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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-22 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the specification overcome the objection made to the specification previously set forth in the non-final Office action mailed on 11/28/2025, thus this objection is withdrawn. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome each and every claim objection, and each 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed on 11/28/2025, thus the Examiner withdraws these rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, applicant has argued that Conner alone does not teach the use of graphene sheets. However, the previous rejection was based on the combination of teachings of Krishnan, which teaches a carbonization process where graphene oxide (GO) sheets are added to the starting materials of glucose (Figures 1-6) and cellulose (Figure 7), with the teachings of Conner
In response to applicant's argument that Krishnan is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Krishnan is analogous art because the field of carbonization and graphitization is directly pertinent to both the instant invention and the prior art of Conner, and the case of graphene oxide with glucose and cellulose is analogous to the instant invention’s case of graphene with biomass. Therefore Krishnan is proper as analogous prior art. Furthermore the combination of Conner and Krishnan arrives at the claimed invention since Conner teaches carbonization at a temperature ranging from 180 C to approximately 400 C (paragraph 120) and the graphitization reactor is configured to carry out graphitization at temperatures capable of inducing graphitization (paragraphs 118, 143). The reference further discloses an embodiment of heat treating the biomass such that “preferably, the temperature is 700 ° C to 3200 ° C” in order to induce graphitization (paragraph 148). Conner specifically teaches a heat treatment process in Example 3 involving the “furnace temperature set to 1300° C and… furnace temperature raised to 1304° C.” Therefore the combination of Conner and Krishnan arrives at the claimed invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 12-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publication Conner et al. (US 20180037461 A1), as cited in the previous Office action, in view of non-patent literature Krishnan et al. 2013, as cited in the previous Office action.
Regarding claim 1, Conner teaches a method of producing crystalline graphite from a biomass feedstock (abstract, 0030) said method comprising: A) providing a graphene/biomass mixture comprising multiple biomass particles, having a biomass particle size from 10 nm to 10 cm (“sawdust (approximately 1 to 3 mm 2 to approximately 1 to 2 mm thick) to wood chips (approximately 30 to 40 mm 2 to approximately 8 mm thick)”, 0119), wherein the first graphene-to-biomass weight ratio is zero; B) heat-treating said graphene/biomass mixture at a first temperature selected from 250°C to 1,500°C for a first period of time to carbonize the graphene/biomass mixture into a graphene/carbon mixture (hydrothermal reactor carries out hydrothermal carbonization at a temperature ranging from 180 C to approximately 400 C, 0120); and C) heat-treating said graphene/carbon mixture, at a second temperature, higher than the first temperature, for a second period of time to produce a crystalline graphite (graphitization reactor is configured to carry out graphitization at temperatures capable of inducing graphitization, 0118, 0143), wherein the second temperature is selected from 900°C to 3,500°C (1300 C, 0143; “preferably, the temperature is 700 ° C to 3200 ° C,” 0148; 1300 C and raised to 1304 C, Example 3).
Conner does not teach a starting mixture having a first graphene-to-biomass weight ratio of 0.0001 to 1.0. However, Krishnan discloses a carbonization process where graphene oxide (GO) sheets are added to the starting materials of glucose (Figures 1-6) and cellulose (Figure 7). Krishnan demonstrates that the degree of graphitization for glucose is improved by the addition of GO at a GO-to-biomass weight ratio of 1:300 (Figure 2, p. 451 column 2), as is the degree of carbonization for cellulose at a GO-to-biomass weight ratio of 1:100 (Figure 7, p. 455 column 2). Since Conner teaches a method of carbonization and graphitization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the carbonization and graphitization method as taught in Conner and modify it with the starting materials taught in Krishnan, in order to optimize the degree of carbonization and graphitization in the final graphite product, and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 4, Conner and Krishnan teach the invention of claim 1. Conner teaches a “radiata pine sawdust” as a starting biomass (Example 1) and discloses that agricultural wastes may be used as well (0119); these meet the limitation of a lignocellulosic biomass (sawdust) and a non-lignocellulosic biomass (agro-food waste).
Regarding claim 12, Conner and Krishnan teach the invention of claim 1. Conner teaches that a “sample was then converted to hydrocarbons, impregnated with manganese acetate and then graphitized at 1800 C” (Example 6, 0135). This temperature falls within the claimed range of the first temperature selected from 3500C to 1,2000C or the second temperature selected from 1,5000C to 3,0000C.
Regarding claim 13, Conner and Krishnan teach the invention of claim 1. Krishnan teaches that the degree of carbonization for cellulose is improved by the addition of GO at a GO-to-biomass weight ratio of 1:100 (Figure 7, p. 455 column 2). This ratio reduces to 0.01, which falls within the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.5.
Regarding claim 14, Conner and Krishnan teach the invention of claim 1. Conner teaches that “it is also envisaged that the graphitisation reactor could be pressurised to up to 30 bar” (0144). In the case where the claimed ranges "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). Here, the claimed range of 20 Psi to 1200 Psi overlaps with the range of up to 30 bar, or approximately 435 Psi, taught in Conner. It would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to conduct the step (B) of carbonization at a pressure within the claimed range before the time of filing of the invention.
Regarding claim 15, Conner and Krishnan teach the invention of claim 1. Conner teaches a particular embodiment of crystalline graphite produced having an inter-graphene layer spacing of “between 0.333 nm and 0.337 nm, less than 0.34 nm, less than 0.337 nm or approximately 0.335 nm” (0030, 0164) and an embodiment of the crystal produced in Example 4 having an interlayer spacing ranging from 0.3362 nm to 0.3371 nm (0301). This teaching falls within the claimed range of said crystalline graphite containing graphite crystals having a length or width from 10 nm to 10 microns or an inter-graphene spacing from 0.335 nm to 0.38 nm.
Regarding claim 17, Conner and Krishnan teach the invention of claim 1. Conner claims a system for the production of graphite, the system comprising: a. a hydrothermal reactor capable of producing hydrochar; b. a graphitization reactor adapted to receive the hydrochar from the hydrothermal reactor; and c. a graphitization heating means capable of heating the char to a temperature sufficient to produce graphite (claim 16). This meets the claim limitations of claim 17, which recites the method of claim 1 wherein said heating at the first temperature and heating at the second temperature are conducted in different heating zones or different heating chambers.
Regarding claim 20, Conner and Krishnan teach the invention of claim 1. Conner discloses sample ref G23-HTC1-K1 1800 which was graphitized at 1800 C and has an inter-layer spacing of 0.3367 nm, which yields a degree of graphitization of approximately 0.8488 using Bragg’s law as provided in the instant specification (page 11, line 7). This falls within the instant claimed range of the graphite exhibiting a degree of graphitization of no less than 80%.
Claims 5, 7-8, 16, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conner and Krishnan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. 2019, Ultrahigh-temperature conversion of biomass to highly conductive graphitic carbon, Carbon, Volume 144, 2019, Pages 241-248, ISSN 0008-6223.
Regarding claim 5, Conner and Krishnan teach the invention of claim 1. They do not teach adding a second amount of multiple sheets of a second graphene material into the graphene/carbon mixture.
However, Jiang teaches a method for the conversion of biomass to graphitic carbon (title) which is relevant to the field of endeavor of the instant invention because Jiang teaches the graphitization of carbon and the interest in the synthesis of graphite due to its remarkable thermal and electrical properties (abstract), and further teaches a starting material of lignin with expectation of similar performance for other forms of biomass including cellulose, chitin, or wood (p. 274, col. 1 pp. 1), and is relevant to the field of endeavor of Conner and Krishnan for the same reasons. Jiang teaches the addition of graphene oxide to biomass (lignin, p. 242 col. 1 pp. 3) before a step of graphitization at high temperatures in order to induce graphitization of the lignin (2465 K, p .243 col. 2 pp. 1; this equals 2192 C). It would be obvious to combine the teachings of Conner, Krishnan, and Jiang to arrive at a second adding of graphene oxide before graphitization, as Jiang teaches; one would be motivated to do so in order to use the graphene oxide as a template during the graphitization of lignin as Jiang teaches (p. 242 col. 1 pp. 3) since Jiang teaches that graphitization of lignin has previously led to disordered graphitic structures (“Unfortunately, it was found that the as-formed graphitic carbon in this case had a turbostratic or disordered graphitic structure,” p. 242 col. 1 pp. 1). Jiang teaches combining GO with lignin in a 1:1 ratio (p. 242 col. 2 pp. 1), which falls within the claimed range of the second graphene-to-biomass weight ratio, based on the original, non-carbonized biomass weight, being from 0.0001 to 1.0, since Jiang teaches that the GO-to-lignin ratio is before carbonization (“20 mg GO and 20mg lignin (1:1),” p. 242 col. 2 pp. 1).
While Jiang does not teach that the graphene oxide is added as a sheet, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teaching of sheets of graphene oxide as taught by Krishnan (p. 450 col. 2 pp. 1) with the teachings of Jiang; one skilled in the art would be motivated to do so because Krishnan teaches that GO sheets are capable of templating the assembly of other materials containing pi-conjugated units and altering their molecular configurations (p. 450 col. 1 ppl. 1) and can therefore act as nucleation and growth sites (p. 450 col. 2 pp. 1). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Conner, Krishnan, and Jiang do not explicitly teach that the total graphene-to-biomass weight ratio is no less than 0.001, where the total graphene weight = first graphene weight + second graphene weight. However, since Krishnan teaches a ratio of 1:300, or 0.0033, and Jiang teaches a ratio of 1:1, or 1.0, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the combination of ratios must always necessarily amount to an average ratio that can be no less than the smaller of the two values; therefore the total weight ratio would be necessarily greater than the 0.0033 ratio taught by Krishnan, thus falling within the claimed range of greater than 0.001.
Regarding claim 7, Conner, Krishnan, and Jiang teach the invention as applied to claim 5. Conner further discloses iron nitrate as a transition metal catalyst (Example 2). This meets the limitation of wherein the graphene/biomass mixture in step (A) or the graphene/carbon mixture further comprises a catalyst that comprises a transition metal selected from Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Zr, Nb, Mo, Ru, Pd, Ag, Cd, Pt, Au, a combination thereof, or wherein said catalyst contains a chemical species selected from PdCl2, FeCl3, FeBr3, FeF3, NiBr2,NiI2, Cs2CO3, CsF, CsCl, CsBr, CH2C12, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Conner, Krishnan, and Jiang teach the invention as applied to claim 5. Conner further discloses iron nitrate as a transition metal catalyst (Example 2). This meets the limitation of wherein said biomass comprises an additive dispersed in said biomass during said first heat treating step or in said carbon during the second heat-treating step, wherein said additive is selected from a catalyst, a template, an activator or activation agent, a chemical functionalization agent, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 16, Conner, Krishnan, and Jiang teach the invention as applied to claim 5. Krishnan and Jiang teach graphene oxide (GO). This meets the limitation of wherein said chemically functionalized graphene comprises a functional group selected from -OH, -COOH, -NH2, -C-O, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 18, Conner, Krishnan, and Jiang teach the invention as applied to claim 5. Conner discloses that the biomass may be fed to the carbonization process in a continuous manner (paragraph 212). This meets the limitation of wherein the steps are conducted in a continuous manner.
Regarding claim 22, Conner teaches a method of producing crystalline graphite from a biomass feedstock (abstract, 0030) said method comprising: A) providing a graphene/biomass mixture comprising multiple biomass particles, having a biomass particle size from 10 nm to 10 cm (“sawdust (approximately 1 to 3 mm 2 to approximately 1 to 2 mm thick) to wood chips (approximately 30 to 40 mm 2 to approximately 8 mm thick)”, 0119), wherein the first graphene-to-biomass weight ratio is zero; B) heat-treating said graphene/biomass mixture at a first temperature selected from 250°C to 1,500°C for a first period of time to carbonize the graphene/biomass mixture into a graphene/carbon mixture (hydrothermal reactor carries out hydrothermal carbonization at a temperature ranging from 180 C to approximately 400 C, 0120); and C) heat-treating said graphene/carbon mixture, at a second temperature, higher than the first temperature, for a second period of time to produce a crystalline graphite (graphitization reactor is configured to carry out graphitization at temperatures capable of inducing graphitization, 0118, 0143), wherein the second temperature is selected from 900°C to 3,500°C (1300 C, 0143; “preferably, the temperature is 700 ° C to 3200 ° C,” 0148; 1300 C and raised to 1304 C, Example 3).
Conner does not teach a starting mixture having a first graphene-to-biomass weight ratio of 0.0001 to 1.0. However, Krishnan discloses a carbonization process where graphene oxide (GO) sheets are added to the starting materials of glucose (Figures 1-6) and cellulose (Figure 7). Krishnan demonstrates that the degree of graphitization for glucose is improved by the addition of GO at a GO-to-biomass weight ratio of 1:300 (Figure 2, p. 451 column 2), as is the degree of carbonization for cellulose at a GO-to-biomass weight ratio of 1:100 (Figure 7, p. 455 column 2). Since Conner teaches a method of carbonization and graphitization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the carbonization and graphitization method as taught in Conner and modify it with the starting materials taught in Krishnan, in order to optimize the degree of carbonization and graphitization in the final graphite product.
Conner and Krishnan do not teach adding a second amount of multiple sheets of a second graphene material into the graphene/carbon mixture.
However, Jiang teaches a method for the conversion of biomass to graphitic carbon (title) which is relevant to the field of endeavor of the instant invention because Jiang teaches the graphitization of carbon and the interest in the synthesis of graphite due to its remarkable thermal and electrical properties (abstract), and further teaches a starting material of lignin with expectation of similar performance for other forms of biomass including cellulose, chitin, or wood (p. 274, col. 1 pp. 1), and is relevant to the field of endeavor of Conner and Krishnan for the same reasons. Jiang teaches the addition of graphene oxide to biomass (lignin, p. 242 col. 1 pp. 3) before a step of graphitization at high temperatures in order to induce graphitization of the lignin (2465 K, p .243 col. 2 pp. 1; this equals 2192 C). It would be obvious to combine the teachings of Conner, Krishnan, and Jiang to arrive at a second adding of graphene oxide before graphitization, as Jiang teaches; one would be motivated to do so in order to use the graphene oxide as a template during the graphitization of lignin as Jiang teaches (p. 242 col. 1 pp. 3) since Jiang teaches that graphitization of lignin has previously led to disordered graphitic structures (“Unfortunately, it was found that the as-formed graphitic carbon in this case had a turbostratic or disordered graphitic structure,” p. 242 col. 1 pp. 1). Jiang teaches combining GO with lignin in a 1:1 ratio (p. 242 col. 2 pp. 1), which falls within the claimed range of the second graphene-to-biomass weight ratio, based on the original, non-carbonized biomass weight, being from 0.0001 to 1.0, since Jiang teaches that the GO-to-lignin ratio is before carbonization (“20 mg GO and 20mg lignin (1:1),” p. 242 col. 2 pp. 1).
While Jiang does not teach that the graphene oxide is added as a sheet, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teaching of sheets of graphene oxide as taught by Krishnan (p. 450 col. 2 pp. 1) with the teachings of Jiang; one skilled in the art would be motivated to do so because Krishnan teaches that GO sheets are capable of templating the assembly of other materials containing pi-conjugated units and altering their molecular configurations (p. 450 col. 1 ppl. 1) and can therefore act as nucleation and growth sites (p. 450 col. 2 pp. 1). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Conner, Krishnan, and Jiang do not explicitly teach that the total graphene-to-biomass weight ratio is no less than 0.001, where the total graphene weight = first graphene weight + second graphene weight. However, since Krishnan teaches a ratio of 1:300, or 0.0033, and Jiang teaches a ratio of 1:1, or 1.0, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the combination of ratios must always necessarily amount to an average ratio that can be no less than the smaller of the two values; therefore the total weight ratio would be necessarily greater than the 0.0033 ratio taught by Krishnan, thus falling within the claimed range of greater than 0.001. Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conner, Krishnan, and Jiang, as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Wang et al. (CN 106602013 A), as cited in the previous Office action.
Regarding claim 6, Conner, Krishnan, and Jiang teach the method as applied to claim 1. They do not teach that the starting material is supplemented with doped graphene comprising graphene sheets doped or coated with element B, P, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Zr, Nb, Mo, Ru, Pd, Ag, Cd, Pt, Au, or a combination thereof. However, Wang discloses a method of preparing a graphitic material that mixes the biomass with graphene, including doped graphene such as boron-doped and phosphorus-doped graphene, before a heat treatment step (claim 1, step 2). Wang also teaches that doped graphene can improve the conductivity and ion migration rate of lithium-sulfur batteries (paragraph 120). It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Conner, Krishnan, and Jiang with a doped graphene starting material in order to improve the conductivity of the product, and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Conner, Krishnan, and Jiang teach the method as applied to claim 1. They do not teach the biomass containing an activation agent selected from ZnCl2, NaOH, KOH, K2CO3, NH4Cl, phosphoric acid (H3PO4), hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, sulfonic acid, nitric acid, and a combination thereof. However, Wang discloses the preparation method of activated carbon where an activator is KOH, NaOH, ZnCl2, K2CO3, Na2CO3, H3PO4 and H2SO4 (claim 1). Wang also discloses that activated carbon is typically formed by physical, heat treatment methods as in the instant claim (paragraph 3), and activated carbon is highly sought in battery technology due to its pore structure (paragraph 2). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method as taught by Conner, Krishnan, and Jiang with an activating agent as taught in Wang, in an effort to create activated forms of carbon, and arrive at the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conner and Krishnan as applied to claim 1, and in further view of non-patent literature Liu et al. 2022, as cited in the previous Office action.
Regarding claim 10, Conner and Krishnan teach the method as applied to claim 1.They do not disclose that the surface of the biomass particles and/or the surfaces of the graphene sheets are coated with a polynuclear hydrocarbon material. However, Liu teaches the formation of spiral graphite cones (SGC) from polycyclic hydrocarbons (PAH) at a temperature of 2800 C (see Figure 2). Liu demonstrates that graphite production increases with the percentage content of PAH, providing motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to include PAH in graphene formation methods. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the invention, to coat the surfaces of either starting material of the claimed invention, the biomass or the graphene sheets, with a polynuclear hydrocarbon or a chemical derivative in order to arrive at the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of inducing a higher graphite yield.
Regarding claim 11, Conner, Krishnan, and Liu teach the method as applied to claim 10. Liu further discloses that the PAH is derived from coal tar pitches (see page 129, section 2.1, Materials). This meets the limitation of wherein the polynuclear hydrocarbon material is selected from the group consisting of and non-halogenated versions of naphthalene, anthracene, phenanthrene, tetracene, chrysene, triphenylene, pyrene, pentacene, benzo-pyrene, corannulene, benzo-perylene, coronene, ovalene, benzo-fluorene, petroleum pitch, coal tar pitch, halogenated versions thereof, chemical derivatives thereof, and combinations thereof.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conner and Krishnan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaschak et al. (US 20040033189 A1), as cited in the previous Office action.
Regarding claim 21, Conner and Krishnan teach the method as applied to claim 1. They do not teach a procedure to exfoliate or separate constituent graphene planes of the crystalline graphite into multiple graphene sheets. However, Kaschak discloses a method of exfoliating graphite into multilayer graphene (Figure 1, paragraph 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to use exfoliation to obtain graphene sheets, since it is well-known in the art, as disclosed in the instant application (page 2, line 8), in order to obtain graphene sheets; therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art is considered to be Conner. Conner teaches a range of temperatures for the graphitization that is broader than the claimed range of 1500-3000 C (“preferably, the temperature is 700 ° C to 3200 ° C,” 0148) and teaches an inter-layer spacing of between 0.333 and 0.337 nm (0030), which is broader than the claimed inter-planar spacing range of 0.3354 to 0.36 nm.
Conner does not teach a physical density of the crystalline graphite being no less than 1.6 g/cm3. Moreover, the suggestions in the prior art to modify Conner do not suggest that such modifications would arrive at a density within the claimed range. Such a property would be obvious to one skilled in the art to be highly dependent on other parameters of the process of formation, such as the pressure at which the reactions are carried out; therefore the physical density would not necessarily follow merely from the process taught by Conner or modifications by suggestions of the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/Eileen Moudou/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights