DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 17/275,398. The amendment in the RCE dated 15 June 2026 is acknowledged.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on 15 June 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 27, please replace “graphite power” with “graphite powder”.
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 WU (Fibers and Polymers (2015)).
Regarding Claim 27, WU teaches a hybrid carbon nanomaterial where poly(acryloyl chloride) is used a bridge between multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) and graphene nanoplatelets (Abstract). WU teaches that both its nanotubes and its graphene are functionalized with hydroxyl groups (Abstract). See Scheme 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
270
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The graphene nanoplatelets that are functionalized with hydroxyl groups satisfies the requirement of graphene oxide. The carbon nanotubes functionalized with hydroxyl groups satisfies the requirement of a carbon additive comprising a hydroxide. Acryloyl chloride is an acrylic monomer which is copolymerizable with many of the recited acrylic and methacrylic polymers. The covalent link between the polymerized monomer and the oxidized graphene satisfies the requirement of a chemisorbed graphene oxide polymer composite. Also note that the reaction of acryloyl chloride with the hydroxyl groups removes the chloride, so it is the same functionalization that would occur if acrylic acid was used.
WU teaches ultrasonic dispersion of its hydroxylated graphene and nanotubes and teaches heating its polymerized acryloyl chloride with the two carbon components at 80°C to form covalent bonds with the both of its carbon components (p. 1541, “Preparation of Carbon Nanotubes/graphene hybrid Materials”; Scheme 1), but WU does not teach that its hybridized material is formed from the recited process steps of milling its monomer, graphene oxide and MWCNTs in a ball mill, subjecting them to a heat treatment form a chemisorbed monomer graphene oxide and then polymerizing the monomer graphene oxide with additional monomers and prepolymers. But 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 WU is considered equivalent to the one recited by the claim because there is no evidence of any structural difference. Both result in acrylic polymers which are covalently bound to graphene oxide.
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).
LIU teaches that graphene oxide contains active groups such as carboxyl group, hydroxyl group and epoxy group (p. 3, par. 1).
The carbon additive recited by the claim is broadly interpreted. The specification discloses that the “carbon additive” refers to a carbon-based monomer or polymer (cur spec: [0018]). LIU teaches that its composition contains an acrylic resin and a reactive diluent (Abstract). LIU teaches many acrylic monomers for its reactive diluent (p. 3, 3rd par. from bottom). These are interpreted as being carbon-based monomers as they are organic and feature an unsaturated carbon-carbon double bond. LIU teaches glycidyl acrylate for this reactive diluent (p. 3, 3rd par. from bottom; Claim 3) which contains an epoxide group, and hydroxyethyl acrylate and hydroxypropyl acrylate (p. 3, 3rd par. from bottom; Claim 3) which are monomers containing an -OH group. LIU exemplifies hydroxypropyl acrylate (p. 8, Example 3) which is a carbon-based monomer/additive which has a hydroxide group.
LIU teaches covalent modification of graphene oxide to provide an acrylate double bond (p. 6, par. 2), which is later reacted with an acrylic resin (p. 6, par. 3) which contains hydroxyl-functional carbon-based monomers (p. 8, Example 3) to form a covalently bound graphene oxide polymer composite, but LIU does not teach the recited process steps of using a ball mill to mill graphene oxide and monomers and subjecting them to a heat treatment to form a chemisorbed monomer graphene oxide before reacting with the rest of the acrylic resin. But the claim is directed to a chemisorbed graphene oxide polymer composite. The recited process steps 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. Both recite in acrylic polymers which are covalently bound to graphene oxide.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 12-13, 27-31, 33 and 36-37 are allowed.
The amendment to Claim 1 overcomes the objection set forth in the previous office action for Claim 1 and its dependent claims. This objection has been withdrawn.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The method claims of Claim 1, Claim 28 and their dependent claims are allowable for the same reasons set forth in the final action dated 13 March 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendment to Claim 1 overcomes the objection set forth in the previous office action for Claim 1 and its dependent claims. This objection has been withdrawn.
The amendment Claim 27 contains an informality. An objection has been added for this claim.
Applicant argues that LIU does not anticipate Claim 27 following the amendment excluding graphene oxide, graphite powder and carbon black from satisfying its carbon additive component. In response, the specification discloses that the term “carbon additive” refers to a carbon-based monomer or polymer. The specification later discloses that this additive includes “e.g.” and then a list of specific components, but “e.g.”, which abbreviates “exempli gratia”, represents exemplary language and exemplary language is not to be read into the claims. LIU teaches many carbon-based monomers including monomers containing epoxide and hydroxyl groups and LIU exemplifies hydroxypropyl acrylate.
New grounds of rejection for Claim 27 have also been added under 35 USC 102 over WU above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights