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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed (5 – 1 – 2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Zheng et al. (CN 107841111 A, hereinafter Zheng) does not teach the newly amended feature(s) of wherein the extruding comprises applying shear to the matrix in a first annular region defined between the two screws and in a second annular region defined between the screws and the barrel and wherein the shear applied in the first and second annular regions deagglomerates agglomerated graphene nanoplatelets in within the matrix during extrusion.
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Zheng / Zheng as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
As detailed in the previous office action of (12 – 1 – 2025) and below, Govindaraj teaches in the (Abstract) that the most critical challenge in translating properties in high-performance graphene polymer nanocomposite is to alleviate the agglomeration of graphene. This can be achieved by improving the distribution states of graphene in the matrix by; (1) enhancing the dispersion and (2) controlling the relative lattice orientation of graphene in substrates to create an alignment or orientation. (4.1.1. Physical Dispersion Methods, ¶2) teaches that stirring method applies a shear force to disperse the graphene. It includes high shear, magnetic, and friction stir processes. As such, an optimizing the shear force for the extruder provides for a mechanism for dispersion and orientation of graphene in polymer matrix composites such that by applying physical forces it provides to separate agglomerated graphene via, shear forces. As such, the shear rate is understood to impact the distribution states of graphene, and the degree of agglomeration of graphene and thus, conversely the deagglomeration of graphene. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited regarding optimizing the shear rate implemented to achieve a desired degree of agglomeration / deagglomeration of graphene. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Zheng / Zheng as modified.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim(s) 5 is 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 claimhas been amended to include the limitation an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding. However, the specification as originally filed fails to provide adequate written description or support for this limitation. The claim as written would not read on the pre-extruding as applicant seems to intended based on the disclosure, (See Pg. 12) and instead has the rotational speed reading on the extruding not pre-extruding as disclosed in the specification. Consequently, this amendment introduces new matter. The applicant is required to specifically point out where in the original disclosure this limitation is described or to cancel the amended claim. See MPEP 2163.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
A.) Claim(s) 1, 3 & 5 – 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (CN 107841111 A, hereinafter Zheng) as evidenced by Appropedia (Twin Screw Extruder Design Literature Review, 2022) and in view of Govindaraj et al. (Distribution states of Graphene in Polymer Nanocomposite, 2021, hereinafter Govindaraj)Regarding claim 1,
A method for producing a biodegradable polymer nanocomposite comprising graphene nanoplatelets, the method comprising:
- dispersing a plurality of graphene nanoplatelets into a matrix of biodegradable polymer; and
- extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer containing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets using a twin-screw extruder having a barrel and two screws to obtain the biodegradable polymer nanocomposite,
wherein the extruding comprises applying shear to the matrix in a first annular region defined between the two screws and in a second annular region defined between the screws and the barrel
- wherein the shear applied in the first and second annular regions deagglomerates agglomerated graphene nanoplatelets in within the matrix during extrusion, and
wherein a heating elements positioned over the barrel heat the matrix during extrusion such that cross-linking between molecules of the matrix containing the graphene nanoplatelets is formed during the extrusion.
Zheng teaches the following:
, b.) & c.) ([0019]) teaches mixing the surface-modified graphene nanosheets and polylactic acid (PLA) particles uniformly and grinding them in a three-roll mill for 20 to 30 minutes to obtain a polylactic acid graphene mixture. ([0020]) adding that the polylactic acid graphene mixture is mixed with chitosan, nano-montmorillonite, silane coupling agent, silica sol, and diamino diphenylmethane tetraglycidyl amine in a high-speed mixer. After being mixed evenly, the mixture is added to the hopper of a twin-screw extruder. Carbon fiber and glass fiber are added from the fiber feeding port of the twin-screw extruder. The mixture is melt-blended and extruded. Highlighting, that PLA is understood to be a biodegradable polymer.
As noted in ([0020]) melt-blending and extrusion transpires in a twin-screw extruder as such, the extruder is understood to have provide a shear force for the melt-blending to occur. Where melt blending using an extruder is understood to provide for deagglomerating agglomerated graphene nanoplatelets in within the matrix. Additionally, the twin-screw extruder is understood to comprise annulus between the two screws in a twin-screw configuration and in an annulus between the screws of the extruder and the barrel. Highlighting evidence from Appropedia, which illustrate a twin-screw extruder that comprises a barrel and heater around the barrel. Highlighting, that an annulus is illustrated between both the two screws and between the screws of
PNG
media_image1.png
590
1432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the extruder and the barrel. Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable result provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Wherein, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
As noted above in ([0020]) during extrusion the mixture is melt-blended and extruded. As such, melting is understood to take place during extrusion, where the melting results in cross-linking between molecules of the graphene-polymer nanocomposite. Highlighting, that the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited regarding any perceived discrepancies with Zheng teaching cross-linking between molecules of the graphene-polymer nanocomposite is formed during heating and melting. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144. Furthermore, regarding the heating elements being placed over the barrel is understood to be a limitation directed towards the apparatus and its structure that was utilized for the method which the claim is directed towards. Noting, that as mentioned above, the extruder of Zheng is understood of being capable of melting / melt-blended the composition and thus is capable of heating the composition. As such, the case law for structural limitation within method claims may be recited. Where it has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeifer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961).
Regarding Claim 1, Zheng is silent on the shear developed between screws or between screw and barrel is sufficient to deagglomerate agglomerated graphene nanoplatelets in the matrix of biodegradable polymer. In analogous art for a polymeric graphene composite material that are extruded to form a composite article, Govindaraj suggests details regarding the shear developed between screws or between screw and barrel is sufficient to deagglomerate agglomerated graphene nanoplatelets in the matrix of biodegradable polymer, and in this regard, Govindaraj teaches the following:
& d.) (Abstract) teaches that the most critical challenge in translating properties in high-performance graphene polymer nanocomposite is to alleviate the agglomeration of graphene. This can be achieved by improving the distribution states of graphene in the matrix by; (1) enhancing the dispersion and (2) controlling the relative lattice orientation of graphene in substrates to create an alignment or orientation. (4.1.1. Physical Dispersion Methods, ¶2) teaches that stirring method applies a shear force to disperse the graphene. It includes high shear, magnetic, and friction stir processes. The high shear and magnetic stirring process are commonly used for polymer while the friction stir process is used for dispersion graphene in metal matrices. (4.1.1. Physical Dispersion Methods, ¶5) Homogenous dispersion of graphene in polymer matrix depends on the viscosity of the melt, temperature, shear rate, and mixing time. (4.2.2, Shear Induced Orientation, ¶1) teaches that the shear-induced alignment is also an established technique to fabricate oriented composites by methods, such as, extrusion, amongst others. As such, the shear rate is understood to impact the distribution states of graphene, and the degree of agglomeration of graphene and thus, conversely the deagglomeration of graphene. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited regarding optimizing the shear rate implemented to achieve a desired degree of agglomeration / deagglomeration of graphene. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an extruded polymeric graphene composite material that melt mixed and extruded to form a graphene composite article of Zheng. By modifying the extruder to provide an optimized shear force during the extrusion of nanocomposite with graphene, as taught by Govindaraj. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement an optimized shear force for the extruder as it provides for a mechanism for dispersion and orientation of graphene in polymer matrix composites such that by applying physical forces it provides to separate agglomerated graphene via, shear forces, (4.1.1. Physical Dispersion Methods, ¶5 & 4.2.2, Shear Induced Orientation, ¶1).
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein a depth of a conveying channel of the screws is contoured from large to small in a flow direction of the molten biodegradable polymer nanocomposite to account for a density change from solid state to liquid state and to account for a-pressure development.
Zheng teaches the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
467
1133
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0020]) melt-blending and extrusion transpires in a twin-screw extruder.
Highlighting evidence from Appropedia which illustrate a twin-screw extruder that comprises a barrel and heater around the barrel. Highlighting, that the conveying channel of the screw are contoured from large to small in a flow direction of the molten polymer. Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable result provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Wherein, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. Furthermore, regarding the conveying channel of the screw is contoured from large to small is understood to be a limitation directed towards the apparatus and its structure that was utilized for the method which the claim is directed towards. As such, the case law for structural limitation within method claims may be recited. Where it has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeifer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961).
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the method further comprises pre-extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets
wherein the screws are driven at an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding.
Zheng teaches the following:
([0019]) teaches that (2) The surface-modified graphene nanosheets are mixed evenly with polylactic acid particles and ground in a three-roll mill for 20-30 min to obtain a polylactic acid-graphene mixture. Where the three-roll mill provides for pre-extruding the biodegradable polymer.Alternatively, ([0020]) teaches that the polylactic acid graphene mixture is placed into a hopper of a twin-screw extrude followed by extrusion to form an extruded product. Highlighting, while the biodegradable polymer and graphene are understood to be dispersed and extruded simultaneously vs. extrusion followed by dispersion. The case law for sequential vs simultaneous steps may be recited. Where, in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959).
Regarding Claim 5, Zheng is silent on the screws are driven at an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding.. In analogous art as applied above, Govindaraj suggests details regarding the screws are driven at an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding, and in this regard, Govindaraj teaches the following:
(4.1.1. Physical dispersion methods, ¶3) teaches that parameters such as milling time, rotation speed, and milling agents are tuned to achieve the desired dispersion of graphene. As such, rotational speed of the screws is understood to impact and tailor the shear strain rate provided to the polymer during extrusion. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited regarding the rotational speed of the screws is understood, in particular, tailoring the screws such that they are driven at an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets is comprises
functionalized graphene, doped graphene, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide, or a combination thereof.
Zheng teaches the following:
([0018]) teaches a surface-modification technique to form surface-modified graphene nanosheets. ([0020]) teaches that the surface-modified graphene nanosheets are mixed to form an extruded product. Where the surface-modified graphene nanosheets are understood to be a type of functionalized graphene
B.) Claim(s) 2, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as evidenced by Appropedia in view of Govindaraj and in further view of Zhen et al. (CN 108752633 A, hereinafter Zhen)Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the extrusion is performed at a temperature in a range of 120 degrees Celsius to 160 degrees Celsius.
Regarding Claim 2, Zheng in view of Govindaraj is silent on the extrusion being performed at a temperature in a range of 120 degree Celsius to 160 degrees Celsius. In analogous art for a polymeric composite material comprising PLA with fibers that are extruded to form a composite article ([0029]), Zhen suggests details regarding the extrusion being performed at a temperature in a range of 120 degree Celsius to 160 degrees Celsius, and in this regard, Zhen teaches the following:
([0022]) teaches that the polylactic acid-modified graphene oxide nanocomposite material is obtained according to the following method the modified graphene oxide is placed into a twin-screw extruder, raising the temperature in the twin-screw extruder to 120 °C to 180 °C under nitrogen protection, and reacting at the temperature of 120 °C to 180 °C for 0.5 to 3 hours; second, once the reaction product is extruded through the twin-screw extruder, it is cooled to room temperature. As such, the extrusion range of 120 °C to 180 °C for the polylactic acid-modified graphene oxide nanocomposite material is understood to overlap with applicant’s range of 120 degree Celsius to 160 degrees Celsius.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an extruded polymeric graphene composite material that melt mixed and extruded to form a graphene composite article of Zheng in view of Govindaraj. By further modifying the extrusion of the polylactic acid graphene composite material to be at a temperature in the range of 120 °C to 180 °C, as taught by Zhen. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement an extrusion temperature of 120 °C to 180 °C for the polylactic acid graphene composite material as it provides for a known temperature for extruding a graphene oxide nanocomposite, ([0022]). Accordingly, the case law for overlapping ranges may be recited. Where, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of [Sudo's temperature range] that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).C.) Claim(s) 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as evidenced by Appropedia in view of Govindaraj in view of Zhen and in further view of Bailey et al. (US 20140073745 A1, hereinafter Bailey)Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the matrix of biodegradable polymer is extruded at 155 degrees Celsius using the twin-screw extruder having a diameter of 16 mm
Regarding Claim 4, Zheng in view of Govindaraj is silent on the extrusion being performed at a temperature of 155 degrees °C. In analogous art for a polymeric composite material comprising PLA with fibers that are extruded to form a composite article ([0029]), Zhen suggests details regarding the extrusion being performed at a temperature in a range of 120 degree Celsius to 160 degrees Celsius, and in this regard, Zhen teaches the following:
([0022]) teaches that the polylactic acid-modified graphene oxide nanocomposite material is obtained according to the following method the modified graphene oxide is placed into a twin-screw extruder, raising the temperature in the twin-screw extruder to 120 °C to 180 °C under nitrogen protection, and reacting at the temperature of 120 °C to 180 °C for 0.5 to 3 hours; second, once the reaction product is extruded through the twin-screw extruder, it is cooled to room temperature. As such, the extrusion range of 120 °C to 180 °C for the polylactic acid-modified graphene oxide nanocomposite material is understood to overlap with applicant’s range of 155 degree Celsius.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 2, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.Regarding Claim 4, Zheng in view of Govindaraj and Zhen is silent on the extrusion being performed through an extruder of 16 mm diameter. In analogous art for a polymeric composite material comprising biodegradable polymers including PLA with additives that are extruded to form a composite article (Abstract), Bailey suggests details regarding the extrusion being performed through an extruder of 16 mm diameter, and in this regard, Bailey teaches the following:
([0064]) teaches that blending was conducted using a Prism twin screw extruder with counter rotating 250 mm screws, 16 mm in diameter, with a diameter ratio of 15 with the screw speed set at 100 rpm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an extruded polymeric graphene composite material that melt mixed and extruded to form a graphene composite article of Zheng in view of Govindaraj. By further modifying the extrusion of the polylactic acid graphene composite material to be performed through an extruder of 16 mm diameter, as taught by Bailey. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement an extruder with a 16 mm diameter as it provides for a known means for forming compounded polymers, ([0064]). Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and /or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. D.) Claim(s) 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as evidenced by Appropedia in view of Govindaraj and in further view of Gao et al. (CN 108774384 A, hereinafter Gao)Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the method further comprises pre-extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets
wherein the screws are driven at an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding.
Regarding Claim 5, Zheng in view of Govindaraj is silent on the method further comprises pre-extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets. In analogous art from the fabrication of a polylactic acid based composite material and a preparation method thereof and belongs to the field of processing of high molecular composite materials, (Abstract), Gao suggests details regarding the method further comprises pre-extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets, and in this regard Gao, teaches the following:
([0048]) teaches that (2) The filler, coupling agent and a portion of polylactic acid are added to a high-speed mixer and mixed at a speed of 600-900 RPM. The mixture is then melt-extruded through a twin-screw extruder, granulated and dried until the moisture content is below 0.2% (drying temperature is 80℃) to obtain masterbatch. ([0049]) teaches (3) next add all the masterbatch, graphene, toughening agent, antioxidant, plasticizer and a 21-05-2026 - Page 25 portion of polylactic acid obtained in step (2) to a high-speed mixer and mix at a speed of 600RPM-900RPM to obtain a premix. ([0051]) teaches that (5) the premixed material is added to the twin-screw extruder through the main feed port in zone 1. The remaining polylactic acid is added to the extruder through the side feed port in zone 5 of the twin-screw extruder. The product is melt-extruded and granulated by the twin-screw extruder. As such, (3) provides for pre-extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets followed by further extrusion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an extruded polymeric graphene composite material that melt mixed and extruded to form a graphene composite article of Zheng in view of Govindaraj. By further modifying the process to include pre-extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets, as taught by AUTHOR. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include pre-extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets as it provides for the addition of modifiers such as reinforcing agents, nucleating agents, fillers, and toughening agents can improve the tensile and impact properties, heat distortion temperature, etc. of the materials to varying degrees, ([0084]). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable result provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. Regarding Claim 5, Zheng is silent on the screws are driven at an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding. In analogous art as applied above, Govindaraj suggests details regarding the screws are driven at an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding, and in this regard, Govindaraj teaches the following:
(4.1.1. Physical dispersion methods, ¶3) teaches that parameters such as milling time, rotation speed, and milling agents are tuned to achieve the desired dispersion of graphene. As such, rotational speed of the screws is understood to impact and tailor the shear strain rate provided to the polymer during extrusion. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited regarding the rotational speed of the screws is understood, in particular, tailoring the screws such that they are driven at an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
E.) Claim(s) 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as evidenced by Appropedia in view of Govindaraj and in further view of Cernohous et al. (US 20130276670 A1, hereinafter Cernohous)Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the method further comprises pre-extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets
wherein the screws are driven at an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding.
Regarding Claim 5, Zheng is silent on the screws are driven at an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding. In analogous art as applied above, Govindaraj suggests details regarding the screws are driven at an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding, and in this regard, Govindaraj teaches the following:
(4.1.1. Physical dispersion methods, ¶3) teaches that parameters such as milling time, rotation speed, and milling agents are tuned to achieve the desired dispersion of graphene. As such, rotational speed of the screws is understood to impact and tailor the shear strain rate provided to the polymer during extrusion. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited regarding the rotational speed of the screws is understood, in particular, tailoring the screws such that they are driven at an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding Claim 7, Zheng adding on ([0021]) that additives include graphene, which provides for high temperature resistance, excellent flexibility and high strength to the polymer. Zheng in view of Govindaraj is silent on the method further comprises pre-extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets. In analogous art for a polymeric composite material comprising a biodegradable polymer (Abstract), Cernohous suggests details regarding the method further comprises pre-extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets and wherein the screws are driven at an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding, and in this regard, Cernohous teaches the following:
([0061]) teaches that polymer pellets also enter the twin screw extruder 100 through hopper 104. ([0039]) teaches that thermoplastic polymers may be used: Biopolymers such as polylactic acid (PLA). ([0046]) notes the various types of additives including heat stabilizers, impact modifiers, biocides, flame retardants. The additives may be incorporated into the melt processable composition in the form of powders, pellets, granules, or in any other extrudable or compoundable form. The amount and type of conventional additives in the melt processable composition may vary depending upon the polymeric matrix and the desired physical properties of the finished composition. As such, implementing additives is understood to tailor the properties of the composition. ([0079]) teaches that the material from the twin screw extruder is transferred to a second twin screw extruder 120 and additional polymers added through hopper 122. Other components may be added as well, either to the throat or through a side-stuffer (not shown in figure). The polymer is the same as was used in the first twin screw extruder 100. ([0080]) adds in a batch operation the first twin screw extruder may be used as the second twin screw extruder by cycling the composite material through the first twin screw extruder a second time and adding the additional polymer in this second pass through the extruder. In this operation the die face of the extruder would be changed from an open or partially open die face to a die face having die openings to form extrudate. ([0081]) The additional additives may also be added in the second twin screw extruder. As such, transferring the material from the twin screw extruder 100 to a second twin screw extruder 120 is understood to provide for pre-extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing of additives, i.e., the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets and thus tailoring the properties of the composition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an extruded polymeric graphene composite material that melt mixed and extruded to form a graphene composite article of Zheng in view of Govindaraj. By further modifying the process to include pre-extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets, as taught by Cernohous. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include pre-extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets as it provides for tailoring the properties of the composition prior to extrusion, ([0046]) and provides for a composition has excellent fiber dispersion and mechanical properties, ([0041]).F.) Claim(s) 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as evidenced by Appropedia in view of Govindaraj and in further view of Nosker et al. (US 20170218141 A1, hereinafter Nosker)Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the method further comprises pre-extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets
wherein the screws are driven at an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding.
Regarding Claim 7, Zheng in view of Govindaraj is silent on the method further comprises pre-extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets and wherein the screws are driven at an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding. In analogous art for a polymeric composite material comprising a biodegradable polymer (Abstract), Nosker suggests details regarding the method further comprises pre-extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets and wherein the screws are driven at an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding, and in this regard, Nosker teaches the following:
([0089]) teaches in one embodiment the graphite-containing molten polymer phase is subjected to repeated extrusion to induce exfoliation of the graphitic material and form the essentially uniform dispersion of the single- and multi-layer graphene nanoparticles in the thermoplastic polymer matrix. ([0102]) teaches that 9.8 grams of PSU were added to the mixer and allowed to become molten. As such, the PSU added to the mixer is understood to comprise a pre-extruding of the matrix material prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets. Alternatively, ([0102]) teaches that (1) 9.8 grams of PSU were added to the mixer and allowed to become molten. (2) 0.2 grams of SMG were added to the molten PSU and mixed. (3) After 3 minutes of mixing time, 3 grams of the G-PMC were extruded out of the mixer and collected for characterization. Noting, that SMG is Separated Mineral Graphite (not graphene). With ([0119]) noting that the mechanical exfoliation of the graphite into multi-layer graphene or graphene as a result of the repetitive shear strain action in the polymer processing equipment generates dangling primary and secondary bonds that provide the opportunity for various chemical reactions to occur, which can be exploited to obtain property enhancement of the G-PMC. As such, graphite is added with graphene not found to exist until the repetitive shear strain mixing action transpires to the graphite. ([0102]) adding that (4) 3 grams of 2% SMG in PSU was added to the mixer and mixed. (5) After 30 minutes of mixing time, 3 grams of the G-PMC were extruded out of the mixer. As such, the first extrusion in step (3) followed by the additional PSU being added in conjunction with further extrusion is understood to provide for the method comprising a pre-extruding of the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets
([0075]) teaches that the shear strain rate within the polymer is controlled by the type of polymer and the processing parameters, including the geometry of the mixer, processing temperature, and speed in revolutions per minute (RPM). As such, rotational speed of the screws in revolutions per minute is understood to impact and tailor the shear strain rate provided to the polymer during extrusion. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited regarding the rotational speed of the screws in revolutions per minute is understood, in particular, tailoring the screws such that they are driven at an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an extruded polymeric graphene composite material that melt mixed and extruded to form a graphene composite article of Zheng in view of Govindaraj. By further modifying the process to comprise comprises pre-extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets and wherein the screws are driven at an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding, as taught by Nosker. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a pre-extruding of the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets and wherein the screws are driven at an increased rotational speed relative to the extruding as they both provide in their own way a means for tailoring the properties of the composition fabricated, including mechanical properties, and the degree of exfoliation the graphene experiences ([0119] – [0120]).
G.) Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as evidenced by Appropedia in view of Govindaraj and in further view of Ning et al. (Crystallization behaviors and morphology of biodegradable…2011, hereinafter Ning)
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the matrix of biodegradable polymer is composed of polyhydroxyalkanoates and
the loading of graphene nanoplatelets is 1% by weight.
Regarding Claim 7, Zheng in view of Govindaraj is silent on the biodegradable polymer is composed of is composed of Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) and the loading of graphene nanoplatelets on the PHA is 1% by weight. In analogous art for a polymeric composite material comprising a biodegradable polymer (Abstract), Ning suggests details regarding the extrusion being performed through an extruder of 16 mm diameter, and in this regard, Ning teaches the following:
& b.) (Introduction, ¶3) teaches that the addition of nanoparticles into polymer matrix to form nanocomposites has provided a promising method to improve the performance of materials, various compositions including biodegradable aliphatic polyester/graphene nanocomposites have attracted much attention. For example, Tong et al. investigated the blends of polylactide (PLA), and graphene obtained via solution-cast method and found that the crystallization, thermal stability, and mechanical properties of PLA were improved by adding graphene. Herein, biodegradable P(3HB-co-4HB)/graphene nanocomposites were prepared via solution and coagulation method at various graphene loadings ranging from 0.5 to 2 mass % in order to get a better dispersion of graphene in the P(3HB-co-4HB) matrix. As such, PHA is understood to be established as an equivalent biodegradable polymer to (PLA) and the use of Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) as the biodegradable polymer with a graphene loadings ranging from 0.5 to 2 mass (weight) % is understood to be disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an extruded polymeric graphene composite material that melt mixed and extruded to form a graphene composite article of Zheng in view of Govindaraj. By further modifying the composition to comprise Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) with a loading of graphene in the range of 0.5 to 2 mass (weight) %, as taught by Ning. Highlighting, one would be motivated to utilize a Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) in place of PLA with a graphene loading of 0.5 to 2 mass (weight) % as it provides for a homogeneous dispersion of graphene nanoparticles together with strong interfacial interactions between polymer matrix and graphene nanoparticles can effectively improve the thermal, mechanical, and biodegradation performances of the P(3HB-co-4HB) matrix, (Results and Discussion, Phase Morphology, ¶1) and as they are understood to be an equivalent biodegradable polymer. Accordingly, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07. Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Clauss et al. (US 20160032061 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) Provided herein is technology relating to polymer-graphene nanocomposites and particularly, but not exclusively, to methods for producing polymer-graphene nanocomposites using master batches comprising graphene and a polymer or polymer precursor. The resulting polymer-graphene nanocomposites comprise a high degree of exfoliation and dispersion of graphene nanoplatelets within the polymer matrix.
Stolyarov et al. (US 20160276056 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) A dispersion of nanoplatelet graphene-like material, such as graphene nanoplatelets, in a solid or liquid dispersion media wherein the nanoplatelet graphene-like material is dispersed substantially uniformly in the dispersion media with a graphene-like material dispersant.
Hanan et al. (US 20170009046 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) A composition and a method are provided for graphene reinforced polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs) comprising multi-layer graphene are used to reinforce PET, thereby improving the properties of PET for various new applications
Whalen et al. (US 20210053100 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) Shear-assisted extrusion processes for forming extrusions of a desired composition from a feedstock material are provided. The processes can include applying a rotational shearing force and an axial extrusion to the same location on the feedstock material.
Sanes et al. (Extrusion of Polymer Nanocomposites with Graphene and Graphene Derivative Nanofillers: An Overview of Recent Developments, 2020) – teaches in the (Abstract) This review is focused on the recent developments of nanocomposite materials that combine a thermoplastic matrix with different forms of graphene or graphene oxide nanofillers. In all cases, the manufacturing method of the composite materials has been melt-processing, in particular, twin-screw extrusion, which can then be followed by injection molding.
Govindaraja. et al. (Distribution states of graphene in polymer nanocomposites: A review, 2021) – teaches in the (Abstract) Graphene has emerged as one of the promising nanoscale components of polymer nanocomposites owing to its exceptional properties. The 2D graphene material, when distributed appropriately in the host polymer can significantly alter the load, electron, and phonon transfer behavior of the nanocomposites.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights