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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on September 4, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-11, 13-15, 17, and 20-28 are currently pending in the above identified applications.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 10, 11, 14-15, 20-21, 24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2016/0168350 to Tseng in view of US Pub. No. 2016/0194460 to Humfeld and US Pub. No. 2016/0185981 to Cesareo.
Regarding claims 1, 4-5, 10, 11, 14-15, 20-21, 24, and 26-28, Tseng teaches a composite sheet (composite laminate) comprising a core layer (internal layer) and a skin disposed on at least one surface of the core layer, specifically shown as two surfaces, reading on a first layer and a second layer, wherein the core layer comprises a web of structures comprising random crossing over of reinforcing fibers held together by a thermoplastic material (polymer component and binder) and expandable graphite material dispersed in the web of structure, such as graphene based material, reading on a polymer mixture comprising a polymer component, a graphene component, a binder and a plurality of fiber randomly dispersed in the polymer mixture (Tseng, abstract, para 0023, 0071, 0084, Fig. 4). A web of structures comprising random crossing over of reinforcing fibers reads on a plurality of fibers randomly oriented at multiple angles relative to an axis wherein each fiber is necessarily oriented at an angle relative to an axis, the axis extending parallel to a machine direction of the composite laminate and the angles necessarily ranging from 0 degrees to 90 degrees, where a fiber at 0 degrees is parallel to the machine direction and a fiber at 90 degrees is perpendicular to the machine direction. Tseng teaches the skin being a scrim, woven fabric, or a non-woven fabric (Id., para 0083-0084), reading on a first layer of a first fabric material and a second layer of a second fabric material. Tseng teaches the reinforcing fiber being chemically treated prior to use to provide desired functional groups, i.e. may be chemically treated so that they can react with the thermoplastic material, the expandable graphite or both (Id., para 0080). As the thermoplastic material holds together the reinforcing fiber, the thermoplastic material reads on both the polymer component and binder. Tseng teaches the graphite comprising one or more graphene base material, including in flake form, and can provide a degree of flame retardancy (Id., para 0071-0073). Tseng teaches the core may include additional materials or additive to impart desired physical or chemical properties (Id., para 0091). Tseng teaches the average particle size of the expandable graphite material can range from about 50 microns to about 900 microns and teaches that expandable graphite are different sizes can be present (Id., para 0076). Tseng teaches the prepreg and core including additional materials or additive to impart desired physical or chemical properties (Id., para 0091). Tseng teaches the thermoplastic material in the prepreg ranging from about 20% by weight to about 80% by weight and the fiber content in the prepreg may be from about 20% to about 80% by weight of the prepreg, particularly about 40% to about 70% by weight, indicating that the thermoplastic would be about 60% by weight to about 30% by weight (Id., para 0069-0070), reading on the polymer mixture being 60% to 30% by weight of the combined weight of the plurality of fiber and the polymer mixture, as best under stood by Examiner.
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 40% to 60% by weight (claim 26, 28), the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the weight of the thermoplastic (polymer mixture) and the fibers (plurality of fibers), such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Tseng does not explicitly teach the graphene comprises a plurality of graphene nanoplatelets with a surface area from about 100 to about 500 square meter/gram and a diameter of less than two micrometers.
However, Humfeld teaches a composite material augmented with functionalized graphene as a supplement to or as a replacement for either carbon reinforcement material or the resin matrix to increase strength of the composite, wherein the functionalized graphene is in the form of graphene nanoplatelets (Humfeld, abstract). Cesareo teaches the use of graphene nanoplatelets having a surface area in the range of 200 and 400 m2/gram used in flame retardant applications (Cesareo, abstract, para 0119). Cesareo teaches the graphene nanoplatelets having a lateral size from 200 to 20000 nm and thickness from 0.34 to 30 nm, preferably 500 to 10,000 nm and 0.34 to 20 nm, respectively (Id., para 0050, 0064), reading on a diameter of 0.5 to 10 microns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the composite sheet of Tseng, wherein core comprises the graphene nanoplatelets of Humfeld having a surface area of 200 to 400 m2/g and dimensions as taught by Cesareo, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known graphene materials predictably suitable for use in composite material and having conventionally known surface area of graphene nanoplatelets predictably suitable for flame retardant applications and by the desire to further increase the strength of the composite. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of a diameter of less than two micrometers, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the diameter and thickness, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art. While the polymer mixture has been limited to consisting of a polymer component, a graphene component, a binder, and optionally a UV protectant, the internal layer comprises the polymer mixture and the plurality of fiber. Therefore the internal layer is open to additional material to be present and mixed with the polymer component and the plurality of fibers. Additionally, the graphene component comprises a plurality of graphene nanoplatelets and, therefore, can contains additional graphene material in addition to the graphene nanoplatelets.
The prior art combination teaches a specific embodiment comprising polypropylene resin and glass fibers and comprising 5 weight percent expandable graphite based on 60 grams of polypropylene and 40 g of glass fibers (Id., para 0102), equating to about 7.7% by weight graphite of the graphite in a mixture of the polypropylene and graphite. The prior art combination teaches the graphene nanoplatelets being 0.1 to 5% by weight of the matrix (Humfeld, para 0010). As the graphite material is not graphene, only the graphene nanoplatelet correspond to the graphene component. This reads on the polymer mixture having a relative composition of 0.1-5% by weight of the graphene component as the graphene nanoplatelets and the balance, 99.9-95% by weight of the polypropylene that can map to both the binder and the polymer component. The claim has not differentiated between the polymer and the binder. As the polypropylene is a polymer and acts as a binder, it can map to both the polymer as well as the binder. Therefore, the polymer mixture would contain 92.2-87.3% by weight polypropylene and 7.8-12.7% by weight graphene in relative amounts, overlapping with the claimed the polymer mixture contains 92-97.5% of the polymer component, 1-5% of the graphene component, and 1.5-3% of the binder based on a relative composition by weight. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claim 4 and 14, the prior art combination teaches the thermoplastic material being polypropylene (Id., para 0006, 0069).
Regarding claims 5, 15, 26, and 28, the prior art combination teaches the thermoplastic material present in the prepreg (core layer) ranging from about 20% by weight to about 80% by weight (Tseng, para 0069) and teaches the fiber content in the prepreg may be from about 20% to about 90% by weight (Id., para 0070), reading on the fiber content being 20-90% by weight and the polymer mixture being the balance, 10 to 80 percent by weight. The prior art combination teaches a specific embodiment comprising polypropylene resin and glass fibers and comprising 5 weight percent expandable graphite based on 60 grams of polypropylene and 40 g of glass fibers (Id., para 0102), equating to about 7.7% by weight graphite of the graphite in a mixture of the polypropylene and . The prior art combination teaches the graphene nanoplatelets being 0.1 to 5% by weight of the matrix (Humfeld, para 0010). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the material of the prior art combination, wherein the expandable graphite is the form of graphene, motivated by the desire of using disclosed predictably suitable forms of the expandable graphite materials disclosed by Tseng and the desire to practice the invention of the prior art combination based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art. The claim has not differentiated between the polymer and the binder. As the polypropylene is a polymer and acts as a binder, it can map to both the polymer as well as the binder. Therefore, the polymer mixture would contain 92.2-87.3% by weight polypropylene and 7.8-12.7% by weight graphene in relative amounts, overlapping with the claimed the polymer at least 90% polymer component and at least 1 % of the binder and at least 1% of the graphene component as well as overlapping with the weight parentage of the polymer mixture ranging from 40% to 60% with corresponding 60% to 40% for the plurality of fibers, wherein the respective percentage are relative to the total combined weight of the polymer mixture and the plurality of fibers (claim 26, 28). It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Alternatively, the expandable graphite is not modified to be graphene and the 0.1-5 wt% by graphene nanoplatelets of the prior art combination is mapped to the graphene component and overlaps with the claimed ranges as well. This reads on the polymer mixture having a relative composition of 0.1-5% by weight of the graphene component as the graphene nanoplatelets and the balance, 99.9-95% by weight of the polypropylene that can map to both the binder and the polymer component.
Regarding claim 10 and 20, the prior art combination teaches the fibers being glass fibers (fiberglass) (Tseng, para 0080, 0085), reading on the plurality of fibers comprises fiberglass pieces randomly distributed within the polymer matrix.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art combination teaches the skin being a scrim, woven fabric, or a non-woven fabric (Id., para 0083-0084), which means the first fabric material and the second fabric material can be the same.
Regarding claim 24, the prior art combination teaches each of the skin layer being independently selected (Tseng, para 0084), reading on the first fabric material and the second fabric material being different.
Regarding claims 27 and 28 and the claimed tensile strength of at least 12,00 psi and stiffness range of approximately 800,000 to 1,000,000 psi, although the prior art does not disclose ***, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches a laminate comprising the claimed components, including polypropylene and graphene with glass fibers, in amounts that at least overlap with the claimed ranges. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2016/0168350 to Tseng in view of US Pub. No. 2016/0194460 to Humfeld and US Pub. No. 2016/0185981 to Cesareo, as applied to claims , 4-5, 10, 11, 14-15, 20-21, 24, and 26-28 above, further in view of USPN 4,734,321 to Radvan.
Regarding claims 27-28, in the event that the claimed tensile strength and stiffness do not flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art, the prior art combination teaches the size of the fiber used may depend on the desired properties (Tseng, para 0070).
The prior art combination is silent with regards to the tensile strength and stiffness of the composite.
However, Radvan teaches sheet material comprising reinforcing fibers and wholly or substantially unconsolidated particulate plastic material in which the fibrous and plastic components are bonded into a structure (Radvan, abstract). Radvan teaches a specific embodiment having a polypropylene matrix with carbon fiber having a tensile strength of 83 MPa (12,038 psi) and a Flexural Modulus of 6290 MPa (stiffness of 912,287 psi) after consolidation under heat and pressure (Id., Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the composite of the prior art combination, wherein the composite has a tensile strength of 83 MPa (12,038 psi) and flexural modulus of 6290 MPa (stiffness of 912,287 psi) as taught by Radvan, motivated by the desired of forming composite having conventionally known properties predictably suitable in sheet material comprising reinforcing fibers and plastic components.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng in view of Humfeld, and Cesareo, as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 10, 11, 14-15, 20-21, 24, and 26-28 above, further in view of US Pub. No. 2016/0194460 to WO 2017/043231 to Ippei.
Note: US Pub. No. 2020/0231764 to Zhang is being used as the English equivalent of WO 2017/043231 for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the prior art combination teaches the thermoplastic material being polypropylene (Id., para 0006, 0069). The prior art combination is silent with regards to the melt flow rate of the thermoplastic material.
However, Zhang teaches a glass fiber-reinforced polypropylene resin composition comprising a polypropylene resin composition and glass fibers (Zhang, abstract). Zhang teaches the melt flow rate of the polypropylene being preferably 3 to 60 g/10 minutes (Id., para 0038). Zhang teaches if higher than 3 g/10 min, a viscosity can be obtained which allows the glass fibers to be uniformly dispersed in the polypropylene resin and when 60 g/10 min or lower, the viscosity of the resin is not lowered to such an extent that the glass fibers cannot be uniformly dispersed (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the composite of the prior art combination, wherein the polypropylene has a melt flow rate of 3 to 60 g/10 min at aught by Zhang, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known polypropylenes predictably suitable for use in glass fiber reinforced polypropylene resin composition and to be sure a viscosity can be obtained which allows the glass fibers to be uniformly dispersed in the polypropylene resin. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 10 to 60, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the melt flow rate, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art as well as to good dispersion of the glass fibers in the resin.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng in view of Humfeld, and Cesareo, as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 10, 11, 14-15, 20-21, 24, and 26-28 above, further in view of US Pub. No. 2010/0327235 to Atkinson.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the prior art combination teaches the core may include additional materials or additives to impart desired physical or chemical properties (Tseng, para 0091).
The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the mixture further comprising a UV protectant.
However, Atkinson teaches a glass fiber reinforced thermoplastic resin comprising from 30 to 70 wt% thermoplastic resin, 20 to 60% wt reinforcing fibers, and up to 10 wt% of a conductive filler dispersed (Atkinson, abstract, para 0011) as well as various additive including UV absorbers (UV protectant) present in amounts from 0.01 to 3.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the total composition (0.01 to 3.0% by weight of the polymer mixture) , excluding any filler (Id., para 0032, 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the composite of the prior art combination, wherein the resin of the core further contains the UV absorbers (UV protectant) of Atkinson in an amount of 0.01 to 3.0 parts by weight of the resin mixture, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known additive predictably suitable for use in glass fiber reinforced thermoplastic resin and in predictably suitable amounts as well as based upon the desire to impart UV absorbing properties. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of at least 0.15% by weight of the polymer mixture, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the amount of the UV absorber, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng in view of Humfeld, and Cesareo, as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 10, 11, 14-15, 20-21, 24, and 26-28 above, further in view of US Pub. No. 2012/0326672 to Dennis and US Pub. No. 2013/0096247 to Takahashi.
Regarding claims 22-23, the prior art combination teaches the graphite comprising one or more graphene base material, including in flake form (Tseng, para 0071-0073). The prior art combination teaches the core may include additional materials or additive to impart desired physical or chemical properties (Id., para 0091).
The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the core comprising a binder that comprises polypropylene grafter with maleic anhydride or promotes the adhesive of the thermoplastic to the fibers.
However, Dennis teaches the use of a coupling agent, specifically maleic anhydride modified polypropylene, to bond glass fibers to polypropylene (substance that promote adhesion of the polymer component to the fibers), which improves the material strength, stability, and bromine resistance (Dennis, Table 3, para 0125-0128). Additionally, Takahashi teaches a molded product having excellent mechanical strength such as high modulus of elongation, a low coefficient of linear expansion, and high dimensional stability and comprising an polyolefin-based resin, such as polypropylene, modified with an unsaturated carboxylic acid, such as maleic anhydride, and flaked graphite (Takahashi, abstract, para 0001-0002, 0010-0011, 0050). Takahashi teaches the acid-modified polyolefin-based resin has the effect of stabilizing flaked graphite and preventing flaked graphite from aggregating (Id., para 0017). Takahashi teaches the total content of the maleic anhydride modified polyolefin-based resin being 1 to 10 percent by weight of the polyolefin-based resin (Id., para 0025-0026) and the polyolefin-based resin being polypropylene (Id., para 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the composite of the prior art combination, wherein the prepreg further comprising malic anhydride modified polypropylene as taught by Dennis and Takahashi, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known additive predictably suitable for use with polypropylene, glass fiber, and graphite and to improve bonding of the polypropylene and glass fibers and stabilize the graphite flake which in turn improves the mechanical properties.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng in view of Humfeld, Cesareo, and/or Radvan, as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 10, 11, 14-15, 20-21, 24, and 26-28 above, further in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0245281 to Lyons.
Regarding claim 25, the prior art combination teaches the core layer comprising random crossing over of reinforcing fibers held together by a thermoplastic material (Tseng, para 0007, 0013, 0021), reading on the fiber being oriented at the multiple angles.
The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the fibers creating a pseudo-anisotropic structure with the multiple angles comprising 0, 10, 17, 23, 33, 36, 40, and 45 degrees relative to the machine directions of laminate.
However, Lyons teaches a material comprising a plurality of reinforcing fibers encapsulated by a matrix material, wherein the fibers are distributed in a predominately random orientation such as to demonstrate essentially anisotropic properties (pseudo-anisotropic) (Lyson, para 0042). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have appreciated that randomly dispersed fiber would contain dispersed direction having the claimed values in order to achieve the essentially anisotropic properties.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the composite of the prior art combination, wherein the fibers are randomly dispersed, and therefore contain dispersing direction as claimed, motivated by the desire to impart essentially anisotropic properties as taught by Lyons, and would result in the disclosed feature of random crossing over of the reinforcing fibers as taught by Tseng.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the previous 112 rejection of record in the Office action mailed June 4, 2026. However, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 103. Applicant’s arguments in the Office Action mailed December 29, 2026, are directed towards the prior art not teaching a limitation that has been removed from the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:00 PM EST M-H.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
