DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 claims 24-29 in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 30-43 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/12/2023, 11/25/2024 and 12/12/2025 was filed timely. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 24-25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by (US 2016/0340194A1) to Bozalina et al. (hereinafter Bozalina).
Bozalina is directed toward a polymer containing a graphene additive. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0020] that the disclosure is directed toward the large scale synthesis of charged and functionalized graphene sheets that are produced in a thinning and oxidation process that are very attractive for use in additives such as composites. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0021] that the edges are modified chemically to form reactive sites for hydroxyl and carbonyls. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0020] that the thinned layer is 1 to 10 layers of graphene. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0023] that the lateral size is reduced to flakes. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0025] that lateral sizes may include about 500 nm to about 1000 nm, which reads on Applicants range of 500 nm to about 5 microns. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0106] that the graphene is added to a PLA polymer to form a composite. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [4049] that the G-band to D-band ratio is 20, which reads on Applicants range of 14 to about 28. Bozalina discloses each and every element as arranged in claims 24-25 and 29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 24-25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2016/0340194A1) to Bozalina et al. (hereinafter Bozalina).
Bozalina is directed toward a polymer containing a graphene additive. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0020] that the disclosure is directed toward the large scale synthesis of charged and functionalized graphene sheets that are produced in a thinning and oxidation process that are very attractive for use in additives such as composites. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0021] that the edges are modified chemically to form reactive sites for hydroxyl and carbonyls. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0020] that the thinned layer is 1 to 10 layers of graphene. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0023] that the lateral size is reduced to flakes. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0025] that lateral sizes may include about 500 nm to about 1000 nm, which reads on Applicants range of 500 nm to about 5 microns. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0106] that the graphene is added to a PLA polymer to form a composite. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [4049] that the G-band to D-band ratio is 20, which reads on Applicants range of 14 to about 28. It has been held that the mere fact that a reference suggest a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of these combinations less obvious, citing Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989). One skilled in the art would find it obvious to select any composition disclosed by the specification.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Bozalina to select each and every element as arranged in claims to form a prima facia case of obviousness for claims 24-25 and 29.
10. Claims 24-25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2016/0340194A1) to Bozalina et al. (hereinafter Bozalina) in view of the teachings of (US 2014/0271970 A1) to Crawford et al. (hereinafter Crawford).
Bozalina is directed toward a polymer containing a graphene additive. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0020] that the disclosure is directed toward the large scale synthesis of charged and functionalized graphene sheets that are produced in a thinning and oxidation process that are very attractive for use in additives such as composites. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0021] that the edges are modified chemically to form reactive sites for hydroxyl and carbonyls. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0020] that the thinned layer is 1 to 10 layers of graphene. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0023] that the lateral size is reduced to flakes. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0025] that lateral sizes may include about 500 nm to about 1000 nm, which reads on Applicants range of 500 nm to about 5 microns. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0106] that the graphene is added to a PLA polymer to form a composite. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [4049] that the G-band to D-band ratio is 20, which reads on Applicants range of 14 to about 28. It has been held that the mere fact that a reference suggest a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of these combinations less obvious, citing Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989). One skilled in the art would find it obvious to select any composition disclosed by the specification. Bozalina teaches each and every element of the composite, but is silent regarding the use of a supercritical fluid to produce a polymer composite.
Crawford is directed toward a polymer containing a graphene additive whereas mass automated exfoliation of graphite into graphene is produced for production of a polymer additive. Bozalina and Crawford are both directed toward a polymer containing a graphene additive and therefore are analogous art. Crawford teaches at paragraph [0018] that a supercritical fluid is used to exfoliate graphite into graphene using a supercritical fluid that is directly mixed with a polymer, which is in an automated system allowing for rapid production at lower costs, which would motivate one skilled in the art to combine the teachings to form a polymer composite of Bozalina using the method of Crawford. Crawford teaches at paragraph [0022] that a supercritical fluid may include carbon dioxide.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Bozalina in view of the teachings of Crawford to select each and every element as arranged in claims and to exfoliate graphite into graphene using a supercritical fluid directly mixed with a polymer for reduced cost automation to form a prima facia case of obviousness for claims 24-25 and 27-29.
11. Claims 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2016/0340194A1) to Bozalina et al. (hereinafter Bozalina) in view of the teachings of (US 2014/0271970 A1) to Crawford et al. (hereinafter Crawford) in further view of the teachings of (US 2007/0131915 A1) to Stankovich et al. (hereinafter Stankovich).
Bozalina is directed toward a polymer containing a graphene additive. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0020] that the disclosure is directed toward the large scale synthesis of charged and functionalized graphene sheets that are produced in a thinning and oxidation process that are very attractive for use in additives such as composites. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0021] that the edges are modified chemically to form reactive sites for hydroxyl and carbonyls. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0020] that the thinned layer is 1 to 10 layers of graphene. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0023] that the lateral size is reduced to flakes. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0025] that lateral sizes may include about 500 nm to about 1000 nm, which reads on Applicants range of 500 nm to about 5 microns. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [0106] that the graphene is added to a PLA polymer to form a composite. Bozalina discloses at paragraph [4049] that the G-band to D-band ratio is 20, which reads on Applicants range of 14 to about 28. It has been held that the mere fact that a reference suggest a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of these combinations less obvious, citing Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989). One skilled in the art would find it obvious to select any composition disclosed by the specification. Bozalina teaches each and every element of the composite, but is silent regarding the use of a supercritical fluid to produce a polymer composite.
Crawford is directed toward a polymer containing a graphene additive whereas mass automated exfoliation of graphite into graphene is produced for production of a polymer additive. Bozalina and Crawford are both directed toward a polymer containing a graphene additive and therefore are analogous art. Crawford teaches at paragraph [0018] that a supercritical fluid is used to exfoliate graphite into graphene using a supercritical fluid that is directly mixed with a polymer, which is in an automated system allowing for rapid production at lower costs, which would motivate on skilled in the art to combine the teachings to form a polymer composite of Bozalina using the method of Crawford. Crawford teaches at paragraph [0022] that a supercritical fluid may include carbon dioxide. Bozalina and Crawford teaches each and every element of the composite, but is silent regarding the use of a loading above 1% of graphene in the composite.
Stankovich is directed toward a polymer containing a graphene additive. Bozalina and Stankovich are both directed toward a polymer containing a graphene additive and therefore are analogous art. Stankovich teaches at paragraph [0089] that 2.4 vol percent, which reads on Applicants range of 1 to 100 weight range to the polymer. Stankovich teaches at paragraph [0097] that loading above 0.15% increases conductivity of the composite, which would motivate a higher graphite loading to increase composite conductivity when desired.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Bozalina in view of the teachings of Crawford and Stankovich to select each and every element as arranged in claims and to exfoliate graphite into graphene using a supercritical fluid directly mixed with a polymer for reduced cost and automation and with Stankovich to select an optimized graphene loading for conductivity in a composite to form a prima facia case of obviousness for claims 24-29.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D WASHVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
13. 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.
14. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
15. 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.
/JEFFREY D WASHVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights