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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on August 10, 2026.
Claims 1, 15, 138, 187-192 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1, 15, 138, 187-189 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of US Patent No. 12,054,391 is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 190-192 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of US Patent 12,054,391 in view of Tour et al is withdrawn.
Claims 1, 15, 187, 189 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 15, 187, 189 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al (WO Patent 2016/040948 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 1, 15, 187, 189, Jung et al teaches applying pulsing voltage and current with heating conditions to carbon nanotubes and transforming into layers of graphene by controlling the electrical parameters such as voltages, pulse magnitude, amplitude, number of cycles and duty of cycles (wherein carbon nanotubes inherently have a conductivity of greater than 10-5 S/cm and satisfies the conductive carbon source comprises less than 50% graphene as less than 50% includes 0 as a lower limit) (Abstract, Pg. 2, Lines 5-22, Pg. 9, Lines 1-30, Pg. 17, Lines 9-12, Figure 4B). Jung et al further teaches forming a composite material comprising the graphene material produced (Pg. 6, Lines 12-15).
Jung et al teaches the same method as the instant claims; hence, Jung et al anticipates the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 138, 188, 190-192 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (WO Patent 2016/040948 (already of record)) as applied to claims 1, 15, 187, 189 above, and in further view of Tour et al (WO Patent 2016/133571 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 138, 188, 190-192, Jung et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Jung et al teaches the features above. However, Jung et al fails to specifically disclose moving the conductive source and graphene in synchronized form to apply voltage to the conducive source, a mixture of a conductive carbon source mixed with a polymer material to form the graphene material, forming composite materials comprising the graphene.
In the same field of endeavor, Tour et al teaches producing graphene by exposing a graphene precursor material to a laser source (Abstract). Tour et al further teaches the laser sources are operated by controlling the power and pulse of the laser sources (Paragraphs 69-74). Tour et al further teaches automated processing lines to form the graphene from the graphene precursor material (Paragraph 76). Tour et al further teaches graphene precursor materials including carbon base materials, polymers, amorphous carbon and mixtures thereof (Paragraphs 56, 61). Tour et al further teaches pseudocapacitive materials including graphene-PANI composites or composite comprising polymers, metals and metal oxides (Abstract, Paragraphs 108-112, 164).
With regard to moving the conductive source and graphene in synchronized form to apply voltage to the conducive source, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided moving the conductive source and graphene in synchronized form to apply voltage to the conducive source in Jung et al in view of Tour et al in order to produce the graphene material in a continuous process.
With regard to a mixture of a conductive carbon source mixed with a polymer material to form the graphene material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a mixture of a conductive carbon source mixed with a polymer material to form the graphene material in Jung et al in view of Tour et al as Jung et al et al already encompasses a network/array/bundle comprising the mixture of SWCNT or MWCNT with a polymer material (Pg. 10, Lines 24-31) wherein Tour et al teaches carbon based material and polymer material as both graphene precursor materials (Paragraphs 55-56). The mixture of carbon nanotubes (which satisfies a conductivity of greater than 10-5 S/cm) and a polyimide polymer (which satisfies a conductivity of less than 10-5 S/cm) would only be obvious in view of Jung et al in view of Tour et al.
With regard to forming composite material comprising the graphene, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided forming composite material comprising the graphene in Jung et al in view of Tour et al in order to form a pseudocapacitive material for electronic devices as taught in Tour et al. With respect to the amount of graphene in the composite material, it would only be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize/adjust the amount of the graphene in the composite material depending on the type of electronic device that is being produced. Where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). A prima facie case of obviousness may be established even though a prior art reference does not disclose any particular range, but teaches that the claimed parameters are known to affect results or properties. In re Boesch 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the anticipation rejection over Odagawa et al have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed over Jung et al and Jung et al in view of Tour et al have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the anticipation rejection over Jung et al, Applicant argues that SWCNT network used to make the MGNR doesn’t have a conductivity greater than 10-5 S/cm. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument as Jung et al only teaches the ropes limit their electrical and thermal conductivity. Based on the conductivity limitation in the claim (greater than 10-5 S/cm); the SWCNT ropes of Jung et al satisfies the claimed limitation. As evidence, Kaiser et al compares the resistivity (conductivity) of the carbon nanotube ropes with tangled regions and mats compared with single ropes and the carbon nanotubes ropes with tangled regions still had a resistivity of 1.3 ohm/m (7.69x10-3 S/cm). Zhang et al teaches CNT bundles of 20-50 S/cm (Table 1). Therefore, although the rope interactions limit or lower the electrical conductivity, the conductivity would still be within the range of greater than 10-5 S/cm, as this range includes semiconductors.
Applicant further argues that the heating in Jung et al is performed by micro-heaters for external heating and not via the current. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument because pulsing voltage and current in Jung et al inherently provides the claimed heating.
With regard to the obviousness rejection over Jung et al in view of Tour et al, Applicant argues that Tour uses laser, not heat via a current. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field would not combine such elements in the manner claimed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument as the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It would only be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to provide an automated processing line/moving the conductive source and graphene in synchronized form to apply voltage to the conductive source in Jung et al in view of Tour et al to from graphene from the precursor material with a continuous process.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on August 10, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 12,054,391 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 October 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights