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 pre-grant publication corresponding to this application, US 2024/0132359. 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; Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 5/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are pending.
Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected compositions and methods, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/27/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on:
8/05/2025
10/28/2024
9/07/2023
8/11/2023
are is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
As understood, Claims 2-4 (which depend directly or indirectly upon Claim 1) recite multiple high shear mixing and oxidation steps, apparently carried out in series. As understood, this embodiment is not described in the Specification. The Specification should be amended to provide support for the language of Claims 1-4.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
I. Claims 4 and 7 – or as stated below – is/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 4 refers to “said graphite.” Claim 4 depends from Claim 3 (which recites a graphite), which depends from Claim 1 (which recites another graphite). It is unclear to which graphite Claim 4 is referring. Stated differently, this language lacks antecedent basis. MPEP 2173.05(e) (“Similarly, if two different levers are recited earlier in the claim, the recitation of "said lever" in the same or subsequent claim would be unclear where it is uncertain which of the two levers was intended.”).
Claim 7 refers to “said graphite” followed by details related to the surface area. It is unclear whether this refers to the starting graphite or the graphite that has been exfoliated in Claim 1. Stated differently, this language lacks antecedent basis. MPEP 2173.05(e) (“Similarly, if two different levers are recited earlier in the claim, the recitation of "said lever" in the same or subsequent claim would be unclear where it is uncertain which of the two levers was intended.”).
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.
I. Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 6 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paton, et al., Scalable production of large quantities of defect-free few-layer graphene by shear exfoliation in liquids, Nature Materials 2014: 624-630 with Supplementary Information (hereinafter “Paton at __”) in view of:
(i) Kumar, et al., Tunable degree of oxidation through variation of H2O2 concentration and its effect on structural, optical and supercapacitive properties of graphene oxide powders synthesized using improved method, Materials Today Communications 2017; 13: 26-35 (hereinafter “Kumar at __”).
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “subjecting an aqueous dispersion of a graphite to an exfoliation step by high shear mixing at a mixing speed equal to or greater than 3000 rpm and to an oxidation step with an oxidizing agent selected from hydrogen peroxide, optionally mixed with acetic acid, potassium hydroxide and mixtures thereof.” Paton teaches subjecting an aqueous dispersion of graphite in a Silversson mixer at 4500 rpm. (Paton at 625, col. 1). Note the Specification similarly employs a Silverson mixer. (S. 5: [0118]-[0119]). Paton would not appear to teach the oxidation step. This is discussed below.
Claim 1 further requires “the graphite exfoliation step can precede, follow or be conducted together with the oxidation step.” To the extent Paton may not teach the oxidation step employing hydrogen peroxide, this is common. This is the modified or improved Hummer’s method, described extensively in the prior art. Any number of references could be applied (and others are made of record below). Kumar is chosen as it describes control of the degree of oxidation by varying the amount hydrogen peroxide. (Kumar at 27, col. 2 et seq. – 2. Experimental). The combination reflects application of known techniques (high shear mixing and Paton; improved/modified Hummers oxidation and Kumar) to achieve predictable results, namely exfoliated and oxidized graphene (i.e. graphene oxide). This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
As to Claim 2, this claim largely repeats the language of Claim 1. The discussion above is relied upon. Aqueous solutions with oxidizing agents are taught. (Kumar at 27, col. 2). Repeating steps is an obvious expedient to achieve the desired levels of exfoliation and oxidation. Reversing them to get the desired result (oxidized the exfoliated, vice versa) is an obvious expedient, and well within the skill in the art.
As to Claim 3, this claim largely repeats the language of Claim 1. The discussion above is relied upon. Aqueous solutions with oxidizing agents are taught. (Kumar at 27, col. 2). Repeating steps is an obvious expedient to achieve the desired levels of exfoliation and oxidation. Reversing them to get the desired result (oxidized the exfoliated, vice versa) is an obvious expedient, and well within the skill in the art.
As to Claim 5, hydrogen peroxide is taught. (Kumar at 27, col. 2 et seq. – 2. Experimental).
As to Claim 6, 4500 rpm are taught. (Paton at 625, col. 1).
II. Claim(s) 8-9 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paton, et al., Scalable production of large quantities of defect-free few-layer graphene by shear exfoliation in liquids, Nature Materials 2014: 624-630 with Supplementary Information (hereinafter “Paton at __”) in view of:
(i) Kumar, et al., Tunable degree of oxidation through variation of H2O2 concentration and its effect on structural, optical and supercapacitive properties of graphene oxide powders synthesized using improved method, Materials Today Communications 2017; 13: 26-35 (hereinafter “Kumar at __”), and further in view of:
(ii) Zhou, et al., Evaluation of antithrombogenic and antibacterial activities of a graphite oxide/heparin-benzalkonium chloride composite, Carbon 2009; 47: 1343-1350 (hereinafter “Zhou at __”).
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 8, to the extent neither Paton nor Kumar teach the treatment with the quarternary ammonium salt, Zhou does. Zhou adds GO and NaOH (alkaline ions), then contacts that mixture with benzalkoniuym chloride (C12), a quarternary ammonium salt, to make the disclosed composite. (Zhou at 1344, col. 2). One of skill in the art would be motivated to do so to create a material with antithrombogenic function. (Zhou at 1344, col. 1).
As to Claim 9, benzalkoniuym chloride is taught. (Zhou at 1344, col. 2; passim).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chong, et al., Simplified production of graphene oxide assisted by high shear exfoliation of graphite with controlled oxidation, New J. Chem. 2018; 42: 4507-4512 (cited by Applicants, hereinafter “Chong at __”) is noted. Chong is very similar to the claimed subject matter, and a rejection over Chong could have been formulated. However, the Paton reference discussed above was chose for its recitation of the claimed rotational velocity.
Yoo, et al., Effect of hydrogen peroxide on properties of graphene oxide in Hummers method, Carbon 2019; 141: 515-522 (cited by Applicants, hereinafter “Yoo at __”) is relevant for teaching the effects of hydrogen peroxide on graphene oxide. Note the teaching that water and hydrogen peroxide are used in all Hummers methods for removing residual manganese ions. (Yoo “Abstract”).
Xing, et al., Degradation of Graphene by Hydrogen Peroxide, Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 2014: 1-6 (hereinafter “Xing at __”) teaches oxidation/degradation of graphene by hydrogen peroxide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6537. The examiner can normally be reached on 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 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
Prosecution Insights