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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10, 13-17, 19, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9120079. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common subject matter. While the claimed features are not discussed in the patent claims, based upon the tables of the patent, the claimed parameters appear to be possessed or obvious by overlapping ranges. See figs. 12 and 13. The patented claims encompass all ratios of pyridine to pyrrole/pyridine, even though table 9 shows an embodiment not within the claim scope. Table 8 teaches the C-O bonds character.
Claims 1-10, 13-17, 19, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11077421. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common subject matter; the present claims do not preclude the phosphate doping of the patent. Note the tables in the patent; it appears that the present parameters are possessed or obvious by overlapping ranges.
See col. 10 for the Oxy groups. 18.7% is pyridinc nitrogen (compare to greater than about 20.0% herein). 50% of the N is pyrrole/pyridine edge sites, so there are other such groups. Col. 11 implies more C-O bonds than C=O bonds, consistent with the claims.
Claims 1-10, 13-17, 19, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, 21-30 of copending Application No. 18/667806 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common subject matter. While the two sets of claims discuss different aspects of the carbon, from the tables of the copending application, it appears that the carbon are the same or obvious due to overlapping ranges of groups/atomic percentages and the like.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
It is noted that the ‘layer’ in ‘806 contemplates little more than 2 atoms thick and thus includes surface functional groups, rather than an externally applied coating of a foreign substance (as the term ‘layer’ usually connotes). Claim 10 of ‘806 supports this notion in so far as the spectroscopy detects primarily or exclusively surface chemistry. The claims of ‘806 include all ratios of the types of C-N bonding.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant should show a difference in the product versus their copending/patented cases. The PTO does not have the ability to perform the necessary analysis. It appears that the two patents are drawn to essentially the same material but doped with S and P respectively.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736