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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on 07/20/2026 and 06/22/2026 have been entered.
Status of the Claims
Pursuant to the amendment dated 06/22/2026, new claim 29 has been added. Claims 4, 6-8, 18, and 20-25 have been cancelled previously.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-17, 19, and 26-29 are pending and under current examination.
All rejections not reiterated have been withdrawn.
Request for Interview
At page 5 of the response, Applicant set forth a request for an interview with the Examiner in the event that the application was not found to be in condition for allowance. This request was attached to an amendment which must be acted on by the Office in a timely fashion. In the future, Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner and/or her supervisor directly to arrange any interviews prior to the submission of amendments, so that any remaining issues can be discussed in a timely fashion.
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 1-3, 5, 9-17, 19, and 26-29 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.
The term “majority” in claim 1 requires an amount of potassium-containing composition of an amount of potassium-containing composition without indicating whether the amount is in terms of mass, mole, or volume.
Claims 1, 13, and 29 recite “oxidized carbon black additive”. This term renders the claim indefinite because carbon black acid does not appear to be a recognized substance. There is no CAS Registry number associated with the term and the examiner’s search led to ambiguous results in terms of what the term encompasses. Moreover, carbon black itself contains acid groups, see e.g. Khodabakhshi et al. (Carbon 162 604-649; 2020), figure 1d which depicts carbon black structure as containing both hydroxyl groups and carboxylic acid groups. In view of this disclosure, it is unclear whether the term “oxidized carbon black additive” recited in the claims reads on carbon black itself, since this substances does contain products of oxidation. The record establishes Applicant to interpret this term to distinguish from the substance known as carbon black (see the declaration and remarks filed 10/13/2025); however the record also fails to identify a clear delineation between these groups of substances that would be a boundary marker to one of ordinary skill seeking to determine the scope of the claims. Clarification is required.
Claims depending from rejected claims have also been rejected because they incorporate all of the limitations of the claims from which they depend, but fail to resolve the indefiniteness concerns outlined above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, Applicant asserts that the current claim recites “oxidized carbon black additive having acid groups”, which a skilled artisan would understand to mean such a modified carbon black such as carbon black featuring active oxygen-containing surface groups. Applicant asserts that the specification expressly defines the oxidized carbon black additive as a material “oxidized by controllable chemical oxidation to create the functional groups on its surface”, citing page 7. Applicant argues that this is a post-production treatment that is distinct from incidental oxygen content arising during carbon black formation. Applicant asserts that Khodabakhshi confirms this distinction with the statement that “most CB have significantly lower surface functional groups, thus requiring … oxidation to allow for the grafting of species bearing different functional groups”.
These arguments are not persuasive because they do not address the reasoning underling the indefiniteness rejection, see above. The examiner maintains that it is not clear at what point a carbon black substance has sufficient degree of oxidation as to fall within the scope of the instant invention, as claimed. The fact that a “post-production” oxidation step occurs does not provide the artisan of ordinary skill any guidance as to the extent of oxidation required for a carbon black substance to fall within the scope of the claims, and would depend upon the degree of oxidation of the starting material, which also varies.
Regarding the argument on page 7 that the specification expressly identifies unoxidized carbon black as an alternative embodiment that does not include a functionalized surface, confirming that carbon black and oxidized carbon black are terms that a skilled artisan would readily distinguish, Applicant appears to be referring to the following statement: “In alternative embodiments (not shown), the carbon-based additive does not include a functionalized or activated surface, such as, for example, but not limited to, biochar, starches, carbon black, humics, fulvics, and the like, or combinations thereof”.
The examiner does not consider this type of language to provide the requisite clarifying distinction between the two allegedly different substances. As has been made clear on the record, carbon black contains variable amounts of pendant oxygen-containing moieties. Neither the prior art nor the instant application provide any clear cut off in terms of the chemical structure of carbon black vs oxidized carbon black.
As explained previously, the concern is that the language recited in the instant claims does not distinguish from the substances referred to in the art as “carbon black”, as it was used at the time the instant application was filed and the specification does not provide sufficient guidance to clearly delineate the scope of the terms “carbon black acid” or “oxidized carbon black additive”. The examiner considers the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “oxidized carbon black additive”, in view of the prior art usage and the guidance in the specification to read on any material that has been formed from carbon rich feeds under rigorously controlled thermal decomposition in inert (pyrolysis) or oxygen-depleted (partial combustion) atmosphere. While perfect pyrolysis might lead to a product containing only carbon atoms and no products of oxidation, the term “carbon black” also refers to products formed by a partial combustion reaction, in which oxygen is reduced but still present as a reactant in the combustion reaction. The product of partial combustion would fall within the term “oxidized carbon black additive”. The examiner’s position is supported by Khodabakhshi’s table 1, in which substances referred to as “carbon black” are also described as functionalized by oxidation (e.g. see col 2 and 5 of table 1; Fig 1, which depicts “Cabot REGAL 250”, a type of “carbon black” as the term is used in Khodabakhshi). As the term “oxidized carbon black additive” does not identify a degree of oxidation over that found in substances referred to in the art as “carbon black” the examiner does not consider these terms to be clearly distinct in meaning.
In view of the foregoing, one having ordinary skill in the art cannot unambiguously ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim and the indefiniteness rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 5, 9, 10, 12, 27, and 29 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann (US20210070668; publication date: 03/11/2021; of record) as evidenced by Khodabakhshi (Carbon 162 604-649; publication year 2020; of record).
With regard to claims 1 and 29, Hartmann discloses granules comprising 0.1 to 1.1 % carbon black powder (claim 1) that are homogenously mixed (i.e. the carbon black is embedded within the granule). The examiner considers carbon black to have acid groups because this substance has pendant carboxylic acid groups (see Khodabakhshi et al. (Carbon 162 604-649; 2020), figure 1d). With regard to the limitation requiring the carbon black to be “oxidized”, guidance on the scope of this term provided by the instant specification only indicates that “[e]xamples of carbon-based additives include carbon black acids sourced from the incomplete combustion of materials including vegetable matter or other organic matter, or petroleum products, that are oxidized by controllable chemical oxidation to create the functional groups on its surface” (page 7). However, carbon black itself is also produced by this method: Khodabakhshi states: Carbon black (CB, CAS No. 1333–86–4) materials are formed under the rigorously controlled thermal decomposition of carbon rich feeds in inert (pyrolysis) or oxygen-depleted (partial combustion) atmosphere” (page 605). Khodabakhshi discloses further that substances referred to in the prior art as “carbon black” possess pendant acid groups (i.e. they are oxidized; Fig. 1), The specification does not provide any clarity as to the degree of oxidation where a substance ceases to fall within the scope of “carbon black” as the term is used in the art and instead is an “oxidized carbon black”. Accordingly, the examiner considers the term “carbon black” employed by Hartmann to also inherently embrace carbon black having a pendant carboxylic acid group.
Hartmann does not disclose an example composition containing a potassium-containing composition and an oxidized carbon black additive embedded within the potassium-containing composition; however, Hartmann discloses that the composition may additionally contain nutrients such as potassium (0006), therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to add a potassium containing nutrient to the composition because such was contemplated by Hartmann. With regard to the limitation that a majority of the granule must comprise a potassium containing composition, as noted above, it is unclear the extent to which this language limits the relative proportions of potassium composition and other components. Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “potassium-containing composition” is a composition (i.e. collection of substances) containing at least one potassium atom. As such, the phrase “potassium-containing composition” reads on any fertilizer granule containing any amount of potassium, as the granule itself is a composition and contains potassium. In view of the foregoing, Hartmann renders obvious this limitation by proposing to include potassium in their granules. Finally, the examiner also does not consider this limitation to patentably define over the prior art as it would be merely routine to formulate the granule to contain amounts of nutrients needed for any particular crop, which would vary extensively based on identity of the crop plant and location.
With regard to the limitation requiring the granules to be compacted, the examiner points out that “compacted” describes how the granule was manufactured, and is therefore a product by process limitation. Hartmann discloses homogeneous granules containing carbon black (see e.g. para 0081: “It is possible to produce homogenous granules having virtually any ratio of calcium cyanamide to urea, and carbon black ratios. These material can be made using the apparatus illustrated in FIG. 1. Such heterogeneous compositions can include calcium cyanamide in ranges from about 0.1% by weight to less than about 30% by weight, more preferably from about 0.1% to less than about 20% by weight, even more preferably from about 0.1% to less than about 10% by weight, and typically less than about 5%, and the balance being nitrogen-containing materials, such as urea mixed with about 0.1% to about 1.1% carbon black, and any other material that may be chosen to make useful compositions.”) Absent evidence that such granules would be structurally and patentably distinct from the claimed granules, the claimed “compacted granules” read on Hartmann’s granules formed by any method.
With regard to claims 2 and 3, as noted above, carbon black contains pendant carboxylic acid groups, which are comprised of carboxyl and hydroxyl moieties.
With regard to claims 5 and 29, the composition can contain e.g. potassium chloride or muriate of potash (0097; example 5, table A).
With regard to claim 9, as noted above, Hartmann discloses a granule in which all ingredients are mixed homogenously (i.e. the carbon black is embedded within the granule). Hartmann also discloses an embodiment in which the carbon black-containing mixture is coated onto the surface of a solid core (claim 20). It would have been obvious to combine these two formats, resulting in a granule having carbon black distributed throughout the core and as a coating over the core because this would merely be combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
With regard to claim 10, as noted above, the carbon black is present at between 0.1 and 1.1 % (claim 1).
With regard to claim 12, the examiner considers the phrase “the oxidized carbon black additive comprises a liquid form” to be product by process language, as the claimed final product is in the form of a granule. The final product is a dry granule whether the carbon-based additive is in liquid or solid form prior to application.
With regard to claim 27, Hartmann discloses that “it is possible to include other plant fertilizing materials, nutrients and soil amendments in embodiments of the compositions of the present invention. Other plant fertilizers, nutrients and soil amendments include, but are not limited to … micronutrients” (0082).
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-17, 19, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann (US20210070668; publication date: 03/11/2021; of record) in view of Yu et al. (US 2020/0305424; publication date: 10/01/2020; of record).
With regard to claims 1, 13, and 29, Hartmann discloses granules comprising 0.1 to 1.1 % carbon black powder (claim 1) that are homogenously mixed (i.e. the carbon black is embedded within the granule).
As noted in the rejection over Hartmann supra, the examiner considers the term “oxidized carbon black additive” to read on the carbon black substances disclosed by Hartmann; however, Hartmann does not refer to oxidized carbon black verbatim. However, such was known in the prior art:
Yu describes a substance they refer to as “carbon black acid” having carboxyl groups that can act as a plant growth promoter and has an average particle size of between 5 – 200 nm (abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine or replace the carbon black in Hartmann invention with the substance referred to as “carbon black acid”, which the instant specification identifies as an oxidized carbon black. The artisan of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a plant growth effect to the granule and would have had reasonable expectation of success because this would merely require including the “carbon black acid” in the preparation steps where carbon black is added in Hartmann’s composition.
With regard to claims 1, 14, and 29, Hartmann does not disclose an example composition containing potassium; however, Hartmann discloses that the composition may additionally contain nutrients such as potassium, therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to add a potassium containing nutrient to the composition because such was contemplated by Hartmann. With regard to the limitation that the granule must a majority of comprises potassium containing composition, as noted above, it is unclear the extent to which this language limits the relative proportions of potassium composition and other components. Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “potassium-containing composition” is a composition (i.e. collection of substances) containing at least one potassium atom. As such, the phrase “potassium-containing composition” reads on any fertilizer granule containing any amount of potassium, as the granule itself is a composition and contains potassium. In view of the foregoing, Hartmann renders obvious this limitation by proposing to include potassium in their granules. Finally, the examiner also does not consider this limitation to patentably define over the prior art as it would be merely routine to formulate the granule to contain amounts of nutrients needed for any particular crop, which would vary extensively based on identity of the crop plant and location.
With regard to the limitation requiring the granules to be compacted, the examiner points out that “compacted” describes how the granule was manufactured, and is therefore a product by process limitation. Hartmann discloses homogeneous granules containing carbon black (see e.g. para 0081: “It is possible to produce homogenous granules having virtually any ratio of calcium cyanamide to urea, and carbon black ratios. These material can be made using the apparatus illustrated in FIG. 1. Such heterogeneous compositions can include calcium cyanamide in ranges from about 0.1% by weight to less than about 30% by weight, more preferably from about 0.1% to less than about 20% by weight, even more preferably from about 0.1% to less than about 10% by weight, and typically less than about 5%, and the balance being nitrogen-containing materials, such as urea mixed with about 0.1% to about 1.1% carbon black, and any other material that may be chosen to make useful compositions.”) Absent evidence that such granules would be structurally and patentably distinct from the claimed granules, the claimed “compacted granules” read on Hartmann’s granules formed by any method.
With regard to claims 2 and 3, as noted above, carbon black contains pendant carboxylic acid groups, which are comprised of carboxyl and hydroxyl moieties.
With regard to claims 5 and 15, the composition can contain e.g. potassium chloride or muriate of potash (0097; example 5, table A).
With regard to claim 9, as noted above, Hartmann discloses a granule in which all ingredients are mixed homogenously (i.e. the carbon black is embedded within the granule). Hartmann also discloses an embodiment in which the carbon black-containing mixture is coated onto the surface of a solid core (claim 20). It would have been obvious to combine these two formats, resulting in a granule having carbon black distributed throughout the core and as a coating over the core because this would merely be combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
With regard to claims 10 and 19, as noted above, the carbon black is present at between 0.1 and 1.1 % (claim 1).
With regard to claims 11 and 13, Hartmann is also silent with respect to the particles size of the carbon black; however, as noted above it would have been obvious to use the particles of Yu, and these have a size range overlapping with the range recited in the instant claims. See MPEP 2144.05.
With regard to claim 12, the examiner considers the phrase “the oxidized carbon black additive comprises a liquid form” to be product by process language, as the claimed final product is in the form of a granule. The final product is a dry granule whether the carbon-based additive is in liquid or solid form prior to application.
With regard to claims 16 and 17, the composition can contain triple superphosphate (0097, example 5, table A).
With regard to claim 26, the composition comprises urea, a nitrogen-containing composition (claim 1).
With regard to claims 27 and 28, Hartmann discloses that “it is possible to include other plant fertilizing materials, nutrients and soil amendments in embodiments of the compositions of the present invention. Other plant fertilizers, nutrients and soil amendments include, but are not limited to … micronutrients” (0082).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the potassium-containing composition comprising at least a majority of the fertilizer carrier composition Applicant argues that Hartmann appears to disclose a black urea enhanced efficiency controllable release fertilizer composition but does not teach a fertilizer where a potassium-containing composition (e.g. potash) is the majority of the carrier composition. Applicant points to Hartmann’s discussion of about 60-99.9 percent of the total weight as urea, and only mentions potassium as an optional non-nitrogen plant nutrient.
This is not persuasive with regard to claims 13-17, 19, 26, 28, and 29 because these claims do not require the limitation that a potassium containing composition make up the majority of the fertilizer carrier. With regard to claim 1 and its dependents, the arguments to this effect are not persuasive exactly as set forth in the rejection above, Hartmann does not teach away from using as much potassium as is needed for a given crop, and the phrase “potassium-containing composition” is much broader than “e.g. potash” and reads on any composition having any amount of potassium in it. The composition, including e.g. cyanamide + urea, must merely contain one atom of potassium in order to fall within the scope of “potassium-containing composition”, as recited in the claims.
On page 9, Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach a carbon black additive being embedded within the potassium containing composition, citing page 9, lines 11-17 of the instant specification and figures 2-6 for the method the carbon black particles are embedded in the instant invention and stating “the mixed potash particles and carbon additives are then exposed to high pressure where they are co-compacted to form a sheet or flakes”. Applicant argues that this results in the embedding of the oxidized carbon black additive having acid groups, not simple mixing. On page 9, Applicant argues further that Hartmann does not teach or suggest the embedding of an oxidized carbon black additive having acid groups with a potassium-containing composition and Hartmann does not disclose an embedding process.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a method step of the mixed potash particles and carbon additives are then exposed to high pressure where they are co-compacted to form a sheet or flake) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the instant case, the claim merely requires the carbon black additive to be embedded within the granule, no method steps are recited and the claims are directed to a product. The term “embedded” means enclosed closely in or as if in a matrix, which Hartmann discloses, as discussed in the rejection. Moreover, in the event the claim was amended to recite product by process language, Applicant is reminded that the instant claims are directed to a product rather than a method of making the product, and product by process language limits the invention to the product formed by the recited steps, the recited steps themselves are not required.
On page 9, Applicant argues that Hartmann appears to disclose plain carbon black powder and that no oxidation or acid functional groups are discussed.
This argument is cumulative and has been fully addressed on the record. See also the “Response to Arguments” section following the indefiniteness rejections.
On page 9, Applicant argues that Yu does not correct the deficiencies of Hartmann but merely discloses carbon black acid as a standalone promoter applied in aqueous solution, not as a component that can be embedded in a carrier.
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).
On pages 9-10, Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach that the fertilizer granules are compacted.
The examiner points out that “compacted” describes how the granule was manufactured, and is therefore a product by process limitation. Hartmann discloses homogeneous granules containing carbon black (see e.g. para 0081: “It is possible to produce homogenous granules having virtually any ratio of calcium cyanamide to urea, and carbon black ratios. These material can be made using the apparatus illustrated in FIG. 1. Such heterogeneous compositions can include calcium cyanamide in ranges from about 0.1% by weight to less than about 30% by weight, more preferably from about 0.1% to less than about 20% by weight, even more preferably from about 0.1% to less than about 10% by weight, and typically less than about 5%, and the balance being nitrogen-containing materials, such as urea mixed with about 0.1% to about 1.1% carbon black, and any other material that may be chosen to make useful compositions.”) Absent evidence that such granules would be structurally and patentably distinct from the claimed granules, the rejection is maintained. The instant claims are product-by-process claims. According to MPEP 2113: product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art”.
On page 11, Applicant argues that neither Khodabakhshi does not motivated one to use carbon black.
The examiner reminds Applicant that Khodabakhshi is an evidentiary reference relied upon in the rejection to establish the chemical structure of carbon black, and was not relied upon to establish any motivation under 35 USC 103.
On page 11, Applicant asserts the Office has used impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
On page 11, Applicant argues that carbon black acid and carbon black are both physically and chemically distinct materials such that one could not simply substitute one for the other. Applicant asserts that one would have lacked expectation of success substituting the carbon black acid taught by Yu for the carbon black of Hartmann.
This argument is not persuasive because the statements are not supported by factual finding or reasoned argument. Hartmann indicates the carbon source to be not particularly limited, and Yu discloses benefits in agriculture of the carbon black acid described therein. Nowhere would an artisan of ordinary skill have found a teaching away from replacing Hartmann’s carbon black with the carbon black acid taught by Yu. The examiner has previously addressed this argument on the record and the reasons of record are replicated here for convenience:
With regard to Applicant’s position that one having ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably have expected that Hartmann’s carbon black could be substituted with Yu’s carbon black acid, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Yu proposes using carbon black acid as a plant growth promoter and includes it in fertilizer treatments (table 2, page 5). The substance is clearly suitable for application to plants, and beneficial to their growth. Therefore one having ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that the carbon black disclosed by Hartmann could be substituted or combined with the carbon black acid disclosed by Yu. Conclusive proof of efficacy is not required to show a reasonable expectation of success, and obviousness does not require absolute predictability, but at least some degree of predictability is required. See MPEP 2143.02(I) and (II). Applicant has merely stated that there are some physical and chemical differences between the substance they refer to as carbon black and the substance they refer to as carbon black acid, but no explanation as to why these differences would have made Yu’s carbon black acid incompatible with Hartmann’s composition has been provided. This is further supported by the evidence that one having ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted the term “carbon black” to embrace a graphitic basic structural unit having some degree of oxidation.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE PEEBLES whose telephone number is (571)272-6247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9 am to 3 pm.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at (571)272-9925. 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.
/KATHERINE PEEBLES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights