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 .
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 16,41,42 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation about 299 F/g, and the claim also recites , about 228 F/g and about 193 F/g which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation about 0.3 A/g, and the claim also recites , about 0.5 A/g and about 1 A/g which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the claimed composition stated in claim 1, and the claimed method of preparing a doped activated nanoporous carbon material of claim 20. Examiner notes that claims 42 and 43 are formed as “use” claims, wherein the noted claims only provide a list of stated uses for the doped activated nanoporous carbon material of claims 1 and 20, and do not further include additional composition structure or method steps for preparing a doped activated nanoporous carbon material. See MPEP 2173.05(q) regarding “Use” Claims.
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.
Claims 1-3,6,8,10,11,13,16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Carbon Nanoflakes and Nanotubes from Halloysite Nanoclays and their Superior Performance in CO2 Capture and Energy Storage” , by Ramadass et al taken together with Chinese reference (CN112142035A).
Ramadass et al NPL reference teaches an activated nanoporous carbon material prepared from a template material comprising natural halloysite-kaolin nanoclays(page 11923 4th full para reciting “in this study, we created porous carbons using naturally occurring HNT-kaolinite clays with tubular and flakelike structures as templates”) , a carbon precursor (page 11923 4th full para reciting “sugar-based compounds as carbon precursors”), and an activating agent(page 11923 3rd full para reciting “our team has also developed a solid-state activation agent by using solid ZnCl or KOH as the activating agent”) , wherein the activated nanoporous carbon material exhibits a flake and nanotubular morphology((page 11923 4th full para reciting “to prepare porous carbon having a mixture of flaky and tubular morphology “). Ramadass et al NPL reference is silent as to a doped activated nanoporous carbon material including a heteroatom dopant precursor, and wherein the doped activated nanoporous carbon material bears surface heteroatom functionalities.
Chinese reference teaches a doped activated nanoporous carbon material(translation stating “the invention claims a nitrogen-enriched nano porous carbon micro-sphere”) , the nanoporous carbon material including a heteroatom dopant precursor(translation stating “in order to further improve the performance of the porous carbon material, usually the heteroatom( such as N,B,S, etc.) is doped into the porous carbon material, so that the performance of the porous carbon material is improved.”). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to provide a heteroatom dopant precursor for the activated nanoporous carbon material prepared from a template material comprising natural halloysite-kaolin nanoclays of Ramadass et al NPL reference to improve the performance of the nanoporous carbon material. (Examiner notes translation of Chinese reference states the hard template agent is selected from inorganic nano particles, wherein the template material comprising natural halloysite-kaolin nanoclays of NPL reference is an inorganic material.).
With regards to claim 2, Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference further teaches wherein the template material consists of natural halloysite-kaolin nanoclays.
With regards to claim 3, Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference is silent as to wherein the natural halloysite-kaolin nanoclays contain more than 40% by weight of halloysite nanotubes. Examiner respectfully submits Ramadass et al NPL reference teaches natural halloysite-kaolin nanoclays with a predetermined percentage by weight of halloysite nanotubes, therefore someone of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, would have arrived at a 40% by weight of halloysite nanotubes depending on the specific composition required for the template material. Examiner notes para 0011 of the current specification gives embodiments of 40% by weight and 80% by weight of halloysite nanotubes, therefore examiner respectfully submits a criticality for 40% by weight of halloysite nanotubes has not been established, with no indication of unexpected results using the claimed 40% by weight of halloysite nanotubes.
With regards to claim 6, Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference further teaches wherein the carbon precursor is a sugar based compound selected from the group consisting of sucrose, glucose, fructose, and polysaccharides(page 11923 6th full para of Ramadass et al NPL reference reciting HNT was impregnated with sucrose solution”).
With regards to claim 8, Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference is silent as to wherein the polysaccharides are selected from the group consisting of cellulose, chitosan and starch. Examiner notes Ramadass et al NPL reference teaches a sugar based compound as carbon precursor, and noting polysaccharides are within a group including sugar based compounds, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a polysaccharide including cellulose, chitosan and starch for the sugar based compound of Ramadass et al NPL reference to provide an equivalent carbon precursor for the doped activated nanoporous carbon material of Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference.
With regards to claim 10, Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference further teaches wherein the heteroatom dopant precursor is selected from one or more of the groups consisting of a nitrogen precursor, a sulfur precursor, a boron precursor, and an oxygen precursor.
With regards to claim 11, Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference further teaches wherein the nitrogen precursor is selected from the group listed in claim 10, specifically noting Chinese reference translation teaches a nitrogen precursor including melamine, polypyrrole, and polyaniline.
With regards to claim 13, Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference further teaches wherein the activating agent is selected from the group consisting of a zinc compound, phosphoric acid, potassium acetate, sodium hydroxide, potassium carbonate, ammonium carbonate, and ammonium persulfate(page 11923 4th full para reciting “HNT- sucrose to ZNCl2 weight ratio”).
With regards to claim 16, Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference is silent as to a specific capacitance of about 299 F/g, about 228F/g, and about 194F/G at a current density of 0.3 A/g , 0.5 A/g, and 1 A/g. Ramadass et al NPL reference in the abstract recites “specific capacitance of AHNC in the aqueous electrolyte is 197 F/g at 0.3 A/g”, therefore examiner respectfully submits it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to provide a specific capacitance of about 194F/G at a current density of 0.3 A/g in order to provide a doped activated nanoporous carbon material with the claimed capacitance.
Claims 20-22,24,27-29,33,35,41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Carbon Nanoflakes and Nanotubes from Halloysite Nanoclays and their Superior Performance in CO2 Capture and Energy Storage” , by Ramadass et al taken together with Chinese reference (CN112142035A).
Ramadass et al NPL reference teaches a method of preparing an activated nanoporous carbon material including loading a template material comprising natural halloysite-kaolin nanoclays (page 11923 4th full para reciting “in this study, we created porous carbons using naturally occurring HNT-kaolinite clays with tubular and flakelike structures as templates”) with a carbon precursor (page 11923 4th full para reciting “sugar-based compounds as carbon precursors”), removing moisture and volatiles from the loaded template material(page 11923 6th full para reciting “HNT was impregnated with sucrose solution, … the resulting mixture was thoroughly mixed for about 15-20 min before being transferred to a hot air oven”, wherein examiner respectfully submits a hot air oven provides for removing moisture and volatiles from the loaded template material) , and producing a composition comprising a loaded template material and an activating agent (ZnCl), and activating the composition. Ramadass et al NPL reference is silent as to loading a template material comprising natural halloysitre-kaolin nanoclays with a heteroatom dopant precursor, carbonizing a composition comprising loaded template material including a heteroatom dopant precursor at a temperature of about 600 degrees C to about 900 degrees C, and removing the template material and the activating agent from the composition.
Chinese reference teaches a doped activated nanoporous carbon material(translation stating “the invention claims a nitrogen-enriched nano porous carbon micro-sphere”) , the nanoporous carbon material including a heteroatom dopant precursor(translation stating “in order to further improve the performance of the porous carbon material, usually the heteroatom( such as N,B,S, etc.) is doped into the porous carbon material, so that the performance of the porous carbon material is improved.”). Chinese reference further teaches method steps including loading a template material with a heteroatom dopant precursor(translation stating “stirring the 50g calcium carbonate particles , 20 g melamine and 10 g formaldehyde into 250 ml water, raising the temperature to 70 degrees centigrade” , Examiner noting a statement of raising the temperature to 70 degrees centigrade provides for removing moisture and volatiles), carbonizing the composition at a temperature of about 600 degrees C to about 900 degrees C (translation stating “carbonizing the melamine formaldehyde resin coated with nanometre calcium carbonate in argon atmosphere at 800 degrees centrigrade”) , and removing the template material and the activating agent from the composition (translation stating “putting the dried carbon microsphere coated with nano calcium carbonate into 1000ml of 10% HCL water solution to soak for 5hr to remove calcium carbonate particles”, wherein examiner notes calcium carbonate particles are an inorganic template material, noting translation stating “the hard template agent in the step S1 is selected from inorganic nano particles”.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide steps of loading a template material comprising natural halloysitre-kaolin nanoclays with a heteroatom dopant precursor, carbonizing a composition comprising loaded template material including a heteroatom dopant precursor at a temperature of about 600 degrees C to about 900 degrees C, and removing the template material and the activating agent from the composition, in order to provide increased charge density of carbon material(from translation of Chinese reference), enhanced conductivity of carbon material(from translation of Chinese reference), and improved hydrophilicity of the carbon material(from translation of Chinese reference).
With regards to claim 21, Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference further teaches wherein the template material consists of natural halloysite-kaolin nanoclays.
With regards to claim 22, Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference is silent as to wherein the natural halloysite-kaolin nanoclays contain more than 40% by weight of halloysite nanotubes. Examiner respectfully submits Ramadass et al NPL reference teaches natural halloysite-kaolin nanoclays with a predetermined percentage by weight of halloysite nanotubes, therefore someone of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, would have arrived at a 40% by weight of halloysite nanotubes depending on the specific composition required for the template material. Examiner notes para 0011 of the current specification gives embodiments of 40% by weight and 80% by weight of halloysite nanotubes, therefore examiner respectfully submits a criticality for 40% by weight of halloysite nanotubes has not been established, with no indication of unexpected results using the claimed 40% by weight of halloysite nanotubes.
With regards to claim 24, Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference further teaches wherein the carbon precursor is a sugar based compound selected from the group consisting of sucrose, glucose, fructose, and polysaccharides(page 11923 6th full para of Ramadass et al NPL reference reciting HNT was impregnated with sucrose solution”).
With regards to claim 27, Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference is silent as to wherein the polysaccharides are selected from the group consisting of cellulose, chitosan and starch. Examiner notes Ramadass et al NPL reference teaches a sugar based compound as carbon precursor, and noting polysaccharides are within a group including sugar based compounds, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a polysaccharide including cellulose, chitosan and starch for the sugar based compound of Ramadass et al NPL reference to provide an equivalent carbon precursor for the doped activated nanoporous carbon material of Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference.
With regards to claim 28, Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference further teaches wherein the heteroatom dopant precursor is selected from one or more of the groups consisting of a nitrogen precursor, a sulfur precursor, a boron precursor.
With regards to claim 29, Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference further teaches wherein the nitrogen precursor is selected from the group listed in claim 10, specifically noting Chinese reference translation teaches a nitrogen precursor including melamine, polypyrrole, and polyaniline.
With regards to claim 33, Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference is silent as to wherein the template material is further loaded with a dehydration agent before step b. Examiner notes Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference teaches removing moisture and volatiles from a loaded template material, and also notes dehydration agents are common for removing moisture, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to provide a dehydration agent before a drying step of Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference in order to provide an enhanced and more efficient step of removing moisture and volatiles.
With regards to claim 35, Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference further teaches wherein the activating agent is selected from the group consisting of a zinc compound, phosphoric acid, potassium acetate, sodium hydroxide, potassium carbonate, ammonium carbonate, and ammonium persulfate(page 11923 4th full para reciting “HNT- sucrose to ZNCl2 weight ratio”).
With regards to claim 41, Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference further teaches wherein the composition obtained from step d is treated with HCl to remove the template material. Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference is silent as to the composition obtained from step d is treated with HCl to remove the activating agent and with HF to remove the template material. Examiner respectfully submits Chinese reference teaches using a hydro-halogen compound to remove template material, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to provide composition obtained from step d is treated with HCl to remove the activating agent and with HF to remove the template material, in order to provide an equivalent hydro-halogen compound to remove the activating agent and the template material of the composition of Ramadass et al NPL reference taken together with Chinese reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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.
/ROBERT A HOPKINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
January 29, 2026