23-24). Kohl discloses oxygen content suggesting an overlapping oxygen atomic percentage range as that of instantly claimed thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.05 I). As far the claimed using XPS, it is noted that this is just a measure method for obtaining carbon content and Mahiko et al already teaches similar carbon content as that of instantly 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).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to adopt such oxygen content as shown by Kohl to modify the carbon nanomaterial of Mahiko et al and Sorensen because by doing so can help provide a graphitic material with high conductivity as suggested by Kohl (paragraph 0134). Furthermore, adopting such well-known technique of oxygen content to modify a known sodium doped carbon nanomaterial containing oxygen for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP 2143 KSR).
As for the claimed “formed from a forming mixture comprising a gas mixture and a sodium powder, wherein the gas mixture comprises a carbon-based gas, an oxygen gas, and a hydrogen gas”, Sorensen in view of Makiko et al. in view of Kohl already teaches such limitation as discussed above.
Regarding claim 4-5 and 25, Mahiko et al. further discloses the heteroatom-doped nanodiamond comprising a heteroatom content preferably from 0.0001 to 10.0 mass % (para. [0042], [0058], includes sodium), wherein such content overlapping with that of instantly claimed sodium content. As far the claimed using XPS, it is noted that this is just a measure method for obtaining carbon content and Mahiko et al already teaches similar carbon content as that of instantly 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 6-7 and 22, Mahiko et al. teaches the heteroatom-doped nanodiamond comprising from 70 to 99% by mass of carbon, more preferably from 80 to 97% by mass (para. [0054], claim 12). As far the claimed using XPS, it is noted that this is just a measure method for obtaining carbon content and Mahiko et al already teaches similar carbon content as that of instantly 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).
Sorensen teaches the obtained graphene material having a ratio of C to O being 49:1 (para. [0049]). Therefore, the elemental percentage of carbon is 49/(49+1) = 98%. As far the claimed using XPS, it is noted that this is just a measure method for obtaining carbon content and Mahiko et al already teaches similar carbon content as that of instantly 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 10-11, Sorensen in view of Mahiko et al and Kohl does not expressly teach “a carbon hybridization ratio Psp3/Psp2 of at least about 4.0 or of not greater than about 5.0”.
However, Sorensen et al already teaches a substantially the same process as that instant application disclosed above in claim 1 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 US2023/0278867 para.[0006], [0007], [0028], [0037]), while Mahiko et al. teaches that sodium (containing) powder can be added into such mixture for combusting to form a sodium doped carbon based nanomaterial as disclosed above in claim 1 and Kohl discloses content of oxygen. Therefore, Sorensen et al. in view of Mahiko et al. and Kohl discloses a substantially the same process of producing a same or substantially the same carbon-based nano material doped with sodium as that of instant application disclosed above in claim 1, 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” as those of instantly claimed would be expected.
Regarding claims 12-13, Mahiko et al. further discloses the heteroatom-doped nanodiamond having a ratio (D/G) preferably from 0.2 to 9, wherein D/G ratio overlaps with that of instantly claimed D/G ratio (see paragraphs 0030, 0060). 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).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments, see applicant remarks on pages 1-6, filed on 05/26/2026 with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-3 and 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) anticipated or in alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mahiko (WO 2020/195997), rejection of claims 4-5 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mahiko, rejections of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sorensen (US PGPUB No.: 20140335010) are persuasive and therefore the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, amendment to the claims and addition of new claims 21-25 necessitated new ground of rejection of claims 1-13 and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mahiko in view of Kohl (WO2020/073102, for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US PGPUB No.: 2021/0380415 has been used for citations hereof) and rejections of claims 1-13 and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sorensen in view of Mahiko and in further view of Kohl as set forth above. All the arguments are moot in view of new ground of rejections as set forth above.
Firstly, applicant argues that Mahiko and/or Sorensen does not disclosed sodium doped carbon-based nanosphere having an average diameter from at least 100nm to not greater than 500nm. However, Mahiko does discloses broadly sodium doped carbon-based nanospheres having average diameter of less than 10 mm, preferably 1 mm or less (paragraph 0078, overlaps claimed range 100 nm to not greater than 500 nm) and also Sorensen discloses size of 35 to 250 nm (para. [0026], [0032]). Further, applicant argument related to Sorensen teaching graphene nanosheet, it is noted that instant claim recites open-ended language, such as “comprising” which does not limit carbon nanomaterial comprising graphene at all either. Sorensen discloses particle size of 35-250 nm (paragraph 0026, 0032) where such powder comprising spherical particles (i.e., carbon nanosphere, fig. 6-7, paragraph 0052). Therefore applicant argument is not persuasive in related to average diameter claimed limitation taught by Mahiko and/or Sorensen and that both references teaches carbon nanosphere as that of instantly claimed. Further as disclosed above, Mahiko in view of Kohl and/or Sorensen in view of Mahiko and Kohl discloses each and every element of presently claim 1. Further applicant does not claim any particular shape or any layer configuration therefore all the arguments related to shape and layer morphology is moot unless if it is critical element then applicant needs show unexpected results and include in the presently claimed limitation.
Secondly, applicant argument in related to oxygen content of not greater than 1.5 atomic % is not taught by Mahiko and/or Sorensen. However, examiner has added new cited reference taught by Kohl which teaches oxygen content range of 0 to 20% measured by XPS (paragraphs 0118, 0120) therefore applicant argument related to oxygen content is moot in view of new ground of rejection as set forth above.
Thirdly, combination of Mahiko and Sorensen are unsatisfactory or inoperable for its intended purpose. As explained above, Mahiko discloses sodium doped nanodiamond having spherical shaper, therefore it is sodium doped carbon nanosphere while Sorensen already teaches graphene powder with particle size of 35-250 nm comprising spherical particles (i.e., carbon nanospheres). Both references are directed to carbon nanospheres material, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known technique of adding sodium containing powder for obtaining a sodium doped carbon nanosphere as shown by Mahiko et al to modify the process of producing graphene powder containing carbon nanosphere of Sorensen because applying a known technique of adding sodium containing powder obtaining a sodium carbon nanosphere to a known process of producing graphene for improvement would yield predictable results (see MPE 2143 KSR). Therefore, such arguments are not found convincing.
Further, amendment to the claims overcomes claim objections and specification objection of record but necessitated new claim objections as set forth above.
Further, amended to the claims overcomes the 112b rejections but necessitated new 112(a) rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
11. 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 08/11/2026
Prosecution Insights