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
Claims 6 and 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (17-18) and species (6), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/24/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu (US 20170225233) in view of Mariusz (GB2541954A), Torobin (US 4303732) and Heston (Heston, The adsorption of hydroxyl ions from aqueous solution on the surface of amorphous silica, The Journal of Physical Chemistry, Vol 65 Issue 1, pg. 147, 1960).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 5, and 7, Zhamu teaches A method of making graphene coated glass microspheres (abstract) comprising: providing Pristine Graphene Particles having an average particle size of from about 200 nm to 20 microns ([0002], [0095]); providing glass microspheres ([0096]) having an average diameter of from about 10 nm to 10 mm and having an external surface (Zhamu Claims 7-8); and mixing the Pristine Graphene Particles with the glass microspheres under conditions to associate the Pristine Graphene Particles on the external surface of the glass microspheres ([0098-0101]).
Zhamu teaches potential applications including heat sinks ([0020]). Zhamu does not explicitly teach the carrier particles being hollow glass microspheres; however, Mariusz teaches graphene coating on hollow glass microspheres for use in heat sink applications wherein the surface of the hollow elements are electrically charged prior to graphene application (abstract, Fig. 3 and discussion thereof, Claim 35). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Zhamu to include an electrically charged hollow glass microsphere core, as taught by Mariusz, because it is a known particle for graphene coating in heat sink applications and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the particles of Zhamu with a hollow glass microsphere core, as in Mariusz.
The combined references are silent as to the wall thickness of the hollow glass microspheres; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to related art to determine a suitable wall thickness. Torobin teaches hollow glass microspheres having a wall thickness of 0.1 to 1000 microns (Torobin, Claim 1). Torobin teaches, depending on their diameter and wall thickness, the glass microspheres are capable of withstanding relatively high external pressures and/or weight (col. 2 ln. 11-19). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the wall thickness of the particles of the combined references to be a thickness, as taught in Torobin, because it is a known wall thickness and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the particles of the combined references with a wall thickness as in Torobin.
Regarding the claimed particle sizes, “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).” MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the particle sizes to be any sizes, taught by the references, including those within the claimed range, because the references teach they are all suitable sizes for use with the invention.
Mariusz teaches graphene coating on hollow glass microspheres for use in heat sink applications wherein the surface of the hollow elements are electrically charged prior to graphene application (abstract, Fig. 3 and discussion thereof, Claim 35). The combined references are silent as to the method of charging the glass surfaces; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to related art to determine a suitable charging method. Heston teaches glass (amorphous silica) is treated with sodium hydroxide at a pH greater than 12 to confer a negative charge to the glass (abstract, pg. 147 col. 1 1st para., Table 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include a charging method, as taught in Heston, because it is a known method of glass surface charging and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the charged glass of the combined references with a method as in Heston.
Regarding Claim 4, Mariusz does not explicitly teach a negative charge; however, 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 obviousness has been established, In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to the negative charge limitation, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112. In this situation, the prior art exemplifies the applicant's claimed attraction of the graphene material, so the claimed charge relating to the attraction are present in the prior art. Absent an objective evidentiary showing to the contrary, the addition of the physical properties to the claim language fail to provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 13, Zhamu is silent as to the average graphene coating coverage of the external surface area of the hollow glass microspheres when evaluated by FESEM at 250x magnification; however, Zhamu teaches the graphene proportion is typically from 0.01% to 80% by weight based on the total weight of graphene and inorganic compound ([0053]). Zhamu teaches uniform dispersion of graphene in the composites ([0151]). Graphene proportion necessarily correlates to coating coverage. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include optimization of the graphene coating coverage, as suggested by Zhamu, in order to achieve a desirable properties, including percolation threshold, in the product composite and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at applicant’s claimed coating coverage.
Regarding Claim 14, Zhamu teaches the Pristine Graphene Particles are mixed with the hollow glass microspheres under stirring conditions ([0074]). Zhamu teaches impacting balls are optional ([0055]). Zhamu does not teach the carrier particles are broken during preparation.
Regarding Claims 15-16, The combined references are silent as to the L*a*b*color value and electrical conductivity of the coated particles; however, 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 obviousness has been established, In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to the L*a*b*color value and electrical conductivity limitation, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112. In this situation, the prior art exemplifies the applicant's claimed materials and method , so the claimed properties relating to the particles produced by the claimed materials and method are present in the prior art. Absent an objective evidentiary showing to the contrary, the addition of the physical properties to the claim language fail to provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu (US 20170225233), Mariusz (GB2541954A), Torobin (US 4303732) and Heston (Heston, The adsorption of hydroxyl ions from aqueous solution on the surface of amorphous silica, The Journal of Physical Chemistry, Vol 65 Issue 1, pg. 147, 1960) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 13-16, and further in view of Zhamu 2 (US 2011/0046027).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhamu teaches wherein the Pristine Graphene Particles have a carbon content of essentially 99% ([0002]), i.e. a non-carbon content of 1% or less.
Zhamu is silent as to the oxygen concentration; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to related art to determine a suitable impurity concentration. Zhamu 2 teaches pristine graphene with less than 0.05% by weight oxygen ([0023]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the impurities of Zhamu to include an oxygen concentration, as suggested by Zhamu 2, because it is a known concentration in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the product of Zhamu with an oxygen concentration as in Zhamu 2.
Claim(s) 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu (US 20170225233), Mariusz (GB2541954A), Torobin (US 4303732) and Heston (Heston, The adsorption of hydroxyl ions from aqueous solution on the surface of amorphous silica, The Journal of Physical Chemistry, Vol 65 Issue 1, pg. 147, 1960) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 13-16, and further in view of Nam (Nam, Monodispersed PtCo nanoparticles on hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide treated graphene as an effective oxygen reduction reaction catalyst for proton exchange membrane fuel cells, Carbon, 50, 2012, pg. 3739-3747).
Regarding Claims 9 and 11-12, Zhamu teaches functional groups imparted to the graphene in situ, i.e. at the time of mixing, for the purpose of enhancing interfacial bonding ([0077]).
Zhamu does not explicitly teach a hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide functionalized graphene; however, Nam teaches functionalized graphene for improved adhesion wherein hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide is used as the functional group (abstract, 2.2). Nam teaches hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide as an improved functional group compared to covalent bonding groups, which frequently damage graphene properties such as electrical conductivity (1. Introduction last two paragraphs). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the functional group of Zhamu to include hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide, as suggested by Nam, for the benefit of maintaining properties such as electrical conductivity of the graphene.
Regarding Claim 10, Zhamu does not explicitly teach pre-treatment of the graphene; however, Nam teaches pre-treatment before mixing with particles for attachment (2.2). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include functionalizing before mixing, as suggested by Nam, because it is a known order of steps and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the product of Zhamu with functionalizing before mixing, as in Nam.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment and remarks, filed 4/14/2026, with respect to the previous objection to the abstract, the previous claim objections, and the previous section 112 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the abstract, the claim objections, and the previous section 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment of Claim 5 and remarks, filed 4/14/2026, with respect to the previous prior art rejection of the claim has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and as necessitated by the amendment, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Ballermann reference have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights