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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 23 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 23 June 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 4, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tang et al. (US 2015/0291431 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 7-10, Tang teaches a method of producing graphene and holey graphene ([0054]: hole/nanobores read on “holey” graphene). The method comprises providing an electrochemical cell comprising a cathodic compartment containing a cathode and an initial cathodic solution, and an anodic compartment containing an anode and an initial anodic solution ([0056]: a porous filter covering the graphite electrode results in anodic and cathodic compartments within the container). These initial anodic and cathodic solutions are sulfuric acid ([0060]). The graphite electrode is the anode of the cell ([0063]), exfoliated at voltages between -10 and 10 V to produce graphene within the anodic compartment ([0064], [0142]). A portion of graphene remains in the anodic compartment, and a second portion of graphene is removed from the anodic compartment and transferred into the cathodic compartment by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language ([0167]: removal of the porous filter is expected to result in graphene entering the cathodic compartment). The graphene in the cathodic compartment is treated at an equal and opposite voltage to produce holes in its surface ([0172]-[0173]: example given as +10 and -10 volts). The first portion of graphene and the final cathodic solution are filtered to isolate the graphene and holey graphene (the first portion being graphene without holes remaining in the solution; [0065]).
While the claimed sequence of steps is presented in a different order from what is taught by the art of record, it is improper to read a specific order of steps into a claim directed to a process or method unless the grammar or logic of the claim requires such. See MPEP § 2111.01. In the instant case, there is no requirement that the first and second portions of graphene be filtered/isolated at different times.
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.
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 2, 3, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2015/0291431 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cornejo et al. (WO 2023/097376 A1, as attached).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Tang teaches all inherited limitations from claim 1, but does not teach wherein the cathodic compartment and the anodic compartment are separated by an anionic membrane comprising polystyrene, polyethylene, polysulfone, ammonium, or combinations thereof.
However, Cornejo teaches a process for electrolytic purification of graphite, including separation of the anodic and cathodic compartment with an anion exchange membrane, equivalent to an anionic membrane, which may comprise polysulfones or ammonium ([0049], [00201]). The anion exchange property of the membrane is useful because it is believed that sulfate anions present in solution react with metal impurities to precipitate out ([00191]-[00193]). An anion exchange membrane separating the anodic and cathodic compartments may reduce formation of this precipitate around the cathode, because the membrane surrounding the cathode would not be permeable to cationic metal impurities (Fig. 1: membrane surrounds Pt cathode; Fig. 11: Fe dendrites form on the metallic cathode as used with a non-ionically selective membrane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use an anionic membrane to separate the anodic and cathodic compartment. One would be motivated to make this modification because preventing the formation of precipitated impurities on the cathode would be expected to better enable its reuse, reducing process costs associated with replacing the electrodes.
Regarding claim 11, Tang does not teach centrifuging the final anodic or cathodic solutions of claim 1 to isolate the graphene. However, Cornejo teaches that a filtration step to remove impurities from the electrolyte, reading on cathodic solution, may include centrifugation (Cornejo [00240]-[00241]).
It is therefore obvious to one skilled in the art to use centrifugation to isolate graphene and holey graphene from the final anodic and cathodic solutions, because it is a known technique for filtering and refining the intermediate electrolyte with dispersed graphene/holey graphene into the final product.
Regarding claim 12, Tang does not teach recycling the final anodic and cathodic solutions of claim 1. However, Cornejo teaches recycling the electrolyte in the electrochemical process cells, reading on recycling these solutions (Cornejo [00299]; Fig. 2: electrolyte containment feeds anodes and the graphite slurry, which in turn feeds cathodes of the EC cells).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recycle electrolyte in the process taught by Tang. One would have been motivated to make this modification as recycling electrolyte for further use is shown to be possible and is well-understood the art to reduce the costs of replenishing the electrolyte.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2015/0291431 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hadame et al. (US 2019/0131632 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6, Tang teaches all inherited limitations from claim 1, and further teaches that the cathode is metallic (Tang [0147]: counter electrode is a cathode). Tang does not teach the claimed unit cell geometry of a triply periodic minimal surface, wherein the unit cell geometry is a gyroid, diamond, or split-P.
However, Hadame teaches an electrochemical cell with an electrode having a unit geometry of a triply periodic minimal surface (Hadame [0070], Fig. 7: unit cell of the electrode). The electrode is metallic ([0037]) and functions as a cathode ([0031]). In the Hadame cell, this electrode structure results in improved diffusion of water vapor and hydrogen throughout the electrode, improving overall electrochemical reaction efficiency compared to porous electrodes of arbitrary passage shapes ([0104]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a triply periodic minimal surface cell geometry, such as a gyroid, in the cathode of the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make this modification because Hadame teaches that this structure improves diffusion of reactants and products, and therefore efficiency of the electrochemical reaction (Hadame [0103]). This reduces the power requirement for equivalent conversion or yield.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Achee et al. (Sci Rep 8, 2018) teaches scalable graphene production by electrochemical exfoliation. Cheng et al. (US 2014/0166475 A1) teaches an additional electrochemical method for producing graphene by exfoliation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colton B. Forry whose telephone number is (571)272-8873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM-5:00 PM 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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/CBF/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights