Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/254,569

GRAPHENE PROCESSING TECHNIQUE

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
May 25, 2023
Priority
Nov 25, 2020 — AU 2020904365 +1 more
Examiner
LI, AIQUN
Art Unit
1766
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
The University of Queensland
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allowance Rate
535 granted / 835 resolved
-0.9% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
875
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
75.1%
+35.1% vs TC avg
§102
19.3%
-20.7% vs TC avg
§112
4.0%
-36.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 835 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 26 May 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 5-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. 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 3 and 4 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation of “from about 300°C to about 500°C, and the claim also recites “preferably about 400 °C:”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Regarding claim 4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN108950281A (Ju), which is listed in Applicant’s information disclosure statement, as evidenced by US2017/0203968A1 (Al-Hazmi). Regarding claims 1 and 3, Ju teaches a method comprises mixing few-layer graphene with polyethylene glycol ([0007]), which meets a polyalkylene oxide, drying in vacuum ([0014] –[0015] and [0022]), and heating to about 400 °C in a protective nitrogen gas ([0061]), which meets the claimed method and heating temperature. Regarding claim 2, Ju exemplifies a few-layer graphene of 1nm thickness ([0052]), which meets a three-layer graphene since monolayer graphene has a layer thickness of about 0.35 nm as evidenced by AL-Hazmi ([0004]). Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “ A novel soft template strategy to fabricate mesoporous carbon/graphene composites as high-performance supercapacitor electrodes”, Wang, et al., RSC Advances, 2012, 2, 8359–8367 (Wang), as evidenced by Ju. Wang teaches a method comprises mixing triblock copolymer PEO106PPO70PEO106 with graphene oxide, drying the mixture to form a composite, and heating in an inert atmosphere (p8360, 2.2), wherein the graphene composite has a thickness of about 6 nm-20 nm (p 8364, Table 1), which meets few-layer graphene since few-layer graphene has a thickness of about 1 to 30 nm as evidenced by Ju ([0007]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 pm. 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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. /AIQUN LI/Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 25, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12683246
SEPARATOR FOR NON-AQUEOUS SECONDARY BATTERY AND NON-AQUEOUS SECONDARY BATTERY
3y 10m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12676338
SOLID ELECTROLYTE MATERIAL, BATTERY USING SAME, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SOLID ELECTROLYTE MATERIAL
3y 9m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12665218
LITHIUM ION-CONDUCTING GARNET TYPE OXIDE
3y 8m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12655341
TWO COMPONENT LOW DENSITY GEL FOR THE PROTECTION OF ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS FROM CORROSION IN OIL AND GAS WELLS
4y 6m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12655270
ADDITIVE FOR ORGANIC CONDUCTOR, METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME, ORGANIC CONDUCTOR, AND ELECTROLYTIC CAPACITOR
3y 7m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+22.5%)
3y 0m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 835 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month