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 .
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.
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 - 10 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what the limitation “melt spinning through a mixture and a filler” represents. It is unclear what the limitation “the filler comprises the mixture and a polymer masterbatch represents”. Does the filler comprise the same components as the first mixture which comprises graphene quantum dots (GQD), a polymer prepared from a masterbatch where the polymer can melt.
As to claim 7, it is unclear in step 1 how long the materials are centrifuged. It is unclear how the organic solvent is added in step 6. It is unclear what process is occurring in steps 7 – 10.
Claims 2 – 8 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected independent claim.
As to claims 9 - 10, the mixture comprises graphene quantum dots and a polymer prepared from a polymer masterbatch. The filler comprises and a polymer prepared from a polymer masterbatch. Both these limitations comprised the same materials. Claim 10 is rejected as being dependent on a rejected independent claim 9.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 was interpreted as 1) preparing a masterbatch of GQD in a polymer, 2) adding a portion of the masterbatch to additional pure polymer followed by blending to form a second masterbatch, 3) melt spinning the second masterbatch at a temperature to form a GQD / polymer fiber.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by AU 2021103849 A4 to Chu et al., hereinafter “Chu”.
Chu is directed to the formation of polyamide 6 fibers with graphene quantum dots (GQD) (page 2).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5 and 10, Chu teaches a process to make graphene quantum dots (GQD) fibers, at Example 1, comprising the steps of:
preparing a GQD masterbatch in caprolactam, polymerizing the mixture, and finally removing small molecules from the polymer by washing.
diluting the GQD masterbatch of step 1 with polyamide 6 to provide the spin solution. PA6 = polyamide 6.
Melt spinning the material from step 2 into a fiber at temperature.
Chu discloses that the GQD used have a size of 10 to 100 nm (Example 1, step 1).
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(s) 2, 3, 6, 8, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AU 2021103849 A4 to Chu et al., hereinafter “Chu”.
For the limitations of the independent claim refer to paragraphs 12 – 14 supra.
Regarding claims 2 – 3 and 9, the amount of GQD in the fiber of Example 1 is approximately 2 wt. %. However, Chu teaches that 1 – 10 parts of the masterbatch is mixed with 10 – 20 parts of pure PA6. If the masterbatch comprises 2% GQD by weight as in Example 1, therefore 1 part MB (2% GQD) / 10 parts PA6 – 1 part MB (2% GQD) / 20 parts PA6 to 10 part MB (2% GQD) / 10 parts PA6 – 10 part MB (2% GQD) / 20 parts PA6. This yields a use level of GQD from a low of 0.09 wt. % to 1 wt. %. This is within the claimed ranges.
As to claims 6 and 10, Chu is silent as to the diameter to the GQD /polymer composite fiber. With regard to Applicant’s limitations regarding the diameter of the composite fiber, it is the position of the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would through routine and normal experimentation determine the optimization of these limitations to provide the best effective variable depending on the results desired. Because, Chu teaches the melt spinning of GQD in polyamide polymer, the Examiner asserts that the fiber diameter is an art recognized result-effective variable. Thus it would be obvious for someone skilled in the art to choose the spinneret size to produce the final fiber diameter that was required for the application. In addition, merely modifying the process conditions such as temperature and concentration is not a patentable modification absent a showing of criticality, since the applicant does not show any unusual and/or unexpected results for the limitation stated (In re Aller, 220 Fo2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Note that the prior art provides the same effect desired by the Applicant, the formation of a composite fiber comprising PQD.
Regarding claim 8, Chu is silent as to the use of xylene to help dissolve the GQD in the polymer. With regard to Applicant’s limitations regarding the use of xylene to disperse the GQD, it is the position of the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would through routine and normal experimentation determine the optimization of these limitations to provide the best effective variable depending on the results desired. The Examiner asserts that the type and amount of a solvent to dissolve the GQD particles in the polymer are art recognized result-effective variables. Thus it would be obvious in the optimization process to change the concentrations and type of solvent used to achieve dissolution of the GQD in the polymer. In addition, merely modifying the process conditions such as temperature and concentration is not a patentable modification absent a showing of criticality, since the applicant does not show any unusual and/or unexpected results for the limitation stated (In re Aller, 220 Fo2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Note that the prior art provides the same effect desired by the Applicant, the formation of a fiber comprising GQD and polyamide polymer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER A. SALAMON whose telephone number is 571-270-3018. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 6PM.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
PAS 2/6/26
/PETER A SALAMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759