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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the term “and” in “and SMC composition” is a typographical error and should be replaced with “a” or “the same.” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following reasons:
With respect to claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 13, and 16, it is not immediately clear that that the term “tensile properties” refers to tensile strength.
With respect to claim 12, the phrase “wherein the composition a flexural strength” does not include a transitional term such as “has” or “comprises.”
With respect to claim 16, line 4, “an sheet” should read as --a sheet--.
With respect to claims 16 and 19, in line 3 of each claim, the “and” in “and SMC composite material” should be replaced with “a.” Also, it is improper to include two colons in one claim. Lastly, the language following the first colon includes limitation other than “the following properties.”
With respect to claim 18, the term “the carbon fiber” does not have full antecedent basis and should read as --the carbon fiber reinforcement--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without fibers, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1 and 3, the phrase “an SMC composition but without graphene as an additive” is indefinite because the composition to which is being compared can vary in a plurality of ways including type of resin and amount of glass or carbon fiber. It is suggested that this phrase be replaced with --the SMC composition but without graphene as an additive--.
With respect to claims 2, 6-9, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, the approximate term “about” is indefinite because it is not clear to what degree the term extends the endpoints of the numerical ranges.
With respect to claims 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, the terms “generally” and “typically” are indefinite because it not clear whether they extend the range of the numerical properties.
With respect to claims 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, these claims recite the broad recitation “generally” for each of flexural strength, Izod impact strength, and tensile strength, and the claim also recites “typically” and “preferably” ranges which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
With respect to claim 10, this claim contains the trademarks/trade names AGnP-10, AGnP-35, and R10 by Applied Graphene Materials. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe graphene and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
With respect to claim 11, it is unclear if the composite is filled with glass or specifically glass fiber.
With respect to claim 12, line 6, the term “the tensile strength properties” lacks antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 14, the term “The vehicle part” lacks antecedent basis. Also, the term “the SMC compound” lacks antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 15, line 7, the term “the tensile strength properties” lack antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 16, line 9, the term “the tensile strength properties” lack antecedent basis.
With respect to claims 16 and 19, the range of graphene content of “about 0.05 to about 1 %” in line 2 of each claim does not have a basis (i.e., volume or weight %?). If weight %, then it is redundant to state the range twice (see lines 4-5 of each claim). Also, both claims refer to “a sheet molding composition” and a “SMC composite material,” and it is not clear if and how they are different and if the claimed properties refer to the composition, the composite, or to the vehicle part.
With respect to claim 18, the term “the sizing” lacks antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 19, lines 9-10, the term “the tensile strength properties” lack antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 20, the term “the glass fiber” lacks antecedent basis.
With respect to claims 4, 5, and 17, they are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency of the claim from which they depend.
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale (US 11,702,517).
With respect to claims 1, 2, 11, Beale discloses a resin composition comprising milled fiberglass (i.e., glass fiber), graphene, and a cured resin composition (abstract). Beale teaches that the resin composition has flexural strength of greater than 124 MPa (col. 26, lines 15-19), e.g., the table in col. 18 shows increasing flexural strength with graphene concentration of 0 to 0.5 to 1.0 wt % (Examples 0, 1a, and 1b) (col. 18, lines 41-67). Beale teaches that the resin composition has tensile of greater than 100 MPa (col. 26, lines 20-26).
Beale teaches that the composition comprising graphene provides for significantly higher flexural strength and significantly higher tensile strength (col. 6, lines 56-61; col. 8, lines 44-46) but fails to disclose improving Izod impact strength.
Even so, given that Beale teaches that adding graphene improves strength (i.e., flexural and tensile) and further given that Izod impact strength is directly related to flexural and tensile strength, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also improve Izod impact strength by adding graphene.
With respect to claim 3, in col. 18, table shows that the mean flexural stress (i.e., flexural strength) increases from 163 MPa to 219 MPa (i.e., a 34% increase) when graphene concentration is increased from 0 to 1.0 wt % (Examples 0 and 1b).
With respect to claims 12, Beale teaches that the resin composition has flexural strength of greater than 124 MPa (col. 26, lines 15-19) and tensile of greater than 100 MPa (col. 26, lines 20-26), which overlap with claimed “generally” ranges.
Beale fails to disclose the Izod impact strength.
Even so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a composition comprising glass fibers and graphene having claimed Izod impact strength given that Beale teaches that improved mechanical properties are based on the addition of graphene.
With respect to claims 15, 16, and 19, Beale teaches that the resin composition has flexural strength of greater than 124 MPa (col. 26, lines 15-19) and tensile of greater than 100 MPa (col. 26, lines 20-26), which overlap with claimed “generally” ranges.
Beale fails to disclose the Izod impact strength.
Even so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a composition comprising glass fibers and graphene having claimed Izod impact strength given that Beale teaches that improved mechanical properties are based on the addition of graphene.
Beale teaches that the composition is molded (col. 14, lines 60-63) but does not disclose a vehicle part. Even so, the vehicle part language is in the preamble and is therefore not positively recited. Case law holds that “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation.” See Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claims 1-4, 10-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamar (US 2020/0165410).
With respect to claim 1, Kamar discloses a sheet molding compound to form vehicle body parts comprising GnP (graphene) and thermosetting resin (abstract), wherein the sheet mold compound is mixed with glass or carbon fibers in an amount of up to 80 wt % to give structural performance in vehicle parts (paragraph 0037).
Kamar teaches that addition of GnP (graphene) improves mechanical properties of most composites, particularly stiffness (flexural strength) and tensile strength (paragraph 0006) but fails to disclose improving Izod impact strength.
Even so, given that Kamar teaches that adding graphene improves strength (i.e., flexural and tensile) and further given that Izod impact strength is directly related to flexural and tensile strength, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also improve Izod impact strength by adding graphene.
With respect to claims 2, 4, and 11, Kamar teaches that the amount of exfoliated graphitic (graphene) is 0.01-1 wt % (page 9, claim 8) and that the fiber can be glass or carbon fiber (paragraph 0037).
With respect to claims 3, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, Kamar fails to disclose the percentage of improvement in or specific values of Izod impact strength, flexural strength, and tensile strength properties of a composition comprising glass or carbon fibers and graphene.
Even so, it is the examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art can optimize these properties because Kamar teaches improved mechanical properties by adding graphene and reinforcing glass or carbon fiber (paragraphs 0006 and 0037).
With respect to claim 10, Kamar teaches that the exfoliated graphite includes xGnP (paragraph 0005) which appears to read on at least claimed AGnP-10 and AGnP-35.
With respect to claim 17, Kamar teaches that the glass or carbon fibers are used in an amount of up to 80 wt % to give structural performance in vehicle parts (paragraph 0037). Carbon fibers are about the same density as the polymer and graphene (all about 1 g/cc). Therefore, weight % taught by Kamar is approximately equivalent to volume %.
With respect to claim 20, Kamar teaches that the glass or carbon fibers are used in an amount of up to 80 wt % to give structural performance in vehicle parts (paragraph 0037). Glass fibers have density of about 2 g/cc and polymer graphene have a density of about 1 g/cc. Therefore, up to 80 weight % taught by Kamar provides for about up to 66 vol % glass fibers.
Claims 5-9, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamar (US 2020/0165410) in view of Baldini (US 11,566,369).
The discussion with respect to Kamar in paragraph 7 above is incorporated here by reference.
With respect to claims 5, 14, and 18, Kamar discloses a sheet molding compound with superior conductivity properties comprising graphitics (i.e., graphene such as graphene oxide) that are mixed with carbon fibers (abstract; paragraph 0037 and 0043).
Kamar fails to disclose that the graphene is on the carbon fibers as a sizing.
Baldini discloses sizing carbon fibers with graphene oxides particles for use in fiber-reinforced resin composites (abstract) and teaches that adding the graphene oxide in the sizing composition improved through-thickness transverse electrical conductivity and mechanical properties (col. 9, lines 4-29).
Given that both Kamar and Baldini are drawn to fiber-reinforced compositions comprising graphene oxide and further given that Baldini teaches that adding the graphene oxide in a sizing agent to carbon fibers provides for improved electroconductivity and mechanical properties, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a sizing composition on Kamar’s carbon fibers comprising at least some of the graphene oxide .
With respect to claims 6-9, Kamar fails to disclose the specific values of Izod impact strength, flexural strength, and tensile strength properties of a composition comprising glass or carbon fibers and graphene.
Even so, it is the examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art can optimize these properties because Kamar teaches improved mechanical properties by adding graphene and reinforcing glass or carbon fiber (paragraphs 0006 and 0037).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/Vickey Nerangis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn