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 .
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-19 and polyurethane, graphene and a cellulose as the species in the reply filed on 5/28/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examining all claims and all possible combinations of species would be no burden. This is not found persuasive because polyurethane compositions, polybutadiene compositions, polyisoprene compositions and polypropylene compositions each have separate classifications and separate searches. Furthermore, polypropylene is not an “elastomer” which means possible matrix polymers are not actually limited to elastomers at all. Method claims (eg #24) requiring certain mixing times and temperatures are not trivial.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The meaning of “elastomeric” in claim 1 is unclear as claim 2 lists polypropylene as a possible “elastomer”. Polypropylene is not considered an elastomer.
The meaning of “adapted” in claim 3 and 11 is indefinite. Is graphene alone considered “adapted”? Does graphene need some sort of treatment to be considered “adapted”?
Claim 8’s reference to “increasing” is not understood. The claim is not a process claim. What are the minimum requirements to meet this claim? Does a composite of elastomer + 2% graphene meet this claim?
Claim 12’s “suggesting that” is not understood. How does this phrase limit the claim?
Claim 13’s “which confirms” is not understood. How does this phrase limit the claim?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6,8 and 14-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Khan article in Carbon 48(2010) as evidenced by the Jiang article in Royal Society Open Science.
Khan exemplifies (fig 2) a composite of polyurethane with 0.1% graphene (ie applicant’s UV-resistant additive). The polyurethane is inherently elastomeric based on Khan’s discussion of PU soft segments (last paragraph of introduction). The soft segments of a polyurethane provide elasticity (see the Introduction of Jiang).
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Graphene itself is considered “adapted” as required by applicant’s claim 3.
Khan’s graphene was exfoliated (last paragraph of introduction) meeting applicant’s claim 5.
Presumably, Kahn’s composite has the properties of applicant’s claims 8,14 and 15 as all of applicant’s material and amount limitations are met.
Free standing films of the composite (section 3.3) meet applicant’s claim 16.
Claims 1,3-5 and 14-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lynch-Branzoi 2023/0080867.
Lynch-Branzoi exemplifies (paragraph 56) blends graphene (ie applicant’s UV-resistant additive) with silicone polymer precursor and graphene (ie applicant’s UV-resistant additive) with curing agent. The two are then combined and allowed to cure. Presumably, the resulting silicone is elastomeric (see abstract).
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Graphene itself is considered “adapted” as required by applicant’s claim 3.
The graphene was shear exfoliated (paragraph 56) instead of solution exfoliated as in applicant’s claim 5. However, this is a product by process limitation. There is nothing of record showing shear exfoliation results in a different product than a solution exfoliated graphene.
Presumably, the reference’s composite has the properties of applicant’s claims 14 and 15 as all of applicant’s material and amount limitations are met.
The curing of the silicone precursor with curing agent in the presence of the graphene is considered the “in-situ” polymerization of applicant’s claim 17.
The composition may be used on gloves (paragraph 49) meeting applicant’s claims 18 and 19.
Claims 1-4 and 6-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CN110204675.
The reference exemplifies (table of paragraphs 104,105 of original doc) combining:
Parts material %
100 polyetherpolyol 48
90 diisocyanate 43
3 diamine 1.4
2 water 1
6 oil 3
2 nitrogen doped graphene 1
3 nanotube 1
1.5 cellulose nanocrystal 0.7
-----------
207.5
The polyetherpolyol + diisocyanate will form an urethane elastomer. The nitrogen doped graphene qualifies as applicant’s UV resistant additive.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Graphene itself is considered “adapted” as required by applicant’s claim 3.
Presumably, reference’s composite has the properties of applicant’s claims 8 and 11-15 as all of applicant’s material and amount limitations are met.
The cellulose nanocrystal is applicant’s reinforcement of claims 8-10.
The composition is used as a medical pad meeting applicant’s claim 16.
The reaction of the polyol and diisocyanate in the presence of the graphene is considered the “in-situ” polymerization of applicant’s claim 17.
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.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Khan article in Carbon 48(2010).
Khan applies as explained above.
Khan (fig 2) displays examples of 0.1% graphene and 5% graphene.
A 1% example is not present.
However, Khan (conclusion) teaches 0-90% graphene.
It would have been obvious to produce a PU/graphene composite of 1% graphene. One would expect properties “in-between” that of the 0.1% and 5% examples.
Claims 16,18 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Khan article in Carbon 48(2010) in view of Scheffer 2018/0327611.
Khan applies as explained above.
Khan does not suggest specific articles to be made from his PU/graphene composite.
Scheffer claims (#1) compositions of graphene. The graphene can be mixed with polymers (paragraph 36) such as urethane elastomers (paragraph 32) to make personal protective equipment such as gloves (paragraph 80).
It would have been obvious to use Khan’s PU/graphene composite as a glove given polymer/graphene compositions have been generally suggested for such a use.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch-Branzoi 2023/0080867.
Lynch-Branzoi applies as explained above.
Not only silicone elastomers, but polybutadiene, polyurethanes etc may be employed (paragraph 39).
It would have been obvious to utilize any of the elastomers listed by Lynch-Branzoi.
References of Interest
Korzhenko 2015/0118430 is cited for his recognition that low levels of graphene UV stabilize composites.
Hersam 2018/0086932 is cited for his disclosure of applicant’s preferred method of making graphene.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BUTTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-3pm.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/DAVID J BUTTNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765 6/11/26
Prosecution Insights