Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/281,262

GRAPHENE-BASED DISPERSION, METHOD(S) AND APPLICATIONS THEREOF

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 08, 2023
Examiner
MILLER, DANIEL H
Art Unit
1783
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Reliance Industries Limited
OA Round
4 (Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
367 granted / 687 resolved
-11.6% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
717
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
66.1%
+26.1% vs TC avg
§102
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
§112
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 687 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 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. Claim(s) 1-9, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cesareo (US 10,435,837) in view of Jang (US 20100055458). The new claim language of 6/5/2025 is considered to be met by the art of record. Cesareo (US 10,435,837) teaches a dispersion of nanoparticles consisting of graphene in water and a surfactant; wherein: the dispersion is substantially free from graphite; the concentration of said nanoparticles of graphene in water is from 7% to 50% by weight; the C/O ratio in said nanoparticles of graphene is ≥100:1; at least 90% of said nanoparticles of graphene have a lateral size (x, y) from 10 to 10,000 nm, and a thickness (z) from 0.34 to 30 nm, the lateral size being always greater than the thickness (x, y>z); and said surfactant is present in an amount from 1 to 20% by weight with respect to the weight of said nanoparticles of graphene and is an anionic surfactant, a nonionic surfactant or combination thereof (claim 1). The dispersion having nanoparticles of graphene have a lateral size (x, y) from 50 to 5,000 nm (claim 2). The nanoparticles of graphene have a thickness (z) from 0.34 to 20 nm Claim 3). The dispersion C/O ratio in said nanoparticles of graphene is greater than or equal to 150:1 (claim 4). The dispersion surfactant (wetting agent) is present in an amount from 5 to 15% by weight with respect to the weight of said graphene (claim 5), said surfactant is an anionic surfactant (claim 6) for wettability (column 1 lines 35-55). The dispersion wherein the concentration of said nanoparticles of graphene is from 7% to 40% by weight. The dispersion having nanoparticles of graphene have a lateral size (x, y) from 100 to 2,000 nm (see claims 7-8). Example 1 describes the production of ultra-thin graphene sheets by means of ultrasonication of graphite flakes dispersed in water at the concentration of 0.5% for 2 hours and subsequent spray-drying of the dispersion obtaining dried NPGs with a thickness of 1-5 graphene layers. The substrate can be silicon oxide substrate, meeting the claim limitations. Regarding claims to graphene dispersion with wetting agent, lubricating agent, defoaming agents and/or pH control agent, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide one or the other to wet the graphene, control oxygen content (for pH or conductivity) or lubricate and or disperse the graphene. Regarding claim 16, the substrate covered is considered a coating as claimed. The above reference may not specifically teach surface area. Jang teaches a dispersion of graphene solution/ dispersion comprising graphene of single to few layer graphene having a surface areas from 300 m2/g to 2600 m2/g (see claims, [0136, 0207, 0187]), an overlapping range that would be obvious to provide dependent upon desired properties. Jang teaches a specific Example wherein the surface area is 430 m2/g and contains many single layer graphene sheets along with the few layered sheets [0211]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the overlapping surface area to provide a substantially identical exemplary surface area to provide for graphene films for electrical and other applications. OBJETED TO CLAIMS: Claim 10 is objected to. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner notes that the cited reference was not properly submitted as an IDS submission; Evidence on the record. Example 1 describes the production of ultra-thin graphene sheets by means of ultrasonication of graphite flakes dispersed in water at the concentration of 0.5% for 2 hours and subsequent spray-drying of the dispersion obtaining dried NPGs with a thickness of 1-5 graphene layers. This is considered to render obvious the new claim language. Rejection maintained. 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 DANIEL H MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1534. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9-6. 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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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. /DANIEL H MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 08, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 20, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 17, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 18, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 14, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 05, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 26, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594579
ENVIRONMENTAL BARRIER COATING AND METHOD OF REPAIRING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577023
Recyclable paper packaging with high barrier to water vapor and oxygen
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571129
TWO-DIMENSIONAL VERTICAL COMPOSITE LAMINATE INCLUDING GRAPHENE AND HEXAGONAL BORON NITRIDE AND METHOD OF FABRICATING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12540105
HIGH TEMPERATURE COATINGS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12534639
MICHAEL ADDITION CURABLE COMPOSITION, COATING COMPOSITION CONTAINING THE SAME, AND COATED ARTICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+21.1%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 687 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month