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 .
This action is responsive to Applicant's amendments/remarks filed 05/20/2026.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13-15, 26, 28, 29, and 31 are currently pending and under examination.
The rejections as stated in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/20/2026 are all withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13-15, 26, 28, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a total amount of the two or more types of filler materials is in a range between 55wt% and 80wt% based on a combined weight of the polymeric resin and the two or more types of filler materials.”
Claim 31 recites “said total amount of the two or more types of filler materials is in a range between 55 wt% and 80 wt%, based on a combined weight of said polymeric resin and said two or more types of filler materials.”
However, the instant invention clearly describes “The selected amount of filler material may be in a range between 55 wt % and 80 wt % with respect to the polymeric resin matrix” (instant US Pub. [0016]). The instant invention also describes “the method comprising providing polymeric resin, providing selected amount of filler material, mixing filler material into the polymeric matrix to obtain a polymeric filler mixture (blend), compressing said polymeric filler mixture under pressure in the range of up to 350 bar” (instant US Pub. [0012]). Therefore, the polymeric resin matrix is the polymeric resin, while the polymeric filler mixture is a combination of the polymeric resin and the filler material. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art reading instant invention’s US publication paragraphs [0016] and [0012] would be reasonably conveyed that a total amount of the two or more types of filler materials is in a range between 55wt% and 80wt% with respect to the polymeric resin matrix, not with respect to a combined weight of the polymeric resin and the two or more types of filler materials.
Thus, claims 1 and 31 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 5, 8, 9, 13-15, 26, 28, and 29 depend from claim 1. Therefore, claims 5, 8, 9, 13-15, 26, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
1. Claims 1, 8, 9, 13-15, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varma (US 2012/0142832 A1, hereinafter Varma) in view of Abramson (US 2016/0376487 A1, hereinafter Abramson), and Lian (CN 107686635 A, hereinafter Lian).
Regarding claim 1, Varma teaches a composition comprising a polymer binder, graphene sheets, and graphite ([0006], claim 1), wherein a total amount of the graphene sheets and graphite can be in a range of about 50% to about 95% by weight based on the total amount of graphene sheets, graphite, and binder ([0041]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “between 55wt% and 80wt% based on a combined weight of the polymeric resin and the two or more types of filler materials”. Varma teaches that the polymer binder can be a thermoset polymer such as an epoxy polymer ([0010], [0011]).
Varma teaches that the graphite can be of any type ([0007]). Varma teaches that the graphene sheets can completely comprise fully exfoliated single sheets of graphite (these are approximately 1 nm thick and are often referred to as “graphene”) ([0018]), and the graphene sheets can be made using any suitable method ([0019]).
Varma also teaches that the composition can be formed into an article for a heat dissipation element, such as a heat sink ([0093]). Varma also teaches that the composition can have a thermal conductivity of about 0.1 to about 50 W/(m·K) ([0047]).
Varma does not teach that the graphite is graphite flakes, and does not explicitly teach that the graphene sheets are graphene platelets.
However, Abramson teaches that a high thermally conductive composite composition comprises graphite, graphene sheets, and a polymer matrix, wherein the polymer matrix is preferably an epoxy resin ([0026], claim 1).
Abramson teaches that the graphite can be graphite flakes ([0029]). Abramson teaches that the graphene sheet, a monolayer of graphite, is synthesized by exfoliation and cleavage of graphite ([0035]), and the graphene sheets can be graphene platelets ([0040], Tables 1 and 2).
Abramson also teaches that the composite composition is disposed between the heat producing component and the heat dissipating component by filling a gap therebetween which improves thermal conduction between the components ([0059]), and the composite composition can have a thermal conductivity of at least 5 W/m·K, at least 27 W/m·K, and values between (para [0055], Fig. 3), which overlaps with the range of “about 0.1 to about 50 W/(m·K)” of the thermal conductivity of the composition in Varma.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the graphite flakes as taught by Abramson as the graphite in Varma, and provide the graphene platelets as taught by Abramson as the graphene sheets in Varma, in order to make the composition having a high thermal conductivity with a reasonable expectation of success, because the composition of Abramson comprising graphite, graphene sheets, and a polymer matrix can have a high thermal conductivity, and the graphite can be graphite flakes, the graphene sheets can be graphene platelets as recognized by Abramson.
Varma also teaches that the polymer binder can be a thermoset polymer ([0010]), and the polymer binder can be cured ([0046]). Varma further teaches that the composition can comprise a curing agent ([0076]), and the composition can be cured by crosslinking ([0087]).
Varma teaches that the composition is a well-mixed blend in which the graphene sheets and graphite are dispersed in the polymer binder ([0042], [0069]), and the components of the composition can be processed by wet grinding ([0069]). Varma also teaches that components can be processed separately and can go through multiple processing (including mixing/blending) stages, each involving one or more components (including blends) ([0070]).
Varma does not explicitly teach a stepwise addition of mixing a curing agent into the polymeric filler mixture.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a stepwise addition of mixing the graphene sheets and graphite into the polymer binder to form a polymeric filler mixture, followed by mixing a curing agent into the polymeric filler mixture, in order to make a well-mixed blend for a cured product with a reasonable expectation of success, because the components of the composition can be processed separately and can go through multiple processing (including mixing/blending) stages as recognized by Varma.
Varma also teaches that the composition can be formed into a molded article by compression molding ([0044], claim 27), and the examples of the article include a heat dissipation element, such as a heat sink ([0093]).
Varma does not teach compressing the polymeric filler mixture under pressure in the range of up to 350 bar, and compressing the polymeric filler mixture is done prior to curing the polymeric filler mixture.
However, Lian teaches that a high thermally conductive composite material has heat dissipation performance ([0008], [0027]). Lian also teaches a method for preparing the high thermally conductive composite material comprising mixing epoxy resin, graphene and a curing agent into a mixture, then sending the mixture into a mold for molding at a pressure of 10-200 MPa to form a molded material, then curing the molded material to obtain the composite material with high thermal conductivity ([0011]-[0017], [0022]; claims 1, 2, 9). The molding at a pressure of 10-200 MPa as taught by Lian equals to 100-2000 bar, which overlaps with the claimed range of “up to 350 bar”.
Lian also teaches that during molding, the graphene materials contact each other under pressure to form a heat conduction channel, then curing the molded material obtains a composite material with high thermal conductivity and certain strength ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compress mold the composition comprising a polymer binder, graphene, graphite, and a curing agent as taught by Varma at a pressure of 10-200 MPa prior to curing as taught by Lian, in order to make the fillers being contacted with each other to form a heat conduction channel for improving heat conductivity with a reasonable expectation of success, because the fillers such as graphene materials contact each other at a pressure of 10-200 MPa to form a heat conduction channel as recognized by Lian. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Abramson teaches that the graphene is graphene platelets (para [0040], Tables 1 and 2), and the graphene platelets can have a lateral dimension of 5 µm or 15-20 µm (para [0040], Table 1), which both fall within the claimed range of “1-25 micrometers”.
Regarding claim 9, Abramson teaches that the graphite is graphite flakes (para [0029], [0061]), and the graphite flakes can have a particle size of about 5 to about 500 microns in width, about 5 to about 500 microns in length (para [0030]). Abramson also teaches that the graphite flakes have lateral dimensions up to 500 μm (para [0062]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “20-250 micrometers”.
Regarding claims 13-15, Varma teaches that the polymer binder can be a thermoset polymer ([0010]). Varma also teaches that the thermal conductivity of the composition can be determined after the blends (i.e. the composition) have been cured ([0046]), and the compositions can have a thermal conductivity of about 0.1 to about 50 W/(m·K) ([0047]), which overlaps with the claimed ranges of “exceeding 13 W/m·K”, “13-30 W/m·K”, and “exceeding 16 W/m·K”.
Regarding claim 26, the limitation “enhances efficiency in increase of thermal conductivity” is an intended result and does not add structural difference, thus the intended result is extended little patentable weight. See MPEP § 2112.02.
Varma teaches that a total amount of the graphene sheets and graphite can be in a range of about 50% to about 95% by weight based on the total amount of graphene sheets, graphite, and binder ([0041]). Varma also teaches that the thermal conductivity of the composition can be determined after the blends (i.e. the composition) have been cured ([0046]), and the composition can have a thermal conductivity of about 0.1 to about 50 W/(m·K) ([0047]).
Furthermore, Abramson teaches that a high thermally conductive composite composition comprises graphite, graphene sheets, and a polymer matrix preferably an epoxy resin ([0026], claim 1). Abramson teaches that graphite and graphene are dispersed within an epoxy resin ([0054], [0061]). Abramson also teaches that a synergistic relationship between the graphite, graphene and an epoxy resin can increase the thermal conductivity of the composite composition ([0027]).
Regarding claim 29, Varma teaches that the components of the composition can be mixed by a high shear mixer ([0069]).
2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varma (US 2012/0142832 A1) in view of Abramson (US 2016/0376487 A1) and Lian (CN 107686635 A) as applied to claims 1, 8, 9, 13-15, 26, and 29 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 108102300 A, hereinafter Liu).
The disclosure of Varma in view of Abramson and Lian is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, Varma teaches that the composition is a well-mixed blend in which the graphene sheets and graphite are dispersed in the polymer binder ([0042], [0069]).
Varma also teaches that the polymer binder can be a thermoset polymer such as an epoxy polymer ([0010], [0011]), and the polymer binder can be cured ([0046]). Varma teaches that the composition can comprise a curing agent ([0076]), and the composition can be cured by crosslinking ([0087]).
Varma further teaches that the composition can be formed into a molded article by compression molding ([0044], claim 27), and the examples of the article include a heat dissipation element, such as a heat sink ([0093]).
Varma does not teach removing air voids by placing the polymeric filler mixture in a vacuum pressure condition after mixing of the curing agent prior to compressing the polymeric filler mixture.
However, Liu teaches a composite material comprising a graphene/inorganic powder particle hybrid material and an epoxy resin, wherein the graphene/inorganic powder particle hybrid material is uniformly dispersed as a filler in the epoxy resin ([0010], claim 1).
Liu also teaches a method for preparing the composite material comprising: mixing an epoxy resin, graphene/inorganic powder particle hybrid material, and a curing agent to obtain a mixture, then dispersing and mixing the mixture by using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine, then curing the mixture under a curing condition to obtain the composite material ([0021], [0024], claim 6). Mixing the mixture by using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine as taught by Liu reads on the claimed removing air voids by placing said polymeric filler mixture in a vacuum pressure condition.
Liu further teaches that the preparation of the composite material by using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine allows for a better uniform dispersion of the graphene/inorganic powder particle hybrid material in the epoxy resin, resulting in the composite material with high bonding strength, high toughness, and high thermal conductivity ([0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix the composition comprising a polymer binder, graphene, graphite, and a curing agent as taught by Varma by using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine as taught by Liu, in order to remove the air bubble and uniformly disperse the graphene and graphite in the polymer binder, thereby making the article having high bonding strength, high toughness, and high thermal conductivity with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, in the method of forming the molded article as taught by the combination of Varma and Liu, the step of using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine is after mixing the curing agent into the polymeric filler mixture and prior to compress molding the mixture. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
3. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varma (US 2012/0142832 A1) in view of Abramson (US 2016/0376487 A1) and Lian (CN 107686635 A) as applied to claims 1, 8, 9, 13-15, 26, and 29 above, and further in view of Fujimori (JP 2017050119 A, hereinafter Fujimori), as evidenced by “Thinky Mixer ARE-310” (“Thinky Mixer ARE-310 Information from Thinky”, 2025, hereinafter “Thinky Mixer ARE-310”).
The disclosure of Varma in view of Abramson and Lian is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 28, Varma teaches that the polymer binder can be a thermoset polymer such as an epoxy polymer ([0010], [0011]). Varma teaches that the composition is a well-mixed blend in which the graphene sheets and graphite are dispersed in the polymer binder ([0042], [0069]). Varma also teaches that the components of the composition can be mixed by a planetary mixer and by using a grinding media such as zirconium oxide ([0069]).
Varma does not teach a planetary centrifugal mixer and zirconia balls.
However, Fujimori teaches a method for producing a conductive paste comprising mixing (A) an epoxy resin, (B) a curing agent, and (C) a conductive powder by using inorganic beads as a dispersion medium with a planetary mixer (para [0010]).
Fujimori teaches that the inorganic beads are used as a dispersion medium for mixing, and are used to break down the agglomeration of the conductive powder in order to improve the dispersion of the conductive powder in the resin (para [0036]), and the inorganic beads are preferably zirconia beads, because zirconia beads have excellent wear resistance (para [0037]), which reads on the claimed adding zirconia balls to enhance mixing.
Fujimori also teaches that the planetary mixer is used to mix materials uniformly, and the planetary mixer is a Thinky Mixer, ARE-310, manufactured by Thinky Corporation (para [0033]).
“Thinky Mixer ARE-310” as an evidentiary reference shows that Thinky Mixer, ARE-310, is a planetary centrifugal mixer (p. 1, 1st paragraph, § Feature). Thus, the planetary mixer as taught by Fujimori is a planetary centrifugal mixer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix graphite, graphene, and a polymer binder as taught by Varma in a planetary centrifugal mixer with zirconia beads as a dispersion medium as taught by Fujimori, in order to mix the materials uniformly and improve the dispersion of graphite and graphene within the polymer binder with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
4. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varma (US 2012/0142832 A1) in view of Abramson (US 2016/0376487 A1), Liu (CN 108102300 A), and Lian (CN 107686635 A).
Regarding claim 31, Varma teaches a composition comprising a polymer binder, graphene sheets, and graphite ([0006], claim 1), wherein a total amount of the graphene sheets and graphite can be in a range of about 50% to about 95% by weight based on the total amount of graphene sheets, graphite, and binder ([0041]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “between 55wt% and 80wt%”. Varma teaches that the polymer binder can be a thermoset polymer such as an epoxy polymer ([0010], [0011]).
Varma teaches that the graphite can be of any type ([0007]). Varma teaches that the graphene sheets can completely comprise fully exfoliated single sheets of graphite (these are approximately 1 nm thick and are often referred to as “graphene”) ([0018]), and the graphene sheets can be made using any suitable method ([0019]).
Varma also teaches that the composition can be formed into an article for a heat dissipation element, such as a heat sink ([0093]). Varma also teaches that the composition can have a thermal conductivity of about 0.1 to about 50 W/(m·K) ([0047]).
Varma does not teach that the graphite is graphite flakes, and does not explicitly teach that the graphene sheets are graphene platelets.
However, Abramson teaches that a high thermally conductive composite composition comprises graphite, graphene sheets, and a polymer matrix, wherein the polymer matrix is preferably an epoxy resin ([0026], claim 1).
Abramson teaches that the graphite can be graphite flakes ([0029]). Abramson teaches that the graphene sheet, a monolayer of graphite, is synthesized by exfoliation and cleavage of graphite ([0035]), and the graphene sheets can be graphene platelets ([0040], Tables 1 and 2).
Abramson also teaches that the composite composition is disposed between the heat producing component and the heat dissipating component by filling a gap therebetween which improves thermal conduction between the components ([0059]), and the composite composition can have a thermal conductivity of at least 5 W/m·K, at least 27 W/m·K, and values between (para [0055], Fig. 3), which overlaps with the range of “about 0.1 to about 50 W/(m·K)” of the thermal conductivity of the composition in Varma.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the graphite flakes as taught by Abramson as the graphite in Varma, and provide the graphene platelets as taught by Abramson as the graphene sheets in Varma, in order to make the composition having a high thermal conductivity with a reasonable expectation of success, because the composition of Abramson comprising graphite, graphene sheets, and a polymer matrix can have a high thermal conductivity, and the graphite can be graphite flakes, the graphene sheets can be graphene platelets as recognized by Abramson.
Varma also teaches that the polymer binder can be a thermoset polymer ([0010]), and the polymer binder can be cured ([0046]). Varma further teaches that the composition can comprise a curing agent ([0076]), and the composition can be cured by crosslinking ([0087]).
Varma teaches that the composition is a well-mixed blend in which the graphene sheets and graphite are dispersed in the polymer binder ([0042], [0069]), and the components of the composition can be processed by wet grinding ([0069]). Varma also teaches that components can be processed separately and can go through multiple processing (including mixing/blending) stages, each involving one or more components (including blends) ([0070]).
Varma does not explicitly teach a stepwise addition of gradually adding the graphene and graphite to the polymer binder while mixing the mixture to form a polymeric filler mixture, then mixing a curing agent into the polymeric filler mixture.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a stepwise addition of gradually adding the graphene filler and graphite filler to the polymer binder while mixing the mixture between additions of the fillers to form a polymeric filler mixture, followed by mixing a curing agent into the polymeric filler mixture, in order to make a well-mixed blend for a cured product with a reasonable expectation of success, because the composition of Varma is a well-mixed blend in which the graphene and graphite are dispersed in the polymer binder, and the components of the composition can be processed separately and can go through multiple processing (including mixing/blending) stages as recognized by Varma.
Varma also teaches that the composition can be formed into a molded article by compression molding ([0044], claim 27), and the examples of the article include a heat dissipation element, such as a heat sink ([0093]).
Varma does not teach removing air voids from the polymeric filler mixture using vacuum conditions after mixing of the curing agent prior to compressing the polymeric filler mixture.
However, Liu teaches a composite material comprising a graphene/inorganic powder particle hybrid material and an epoxy resin, wherein the graphene/inorganic powder particle hybrid material is uniformly dispersed as a filler in the epoxy resin ([0010], claim 1).
Liu also teaches a method for preparing the composite material comprising: mixing an epoxy resin, graphene/inorganic powder particle hybrid material, and a curing agent to obtain a mixture, then dispersing and mixing the mixture by using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine, then curing the mixture under a curing condition to obtain the composite material ([0021], [0024], claim 6). Mixing the mixture by using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine as taught by Liu reads on the claimed removing air voids from the polymeric filler mixture using vacuum conditions.
Liu further teaches that the preparation of the composite material by using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine allows for a better uniform dispersion of the graphene/inorganic powder particle hybrid material in the epoxy resin, resulting in the composite material with high bonding strength, high toughness, and high thermal conductivity ([0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix the composition comprising a polymer binder, graphene, graphite, and a curing agent as taught by Varma by using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine as taught by Liu, in order to remove the air bubble and uniformly disperse the graphene and graphite in the polymer binder, thereby making the article having high bonding strength, high toughness, and high thermal conductivity with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, in the method of forming the molded article as taught by the combination of Varma and Liu, the step of using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine is after mixing the curing agent into the polymeric filler mixture and prior to compress molding the mixture.
Varma does not teach compressing the polymeric filler mixture under pressure in the range of up to 350 bar, and compressing the polymeric filler mixture is done prior to curing the polymeric filler mixture.
However, Lian teaches that a high thermally conductive composite material has heat dissipation performance ([0008], [0027]). Lian also teaches a method for preparing the high thermally conductive composite material comprising mixing epoxy resin, graphene and a curing agent into a mixture, then sending the mixture into a mold for molding at a pressure of 10-200 MPa to form a molded material, then curing the molded material to obtain the composite material with high thermal conductivity ([0011]-[0017], [0022]; claims 1, 2, 9). The molding at a pressure of 10-200 MPa as taught by Lian equals to 100-2000 bar, which overlaps with the claimed range of “up to 350 bar”.
Lian also teaches that during molding, the graphene materials contact each other under pressure to form a heat conduction channel, then curing the molded material obtains a composite material with high thermal conductivity and certain strength ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compress mold the composition comprising a polymer binder, graphene, graphite, and a curing agent as taught by Varma at a pressure of 10-200 MPa prior to curing as taught by Lian, in order to make the fillers being contacted with each other to form a heat conduction channel for improving heat conductivity with a reasonable expectation of success, because the fillers such as graphene materials contact each other at a pressure of 10-200 MPa to form a heat conduction channel as recognized by Lian. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1. Applicant argues that the Examiner's interpretation of the claimed filler loading ratio “amount of the two or more types of filler materials is in a range between 55 wt% and 80 wt%” in claim 1 is inconsistent with both the present specification and with Abramson's own disclosure, and is also contrary to the standard meaning of "filler loading" in the polymer composite art (p. 6).
Applicant also argues that in the polymer composite field, filler loading, or filler loading ratio, is a well-established term of art referring to the weight percentage of filler based on the total weight of the filled composition, i.e., the combined weight of resin and filler; the present specification repeatedly and unambiguously expresses filler loading as a percentage of the total mixture (pp. 7-8).
In response, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Firstly, claim 1 filed 06/18/2025 describes below:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, claim 1 filed 06/18/2025 clearly expresses that the amount of the two or more types of filler materials is in a range between 55 wt% and 80 wt% with respect to the polymeric resin, not with respect to the combined weight of resin and filler.
Thus, the Office’s interpretation of the claimed filler amount in claim 1 filed 06/18/2025 is correct.
Furthermore, as stated in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/20/2026, Abramson teaches that the total graphite and graphene fillers loading in the composite composition ranges from about 7 to about 40 parts based on 100 total parts by weight of graphite, graphene and epoxy resin (para [0052]). Thus, in the composite composition as taught by Abramson, the total amount of the graphite filler and graphene filler can be in a range of from about 7.5% to about 67% by weight with respect to the epoxy resin (the claimed polymeric resin), which overlaps with the claimed range of “between 55wt% and 80wt% with respect to the polymeric resin” in claim 1 filed 06/18/2025.
Secondly, the Office examines the claims. There is no term of “filler loading, or filler loading ratio” in the currently pending claims. Thus, the Office does not necessarily have to interpret the term of “filler loading, or filler loading ratio”.
For the currently amended claims 1 and 31 filed 05/20/2026, claims 1 and 31 should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a total amount of the two or more types of filler materials is in a range between 55wt% and 80wt% based on a combined weight of the polymeric resin and the two or more types of filler materials.”
Claim 31 recites “said total amount of the two or more types of filler materials is in a range between 55 wt% and 80 wt%, based on a combined weight of said polymeric resin and said two or more types of filler materials.”
However, the instant invention clearly describes “The selected amount of filler material may be in a range between 55 wt % and 80 wt % with respect to the polymeric resin matrix” (instant US Pub. [0016]). The instant invention also describes “the method comprising providing polymeric resin, providing selected amount of filler material, mixing filler material into the polymeric matrix to obtain a polymeric filler mixture (blend), compressing said polymeric filler mixture under pressure in the range of up to 350 bar” (instant US Pub. [0012]). Therefore, the polymeric resin matrix is the polymeric resin, while the polymeric filler mixture is a combination of the polymeric resin and the filler material. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art reading instant invention’s US publication paragraphs [0012] and [0016] would be reasonably conveyed that a total amount of the two or more types of filler materials is in a range between 55wt% and 80wt% with respect to the polymeric resin matrix, not with respect to a combined weight of the polymeric resin and the two or more types of filler materials.
Thus, claims 1 and 31 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
2. Regarding Applicant’s argument that Abramson's disclosed total filler loading is below the amended range of 55 wt% to 80 wt% based on the combined weight of the polymeric resin and filler materials (pp. 9-10), in response, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is moot, because the argument does not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection. The current rejection utilizes a new reference, Varma (US 2012/0142832 A1), in addition to the previous references, Abramson (US 2016/0376487 A1), Lian (CN 107686635 A), and Liu (CN 108102300 A), under a new ground(s) of rejection which renders obvious the instant claims.
As stated above, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varma (US 2012/0142832 A1) in view of Abramson (US 2016/0376487 A1) and Lian (CN 107686635 A).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varma (US 2012/0142832 A1) in view of Abramson (US 2016/0376487 A1), Lian (CN 107686635 A), and Liu (CN 108102300 A).
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 JIAJIA JANIE CAI whose telephone number is 571-270-0951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 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.
/JIAJIA JANIE CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights