DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Applicant’s amendment dated 16 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 12-13, 27-31, 33 and 36-37 are pending.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the amendment dated 16 December 2025, for this reason, this action is properly made final.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1-2, 5-6 and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, please replace “propyl methyl cellulose (HPMC)” with “hydroxy propyl methyl cellulose (HPMC)”.
Claims 2, 5-6 and 12-13 are also objected to because they depend upon, and therefore include, Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LIU (CN-104910333-A).
Regarding Claim 27, LIU teaches a graphene oxide polymer composite material (Abstract). LIU teaches that the graphene oxide of its composite is covalently modified (p. 3, first paragraph) where an acrylate double bond is grafted onto the graphene oxide and compounded with other acrylate resin to obtained a modified graphene oxide polymer composite material (p. 6, par. 2). The component with an acrylate double bond satisfies the requirement of a monomer chemisorbed to the graphene oxide in the composite. That the monomer is an acrylate satisfies the requirement of a monomer which can be part of copolymers of polyacrylic acid, polymethacrylic acid and/or polymethacrylate. The grafted acrylate double bond is later reacted with the rest of the resin via UV-photopolymerization (Abstract; p. 6, par. 3).
The carbon additive recited by the claim is broadly interpreted. The presence of graphene oxide satisfies the requirement of both graphene oxide and the carbon additive. LIU teaches that graphene oxide contains active groups such as carboxyl group, hydroxyl group and epoxy group (p. 3, par. 1). This satisfies the requirement of the carbon additive comprising at least one of a group which includes hydroxide, epoxide and carboxylic.
The claim is directed to a chemisorbed graphene oxide polymer composite. The process steps recited make this a product-by-process claim. The patentability of a product-by-process claim is determined by the end product. See MPEP 2113. The graphene oxide polymer composite taught by LIU is considered equivalent to the one recited by the claim because there is no evidence of any structural difference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-31, 33 and 36-37 are allowed.
Claims 1-2, 5-6 and 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art, HONG (CN-104231270-A), cited in an earlier office action, teaches a method of preparing a polyphenylene sulfide composite material through in situ polymerization where sodium sulfide monomer is mixed with graphene oxide in a reactor containing a mechanical dispersion method, which can be ball milling, heating the mixture to bind sulfide groups to the graphene oxide surface, and then adding the p-dichlorobenzene monomer and polymerizing to form a polyphenylene sulfide graphene oxide composite, but HONG teaches a sodium sulfide monomer which is not specifically included in the list of monomers recited in Claim 1 and Claim 28. LIU (CN-104910333-A), cited in the rejection of Claim 27 above, teaches an acrylic resin/graphene oxide composite, but LIU does not teach the method steps of mixing a monomer with graphene oxide in a ball mill, heating to chemisorb the monomer to the graphene oxide and then further polymerizing to form a chemisorbed polymer composite as is recited by Claim 1 and Claim 28.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendment resolves issues with capitalization in Claims 1 and 28 that were objected to in the previous office action. The specific objection to these claims has been withdrawn.
The amendment to Claim 1 removes “hydroxy” from hydroxy propyl methyl cellulose (HPMC). A new objection for this informality has been added.
The amendments to Claims 1 and 28 resolves the issue where monomers were to be selected from a list of polymers. The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Claim 27 no longer recites the limitation on the oxidation level and the area to thickness ratio. A new rejection under 35 USC 102 have been added over LIU.
Applicant argues that LIU does not teach the recited steps of Claim 27. In response, LIU teaches an acrylic resin/graphene oxide composite where the acrylic polymer is covalently bonded to the functional groups on the graphene oxide surface. The acrylic polymer satisfying the requirement that monomers are selected from polymers and copolymers of polyacrylic acid, polymethacrylic acid and/or polymethacrylates. LIU does not teach the recited method steps, but Claim 27 is directed to a chemisorbed graphene oxide polymer composite. The presence of method steps makes this a product-by-process claim. The patentability of a product-by-process claim is determined by the end product. See MPEP 2113. It has not been shown that there is any structural difference between the graphene oxide polymer composite taught by LIU and the graphene oxide polymer composite recited by the claim.
Conclusion
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 DAVID R FOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-4821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
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, ARRIE L REUTHER can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/D.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764