DETAILED ACTION Citation to the Specification will be in the following format: (S. # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number of the pregrant publication corresponding to the application, US 2024/0217826 . Citation to patent literature will be in the form (Inventor # : LL) where # is the column number and LL is the line number. Citation to the pre-grant publication literature will be in the following format (Inventor # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number. 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. Status of Application The preliminary amendment dated 10/30/2023 has been received and will be entered. Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 6-9 is/are pending. Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are acknowledged as cancelled. The preliminary amendment is arguably non-compliant. Whatever Aritcle 19 amendments that were made in the international application (Remarks of 10/30/2023 at 4) were not filed in this national stage application. As such, the status identifiers in the 10/30/2023 amendment are arguably incorrect. The amendments appear to merely incorporate dependent claims into independent claim 1. To prevent delays in prosecution, the requirement for correct status identifiers is waived for this response. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 , except as noted below: The Homola document filed does not reflect that which was re cited on the IDS. Specifically, an “Accepted Manuscript” was submitted, not the actual journal article listed on the IDS. The item is crossed off. The correct document, with its corrections, is made of record below. Specification The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. See (S. 1: [0010] ). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. I. Claim s 1, 3-4, and 6-9 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. Claim 1 recites “the initial electric plasma.” Use of the definite article “the” suggests “initial electric plasma” has been previously introduced in the claim. It has not. This term lacks antecedent basis. Generally speaking, any time “the” is being used, the limitation following “the” must be previously recited or inherently present in the claim or the claim from which the claim in question depends. See MPEP 2173.05(e) and discussion therein. Claim 1 recites “the adjacent part.” This lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “the inside part (4).” This lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “the initial electric plasma.” This lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “the temperature of a working gas.” This lacks antecedent basis; note that no working gas has been recited in the claim. Claim 1 recites “the pressure of a working gas.” This lacks antecedent basis; note that no working gas has been recited in the claim. Claim 1 recites “the speed of the working gas.” This lacks antecedent basis; note that no working gas has been recited in the claim. Claim 1 recites “the Laplacian electric field.” This lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “the volume (1) … not intersected by the initial plasma (3).” Both “the volume” and “the initial plasma” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “the critical electric field.” This lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “the working gas.” This lacks antecedent basis. Claim 3 recites “the initial plasma.” This lacks antecedent basis. Claim 4 recites “the working gas.” This lacks antecedent basis. Claim 6 recites “the initial electric plasma.” This lacks antecedent basis. Claim 7 recites “the initial electric plasma.” This lacks antecedent basis. Claim 8 recites “the initial electric plasma.” This lacks antecedent basis. Claim 8 recites “the incident laser fluence.” This lacks antecedent basis. Claim 9 recites “the plasma working gas.” This lacks antecedent basis. T he claims employ the passive voice and other stylistic or idiomatic differences leading to antecedent basis issues like those identified above. MPEP 2173.05(e) I. states “Examiner Should Suggest Corrections To Antecedent Problems.” The Examiner recommends adopting the active voice, positively setting forth process steps (which are verbs), and then using definite articles like “the” to further limit the process steps /verbs previously set forth. The burden of drafting claims falls to the inventor. See 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The Examiner offers the following as an example of how to write a claim. The content of the claim however is the what the inventor regards as the invention. The Examiner expresses no opinion on that. An example claim might read: 1. A method of triggering a self- propogating reduction-exfoliation process of graphene oxide in a porous material comprising: providing a porous material; supplying a working gas that contains less than 5% hydrogen gas at a temperature less than 400 C, a pressure higher than 10 kPa, and a speed of less than 0.1 m/s ; generating an initial electric plasma in a part adjacent to the porous material and only partly inside the porous material; wherein the Laplacien electric field in the volume of the porous material not intersected by the initial electric plasma is less than the critical electric field of the working gas. Note the use of indents and semicolons to separate elements. See 37 C.F.R. 1.75( i ). See also US 2015/0315026 to Cheng et al., cited below, for an example of U.S. style claiming . Conclusion While no prior art was applied to the claims this is in accordance with MPEP 2173.06 II, which states “ where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele , 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. ” As best understood, the claims c ould be allowable in view of at least the “at the same time the Laplacian electric field in the volume (1) of the porous material not intersected by the initial plasma (3) is less than the critical electric field of the working gas” language in Claim 1. Zhou, et al., Low temperature plasma-mediated synthesis for graphene nanosheets for supercapacitor electrodes , J. Mater. Chem. 2012; 22: 6061-6066 (with Supporting Information , hereinafter “Zhou at __” ) and Homola , et al., Atmospheric Dry Hydrogen Plasma Reduction of Inkjet-Printed Flexible Graphene Oxide Electrodes , ChemSusChem 2018; 11: 941-947 (hereinafter “ Homola at __”) are made of record, and are considered the closest prior art uncovered by the search, and/or no better/worse than other documents identified below. Zhou and Homola were also identified in the Written Opinion of the International Search Authority (cited by Applicants, hereinafter “Opinion at __”) . The Opinion however does not treat all limitations of Claim 1, as currently pending. While similar, Zhou does not teach all of the conditions of the working gas. See (Zhou at 6062, col. 1). Zhou mentions ambient pressure, which reads on the “higher than 10 kPa” limitation, and does disclose a flow rate, but does not disclose the dimensions of the reactor necessary to calculate a gas velocity. (Zhou at 6062, col. 1; SI at 2 - reactor). Zhou does not explicitly teach the temperature of the working gas. Zhoe does not teach the temperature of the total volume of the porous material, but suggests that it may be less than 200 C. (Zhou at 6064, col. 1: “the maximum temperature in DBD plasma is in the range of 100-160 C”). As understood, Zhou does not teach the “at the same time the Laplacian electric field in the volume (1) of the porous material not intersected by the initial plasma (3) is less than the critical electric field of the working gas” language in Claim 1, nor could the case for inherency be proved up to address the electric fields in a complex volume like the “porous material” being claimed. Homola would appear to be the work of the inventors, sharing common authorship/inventorship. Homola does not teach the claimed conditions of the working gas, nor does Homola teach the “at the same time the Laplacian electric field in the volume (1) of the porous material not intersected by the initial plasma (3) is less than the critical electric field of the working gas” language in Claim 1. ( Homola at 946 – Plasma traeatment ). Dielectric barrier discharge plasma reduction of graphene oxide is generally known. The following are made of record: Wang, et al., N-Doping of plasma exfoliated graphene oxide via dielectric barrier discharge plasma treatment for the oxygen reduction , J. Mater. Chem. A 2018; 6: 2011-2017 (hereinafter “Wang at __”). Note the discussion of DBD at (Wang at 2012, col. 1 and 2013, col. 1). US 2015/0315026 to Cheng, et al. – see (Cheng 3: [0031]). Neither provide the information necessary to meet the burden of rejecting the specificity of working gas and electric fields limitations as claimed. While work apparently exists in modeling these fields, it does not lend itself to preparing a rejection that would withstand scrutiny on appeal. See Vafeas , et al., Modelling the electric field in reactors yielding cold atmospheric-pressure plasma jets , Scientific Reports 2020; 10: 5694, pp. 1-15. No ultimate opinion on patentability is expressed, pending resolution of the 112 issues above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6537 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday (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, Anthony J. Zimmer can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3591 . 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair . 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. /DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736