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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/28/2025 and 9/1/2026 have been considered by the examiner. Initialed copies accompany this action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 8/26/2025 are approved by the examiner.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites a limitation "a possibility of a chemical bonding state of nitrogen doped to a
basal plane being a chemical bonding state of cationic nitrogen can be indicated based on X-ray
photoelectron spectroscopy, and it is determined by Hall effect measurement that a carrier type of the
heteroelement-containing graphene is p-type". The recitation of "a possibility of …" does not
require that a chemical bonding state of nitrogen doped to a basal plane being a chemical bonding state
of cationic nitrogen and said chemical bonding state of nitrogen doped to a basal plane necessarily be
present. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the
limitation is a feature of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
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, 2, 6-9, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(a) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hyun et al. (RSC Adv., 2016, 6, 6990–6996) in view of Wang et al. (J. Phys. Chem. C 2008, 112, 8192–8195).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6-9, 12-16, 18, and 19, Hyun discloses a method for producing a nitrogen-containing graphene (The nitrogen carbon nanosheets (NCNS)), composed of multi-layer graphene comprising carbon (C) and nitrogen (N), wherein the heteroelement-containing graphene does not include a base material that supports the heteroelement-containing graphene. The method comprising: dissolving a hetero 5-membered ring compound having, at least partially, a 5-membered ring structure in a polar aprotic solvent (aqueous solution of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), wherein NMP meets the claimed 5-membered ring structure and polar aprotic solvent) to prepare a raw material-containing liquid, and generating plasma in the raw material-containing liquid to polymerize the hetero 5-membered ring compound, thereby obtaining the heteroelement-containing graphene. Hyun does not disclose the heteroelement-containing graphene having spots belonging to either an orthorhombic system or a hexagonal system and having a symmetry of a single crystal are observed in selected area electron diffraction. Hyun, however, discloses the nitrogen carbon nanosheets (NCNS), composed of multi-layer graphene, have novel physical and chemical properties inherited from graphene (page 6990). Graphene structure implies interplanar spacing between the (002) planes of 3.5Å or less, spots belonging to either an orthorhombic system or a hexagonal system and having a symmetry of a single crystal that are observed in selected area electron diffraction. See the Wang et al (J. Phys. Chem. C 2008, 112, 8192-8195) for selected area electron diffraction (SAED) analysis crystal structure of graphene nanosheets. In addition, because nitrogen containing graphene structure disclosed by Huyn is produced by similar method set forth by applicant, there is a reasonable basis for one skilled in the art to reasonably expect Huyn's nitrogen-containing graphene would have similar characteristics and properties (half width of a diffraction peak, intensities of D band, 2D band and G band, and interspacing between planes) to those claimed. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112 2112.02. Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function, property or characteristic is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as well as for composition claims.
Regarding claim 17, Huyn discloses the heteroelement-containing graphene is a powder having an average particle size of 1 nm or more and 10 μm or less (Experimental methods and Results and discussion).
Claims 3 -5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hyun et al. (RSC Adv., 2016, 6, 6990–6996) and Wang et al. (J. Phys. Chem. C 2008, 112, 8192–8195) as applied above, further in view of Zhou et al. (Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., Vol. 7, 2012).
Huyn discloses a method of producing the heteroelement-containing graphene described above and is incorporated herein by reference. Huyn does not disclose the hetero 5-membered ring compound contains heteroelements at positions 1 and 3 of the 5-membered ring. Zhou discloses hetero 5-membered ring compound contains heteroelements at positions 1 and 3 of the 5-membered ring, wherein the hetero 5-membered ring compound is an ionic compound selected from the group consisting of cyanate, thiocyanate, and cyanamide, and wherein the hetero 5-membered ring compound is an imidazolium salt 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolum dicyanamide, which is a nitrogen-rich carbon precursor that can produce a nitrogen doped graphene with nitrogen content of 13.51 wt% (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to use 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolum dicyanamide as the heteroelement-containing precursor in the method of Huyn, because 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolum dicyanamide, which is a nitrogen-rich carbon precursor that can produce a nitrogen doped graphene with nitrogen content of 13.51 wt% manifested a significantly enhanced capacitive performances compared to nitrogen doped graphene with low nitrogen content, thereby improving the performance of the electronics and sensors as well as energy storage and conversion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
9/11/2026
Prosecution Insights