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 in response to Applicant’s response to election/restriction filed 06/23/2026 and the IDS’s filed 07/01/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 06/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-2, 4-15, 17-19, 22, 105-106 are pending and being examined. Claims 3, 16, 20-21, 23-104 are canceled. Claims 105-106 are newly added with no new subject matter being introduced.
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 1-2, 4-15, 17-19, 22, 105-106 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.
Considering claim 1, the claim is directed to a method comprising flash joule heating. However, it is unclear what there are no process steps identifying what “flash joule heating” comprises. For the purpose of examination, flash joule heating comprises the process steps of claim 2.
Considering claim 2, the intent of “duration of each of one or more voltage pulses is for a duration period” is unclear. A voltage pulse would inherently have a duration period.
Claim 6 recites “the one or more other dimensional structures”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (Wang et al., “Carbothermal shock enabled facile and fast growth of carbon nanotubes in a second”, Nano Research, Tsinghua University Press, CN, vol. 15, no. 3, 12 August 2021, pages 2576-2581).
Considering claims 1 and 13, Wang teaches flash Joule heating a mixture of a material and a catalyst to form a 1-dimensional structure by teaching ultra-fast Joule heating of carbonized silk fabric (i.e., material) loaded with transition metal salts (i.e., catalyst) in ethanol solution to form carbon nanotubes (i.e., 1-dimensional structure) (Wang, abstract).
Considering claim 2, Wang teaches the flash Joule process is a process comprising a voltage across the mixtures, which drives a current through the mixture to form the 1-dimensional structure; the voltage is applied in one or more pulses; and duration of each of the one or more voltage pulses is for a duration period (Wang, abstract).
Considering claim 4, Wang teaches the 1-dimensional structure is graphitic 1D and/or hybrid nanomaterial by teaching carbon nanotubes (Wang, abstract).
Considering claims 5-6, Wang teaches forming 1-dimnesional structure forming along with one or more other dimensional structures (i.e., 2-dimensional structure) by teaches growth of carbon nanotubes on reduced graphene oxide (Wang, page 2570 2nd paragraph of 1st column); it would be expected that the 1-dimensional structure and the other dimensional structures are conjoined covalently or non-covalently.
Considering claim 7, Wang teaches the one or more other dimensional structures are conjoined to form a 3-dimensional network by teaching fluffy carbon nanotubes on reduced graphene oxide (Wang, page 2570 2nd paragraph of 1st column).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Wang et al., “Carbothermal shock enabled facile and fast growth of carbon nanotubes in a second”, Nano Research, Tsinghua University Press, CN, vol. 15, no. 3, 12 August 2021, pages 2576-2581).
Considering claim 8, Wang teaches the growth of carbon nanotubes through the CTS process (i.e., flash joule heating) can also be applied with other carbon substrates such as growing CNT’s on reduced graphene oxide film and carbonized Kevlar textile (Wang, page 2570 2nd paragraph of 1st column).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the carbon material to comprise a polymer. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do so because flash joule heating process is also suitable for growing carbon nanotubes on polymer such as Kevlar textile.
Claims 11, 14-15, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Wang et al., “Carbothermal shock enabled facile and fast growth of carbon nanotubes in a second”, Nano Research, Tsinghua University Press, CN, vol. 15, no. 3, 12 August 2021, pages 2576-2581) in view of Luong (Luong et al., “Gram-scale bottom-up flash graphene synthesis”, Nature, 2020, Vol. 577, pages 647-651).
Considering claim 11, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 1 limitations except for the material is a waste product comprising carbon.
Wang teaches flash joule heating for growing carbon nanotube and growing carbon nanotubes on reduced graphene oxide, he does not explicitly teach the material is a waste product comprising carbon.
However, Luong teaches flash joule heating of inexpensive carbon sources such as coal, petroleum coke, biochar, carbon black, discarded food, rubber tires and mixed plastic waster to produce graphene (Luong, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the material to be a waste product containing carbon. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to use a waste product and produce a useful product with a reasonable expectation of success and also because flash joule heating is a suitable process used in converting inexpensive carbon sources to useful carbon products.
Considering claims 14-15, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 1 limitations except for the mixture further comprising a conductive carbon additive.
Wang does not explicitly teach the mixture further comprising a conductive carbon additive.
However, Luong teaches flash joule heating of inexpensive carbon sources such as coal, petroleum coke, biochar, carbon black, discarded food, rubber tires and mixed plastic waster to produce graphene (Luong, abstract). Luong teaches mixing the inexpensive carbon sources (i.e., coffee grounds) with carbon black and/or flash graphene for better results and/or yields (Luong, 2nd column on page 648).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the mixture to further comprise a conductive carbon additive. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve better results and/or yield for the product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 22, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 1 limitations except for the yield of the 1-dimensional structure.
Wang is silent regarding the yield of the 1-dimensional structure and does not explicitly teach that it is at least 65%.
However, Luong teaches yields of flash joule heating depend on the carbon content of the source (Luong, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to vary the carbon content of the source in order to achieve at least 65%. One of ordinary skill in the art, would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve desired yield with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7588. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights