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 .
The response is noted Claims 5-7 and 9-13 are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 14-17 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 2 is unclear how the recess can be bigger than the depth of the sheet. See Seo para 172. 3 microns would be 10,000 graphene sheets. Clarification is requested.
In the claims, the term ‘graphite sheet’ is unclear; it appears that a graphene sheet is being described. Graphite is an agglomeration of graphene sheets.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 8, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. 20200261858.
Seo teaches, especially in figures 1b, 5b and 17, paras 43 and 171-174, stacks of graphene sheets with holes. Fig. 1b shows that the holes are not aligned, thus causing a tortuous path. This differs in not teaching the misalignment, however it is taught as an option to optimize fluid flow and better contact with the graphene, rather than flowing straight through the filter.
For claims 8 and 14-17, no difference is seen since the material can be the same.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kajiwara et al. 10950867.
Seo does not teach the ‘recesses’, however Kajiwara teaches graphene sheets with a pattern of recessed areas with holes alternating between layers; see fig. 3.
For claim 2, Kajiwara col. 5-7 suggests the claimed depth.
For claim 4, this, in so far as not implied by the scale of the figures of Kajiwara, this is obvious to create the desired surface area of contact. Using the material in the process of Seo is obvious to create the alternating holes to make a longer fluid path.
Note that Kajiwara col. 7 teaches pressurization.
Additional citation:
Miller 20130192461 teaches, especially in paras 47, 51 and 81, graphene sheets with pores.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony 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.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights