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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 9, 2026 have been carefully considered.
Amended claim 1 (lines 2-5) now recites a system comprising “a thermal reactor configured to generate a thermal reactor waste product comprising carbonaceous material; a waste separation vessel configured to collect polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) oils and low molecular weight solids separated from the thermal reactor waste product”.
In view of Applicant’s arguments and the amendment to claim 1, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly discovered prior art to Jin Zhang et al. (CN 113023708 A), as detailed in the rejections below.
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 and 3-28 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “a waste separation vessel configured to collect polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) oils and low molecular weight solids separated from the thermal reactor waste product” (at lines 4-5) is unclear. Firstly, the recitation of “polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) oils and low molecular weight solids” lacks proper positive antecedent basis because the claim fails to set forth how such compounds are introduced into the system. Secondly, the recitation of “polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) oils and low molecular weight solids separated from the thermal reactor waste product” lacks proper positive antecedent basis because the claim fails to set forth any device(s) to perform the necessary function of separating polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons oils and low molecular weight solids from the thermal reactor waste product, so that these compounds can be further collected in “a waste separation vessel”.
Also, the limitation of “a sonication device configured to mix the carbonaceous material with a solvent” (at lines 6-7) is unclear because the claim fails to set forth any device(s) to perform the necessary function of separating the carbonaceous material from the thermal reactor waste product, so that the carbonaceous material (alone) can be further mixed with a solvent and sonicated using “a sonication device”.
Also, the relationship between the “graphene quantum dots” (at line 9) and the “carbonaceous material” (at line 6) is unclear. In particular, it is unclear as to how the “graphene quantum dots” arise from the “carbonaceous material”.
Regarding claim 14, the relationship between the “unwanted components” and the “polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) oils and low molecular weight solids separated from the thermal reactor waste product” previously set forth in claim 1 (at lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear as to the further limitation being recited because claim 1 already sets forth that “polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) oils and low molecular weight solids” are separated from the thermal reactor waste product.
The remaining claims are also rejected because they depend from a rejected base claim.
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.
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, 9-19, 21, 22 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin Zhang et al. (CN 113023708 A) in view of Yong Zhang et al. (CN 109850881 A).
Regarding claim 1, Jin Zhang et al. discloses a system for producing graphene quantum dots (i.e., an apparatus for producing “fluorescent carbon points”; see translation), comprising:
a thermal reactor configured to generate a thermal reactor waste product comprising carbonaceous material (i.e., a combustion apparatus (thermal reactor) in a sugar plant, thermal power plant, or smelting plant for combusting (burning and carbonizing) biomass, wherein the apparatus generates a waste product comprising combustion smoke and dust containing fine solid particulate matter, wherein the fine solid particulate matter comprises carbon points as a carbonaceous material; see paragraph bridging pages 3-4 and Embodiment 1);
a waste separation vessel configured to collect polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and low molecular weight solids separated from the thermal reactor waste product (i.e., during step 2 of the preparation process, unwanted components of the combustion smoke and dust are separated by filtering and centrifuging to obtain a clear liquid which contains the desired carbon points, see page 3 and Embodiment 1 of the translation; the smoke and dust generated from the combustion of biomass will inherently contain polycyclic aromatic hydrogens oils and lower molecular weight solids, which are well-known as by-products of incomplete combustion; furthermore, the system would be expected to inherently include a “vessel” to collect the unwanted components separated by the filtering and centrifuging, but, even if not inherent, the examiner takes Official notice that the provision of a vessel to collect the unwanted components for additional processing or disposal would have been well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art);
a dispersing device configured to mix the carbonaceous material with a solvent to form a mixture (i.e., after evaporating the liquid to obtain powder carbon points in step 2, the powder carbon points are dispersed in de-ionized water in step 3 to form a carbon point water solution; see page 3 and Embodiment 1 of translation);
a filtration device configured to filter the mixture (i.e., during step 3, filtering is performed using a film/membrane having an aperture of 220 nm to obtain a filtrate containing carbon points; see page 3 and Embodiment 1 of translation); and
a collection vessel configured to receive a filtrate containing graphene quantum dots from the filtration device (i.e., during step 3, the filtrate is collected so that it can be subsequently dialyzed to obtain a lower conversion blue fluorescent carbon point aqueous solution; see page 3 and Embodiment 1 of translation; furthermore, the system would be expected to inherently include a “vessel” to collect the filtrate that was produced by the filtering, but, even if not inherent, the examiner takes Official notice that the provision of a vessel to collect the filtrate, so that the filtrate can be subjected to further dialysis, would have been well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art).
The system of Jin Zhang et al. is the same as the claimed system, except that Jin Zhang et al. fails to disclose that the dispersing device comprises “a sonication device”, so that the mixture (dispersion) is a sonicated mixture.
Yong Zhang et al. (see translation; in particular, at the underlined sections) discloses a system for producing graphene quantum dots (translated as “graphene quantum sheets”), wherein the system comprises: a sonication device configured to mix a carbonaceous material with a solvent to form a sonicated mixture (i.e., an ultrasound probe type ultrasonic device or a water bath ultrasonic device for producing a dispersion comprising a carbonaceous material and a solvent; see translation at page 4, ninth paragraph, to page 5, third paragraph).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a sonication device for the dispersing device to produce a sonicated mixture in the system of Jin Zhang et al. because the yield of graphene quantum dots could be increased by sonicating the mixture, as taught by Yong Zhang et al. (see translation at page 5, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Jin Zhang et al. discloses that the carbonaceous material comprises reactor carbon (i.e., carbon points produced by combusting the biomass material in the combustion apparatus; see paragraph bridging pages 3-4 of the translation).
Regarding claim 4, the solvent is not considered an element of the apparatus, as it is merely a material to be worked upon by the apparatus during an intended operation. The modified system of Jin Zhang et al. would be capable of mixing the carbonaceous material with toluene, in the event that toluene was selected for the solvent.
Regarding claim 5, Yong Zhang et al. further discloses that the sonication device comprises a water bath sonicator (i.e., a water bath ultrasonic device; see translation at page 5, third paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Jin Zhang et al. further discloses that the filtration device comprises a 0.2 μm filter (i.e., a filter with an aperture of 220 nm; see translation at page 3, under step 3).
Regarding claim 9, Jin Zhang et al. further discloses a step of re-dispersiing the graphene quantum dots in a re-dispersing solvent (i.e., in step 5, the carbon points are re-dispersed in absolute ethyl alcohol), wherein the re-dispersing solvent differs from the initial solvent (i.e., the de-ionized water in step 3). Jin Zhang et al., however, fails to disclose an evaporation device configured to evaporate solvent from a portion of the filtrate to obtain a residue.
Yong Zhang et al., however, further discloses an evaporation device configured to evaporate solvent from a portion of the filtrate to obtain a residue (i.e., in a drying step for obtaining a graphene quantum sheet powder, the solvent can be evaporated by a drying device configured for vacuum drying and/or heating drying, so that the powder can be re-dispersed in a different re-dispersing solvent; see translation at page 6, fourth to sixth paragraphs).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an evaporation device configured to evaporate solvent from a portion of the filtrate in the modified system of Jin Zhang et al. because the evaporation device would have facilitated the removal of the initial solvent, so that the graphene quantum dots could be re-dispersed in a re-dispersing solvent that was different from the initial solvent, as taught by Yong Zhang et al.
Regarding claim 10, Jin Zhang et al. further discloses a re-dispersion device configured to re-disperse the graphene quantum dots in a re-dispersion solvent to form a re-dispersed mixture (i.e., a dispersing device for dispersing the carbon points in absolute ethyl alcohol; see step 5 and Embodiment 2). The specific solvent is not considered an element of the apparatus, as it is merely a material to be worked upon by the apparatus during an intended operation.
Regarding claim 11, Jin Zhang et al. further discloses a TEM microscope to analyze the re-dispersed mixture (i.e., a TEM image was obtained for the carbon point solution of Embodiment 2; see FIG. 1 and translation at page 5, fourth paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, Jin Zhang et al. further discloses that the system produces graphene quantum dots having a size between 1-100 nm (i.e., fluorescent carbon points having a particle diameter of about 15 nm, see Embodiment 1; or about 10 nm, see Embodiment 2).
Regarding claim 13, Jin Zhang et al. further discloses that the system produces graphene quantum dots that exhibit fluorescence when exposed to ultraviolet light (see FIG. 3 and paragraph bridging pages 5-6 of the translation).
Regarding claim 14, Jun Zhang et al. further discloses a separation device configured to separate unwanted components from the carbonaceous material (i.e., during step 2, a filtering and centrifuging device separates unwanted components of the combustion smoke and dust from a clear liquid containing the desired carbon points; see page 3 and Embodiment 1).
Regarding claim 15, the combustion smoke and dust produced by combusting biomass will inherently contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons oils and lower molecular weight solids, which are by-products of incomplete combustion. Therefore, in the modified system of Jun Zhang et al., the unwanted components removed by the separation device will comprise polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons oils and low molecular weight solids.
Regarding claim 16, Jin Zhang et al. further discloses a cold trap of the thermal reactor configured to collect any hydrophobic quantum dots in the thermal reactor waste product (i.e., a large barrel containing purified water condenses and traps components of the combustion smoke and dust; see step 1 of the preparation process, Embodiment 1).
Regarding claim 17, Jin Zhang et al. further discloses a dispersion device configured to disperse the hydrophobic quantum dots in one or more solvents (i.e., a dispersing device from step 3 of the preparation process; see page 3 and Embodiment 1 of the translation).
Regarding claim 18, Jin Zhang et al. further discloses a characterization device configured to analyze the graphene quantum dots (i.e., a device for obtaining a TEM image, SEM image, ultraviolet-visible absorption spectrum, fluorescence spectrum, Fourier transform infrared absorption spectrum, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) diagram, or photograph of the carbon dots; see FIG. 1-6; translation at page 4 and pages 5-6).
Regarding claim 19, Jin Zhang et al. further discloses that the characterization device comprises a fluorescence spectrometer (i.e., a device for obtaining a carbon dot fluorescence spectrum; see FIG. 3, translation at paragraph bridging pages 5-6).
Regarding claim 21, Jin Zhang et al. further discloses a purification device configured to purify the graphene quantum dots from the filtrate (i.e., in step 4, the carbon point solution is subjected to further centrifuging; see translation at page 3).
Regarding claim 22, Jin Zhang et al. further discloses that the purification device comprises a centrifuge (i.e., in step 4, the carbon point solution is subjected to further centrifuging, see translation at page 3).
Regarding claim 24, Jin Zhang et al. further discloses a surface functionalizing device configured to modify the surface of the graphene quantum dots (i.e., in step 4, the fluorescent carbon points obtained from step 3 are modified to emit strong fluorescence by adjusting the pH value of the fluorescent carbon point solution using a sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution; see translation at page 3).
Regarding claim 25, Jin Zhang et al. discloses that the surface functionalization device is configured to attach functional groups to the graphene dots (i.e., attach an -OH function group by treating with the sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution; see translation at page 3).
Regarding claim 26, Jin Zhang et al. further discloses a size selection device configured to separate graphene quantum dots based on size (i.e., a dialysis bag with a cut-off molecular weight of 3500Da is used in step 3; see translation at page 3).
Regarding claim 27, Jin Zhang et al. further discloses that the size selection device comprises a dialysis bag (i.e., the dialysis bag with a cut-off molecular weight of 3500Da; see translation at page 3).
Claim 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin Zhang et al. (CN 113023708 A) in view of Yong Zhang et al. (CN 109850881 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tour et al. (US 2016/0060122 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Jin Zhang et al. fails to disclose that the system further comprises a dilution device configured to dilute the filtrate to multiple concentrations.
Tour et al. discloses a dilution device configured to dilute a sample of graphene quantum dots to multiple concentrations (i.e., a solution containing graphene quantum dots was diluted to multiple different concentrations, so that data relating to the photophysical characterizations of the graphene quantum dots at different concentrations could be analyzed; see FIGs. 14C, 14D; paragraphs [0025], [0098]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a dilution device configured to dilute the filtrate to multiple concentrations in the modified system of Jin Zhang et al. because the dilution device would allow for additional data relating to the photophysical characterizations of the graphene quantum dots at different concentrations to be determined, taught by Tour et al.
Regarding claim 8, Tour et al. further discloses a UV light source configured to illuminate a sample of graphene quantum dots (i.e., a UV light of a UV spectrophotometer for measuring the UV absorbance of a sample of graphene quantum dots; see FIG. 14A; paragraphs [0025], [0094], [0105]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a UV light source configured to illuminate the filtrate samples in the modified system of Jin Zhang et al. because the UV light source would allow for the UV absorbance of the filtrate samples to be measured for obtaining additional photophysical characterizations of the graphene quantum dots, as taught by Tour et al.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin Zhang et al. (CN 113023708 A) in view of Yong Zhang et al. (CN 109850881 A), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (CN 109678141 A).
Jin Zhang et al. fails to further disclose an atomic force microscope for the characterization device.
Guo et al. discloses a characterization device configured to analyze graphene quantum dots, wherein the characterization device comprises an atomic force microscope (i.e., an atomic force microscope for determining a size and height of the graphene quantum dots; see FIG. 2; translation at underlined portions on pages 2-3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an atomic force microscope for the characterization device in the modified system of Jin Zhang et al. because the atomic force microscope would allow for the further determination of the size and height of the graphene quantum dots produced by the system, as taught by Guo et al.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin Zhang et al. (CN 113023708 A) in view of Yong Zhang et al. (CN 109850881 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 108102649 A).
Jin Zhang et al. fails to disclose that the system further comprises a storage device configured to store the graphene quantum dots under controlled environmental conditions.
Liu et al. discloses a storage device configured to store graphene quantum dots under controlled environmental conditions (i.e., a refrigerator for low temperature storing of a carbon quantum dot solution, at a temperature of 4 °C; see translation of the Examples).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a storage device for storing the graphene quantum dots in the modified system of Jin Zhang et al. because the storage device (i.e., a refrigerator for providing low temperature storage) would allow for the graphene quantum dots to be stored for a long period of time without deterioration, as taught by Liu et al.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin Zhang et al. (CN 113023708 A) in view of Yong Zhang et al. (CN 109850881 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (CN 109678141 A) or Tour et al. (US 2017/0152145 A1).
Jin Zhang et al. fails to disclose that the system comprises a packaging device configured to prepare the graphene quantum dots for storage or transport, or a quality control device configured to assess the purity and uniformity of the graphene quantum dots, wherein the quality control device comprises a dynamic light scattering instrument.
Guo et al. discloses a packaging device configured to prepare graphene quantum dots for storage or transport (i.e., a device that prepares graphene quantum dots by separating the graphene quantum dots into different sized fractions and storing fractions in respective closeable containers; see FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a packaging device in the modified system of Jin Zhang et al. because the packaging device would allow for the preparation of the graphene quantum dots by separating the graphene quantum dots into different sized fractions and storing the fractions in respective closeable containers, which would be suitable for storage or transport, as taught by Guo et al.
Also, Tour et al. discloses a quality control device configured to assess the purity and uniformity of the graphene quantum dots, wherein the quality control device comprises a dynamic light scattering instrument (i.e., dynamic light scattering (DLS) was performed on a Malvern Zen 3600 Zetasizer, see paragraph [0119]; the hydrodynamic diameters of the graphene quantum dots were determined via DLS analysis, see FIG. 3; paragraphs [0015]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a quality control device comprising a dynamic light scattering instrument in the modified system of Jin Zhang et al. because the hydrodynamic diameters of the graphene quantum dots could then be measured to determine the distribution of the hydrodynamic diameters, as taught by Tour et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
de Oliveira et al. (Materials Letters 282 (2021) 128764) describes the use of various wastes and by-products as raw materials for synthesizing carbon quantum dots.
Kronholm et al. (US 2004/0057896 A1) further discloses that combustion generated soot will contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as species physically condensed with the soot, solids having a range of molecular weights, and carbon nanostructures including shaped nanoparticles and cylindrical nanotubes (see paragraphs [0028]-[0029]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, CLAIRE X WANG can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights