DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-28 are pending, of which claims 1-7 and 20-28 have been withdrawn.
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Claims 1-7 and 20-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/9/26.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden. In particular, Applicant argues that the restriction requirement is not sufficiently detailed to justify the finding of a significant burden. Applicant also disputes the classifications of each group provided in the restriction requirement. This is not found persuasive because as described in the restriction requirement each of the invention groups represent different materials or different processes. Notably, Applicant has not provided any reasoning behind the assertion that the classifications are incorrect, nor has Applicant provided any different proposed classifications. Further, Applicant has not argued nor provided any reasoning to show that the different groups are not distinct. Accordingly, the reasoning behind the initial restriction requirement is maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
With respect to the species restriction, upon reconsideration, the restriction requirement between the species is withdrawn.
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 8-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watts, et al. "Production of phosphorene nanoribbons." Nature 568.7751 (2019): 216-220 (“Watts”).
Regarding claim 8, Watts teaches a method of preparing phosphorene nanoribbons (see e.g. page 216, second column, first full paragraph, starting “Our method for…”). The method uses black phosphorus flakes (Id.). As acknowledged in the instant application, black phosphorus is a highly anisotropic layered material (see e.g. Specification at page 3, first full paragraph, and claim 13). The method of Watts includes intercalation of lithium ions into the black phosphorus layers, which is an electrochemical process of insertion of ions (see e.g. page 216, second column, first full paragraph, starting “Our method for…”). The bundles of nanoribbons are then treated by sonication in a solvent medium to produce a plurality of separate nanoribbons (see e.g. page 219, paragraph bridging first and second columns, starting “We therefore propose…”).
Regarding claim 9, Watts teaches that the highly anisotropic layered material is black phosphorus, which is a van der Waals material (see e.g. page 216, second column, first full paragraph, starting “Our method for…”)
Regarding claim 10, Watts teaches that the highly anisotropic layered material is black phosphorus, which is a layered material of a group V-element (see e.g. page 216, second column, first full paragraph, starting “Our method for…”).
Regarding claim 11, Watts teaches that the highly anisotropic layered material is black phosphorus (see e.g. page 216, second column, first full paragraph, starting “Our method for…”), which is acknowledged in the instant application as having a puckered honeycomb structure (see Specification at paragraph bridging pages 2-3).
Regarding claim 13, Watts teaches that the highly anisotropic layered material is black phosphorus (see e.g. page 216, second column, first full paragraph, starting “Our method for…”).
Regarding claim 14, Watts teaches that the nanoribbons have a length of 1,000-2,000 nm and a width of 8-12 nm, both of which are within the claimed ranges (see e.g. FIG. 1c-d and 2c).
Regarding claim 15, Watts teaches that the bundles of nanoribbons are a plurality of parallel nanoribbons separated by regions of disordered material (see e.g. paragraph bridging pages 218-219, starting “We now discuss…” and FIG. 3a-c, which show unidirectional cracks of disordered material to form parallel nanoribbons that are then mechanically separated).
Regarding claim 16, Watts teaches that the method includes intercalation of lithium, which is a cation, into the layered material to form the disordered regions (see e.g. paragraph bridging pages 218-219, starting “We now discuss…”). The individual nanoribbons are predominantly crystalline (see e.g. Methods section, page 2, second column, 6th paragraph, starting “The crystallographic orientation…”).
Regarding claim 17, Watts teaches that the separation is performed by sonication in the presence of a solvent (see e.g. page 219, paragraph bridging first and second columns, starting “We therefore propose…”).
Regarding claim 18, Watts teaches that the solvent can be DMF (see e.g. Methods section, page 1, second column, 4th paragraph, starting “The solvents that…”).
Regarding claim 19, the method of Watts includes intercalation of lithium ions into the black phosphorus layers, which is an electrochemical process of insertion of ions (see e.g. page 216, second column, first full paragraph, starting “Our method for…”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 12 recites that the highly anisotropic material is a layered arsenic phosphorus alloyed material. Watts does not teach or suggest using an arsenic-phosphorus alloy. Further, there is no teaching or suggestion that a electrochemical intercalation/sonication method as taught by Watts would be effective to make nanoribbons of an arsenic phosphorus alloyed material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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 Zimmer can be reached at (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 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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights