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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 01/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-42 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/26/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 and 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, “the coating” should read “the curable coating composition”.
Claim 3, line 1, “the epoxy” should read “the at least one epoxy”.
Claim 4, line 1, “the epoxy” should read “the at least one epoxy”.
Claim 5, line 1, “the epoxy” should read “the at least one epoxy”.
Claim 6, line 1, “the hybrid nanofiller” should read “the at least one hybrid nanofiller”.
Claim 7, line 1, “the hybrid nanofiller” should read “the at least one hybrid nanofiller”.
Claim 12, line 1, “the curing agent” should read “the at least one curing agent”.
Claim 13, line 1, “the curing agent” should read “the at least one curing agent”.
Claim 14, line 1, “the epoxy” should read “the at least one epoxy”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the ratio of GNP:fullerene-C60 nanopowder" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, Claim 8 is assumed to depend on Claim 7.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutchko et al. (US 2022/0134723 A1) in view of the evidence of PalmerHolland (“DER 331”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kutchko discloses a multilayer system of co-reactive compositions that can be applied to a substrate (para 0487) (i.e. curable coating composition comprising a first layer and a second layer).
The co-reactive compositions may each comprise prepolymers including epoxy polymers or epoxy-functional monomers (paras 0119, 0123, 0132, 0268). The co-reactive compositions may each further comprise electrically conductive filler (para 0368) such as graphenic carbon particles (paras 0378-0379), which are 10 nm or less thick and 50-500 nm wide (para 0380), with fullerenes (para 0391) (i.e. hybrid nanofiller) and carbon nanotubes (paras 0386, 0391).
In light of the overlap between the multilayer system disclosed by Kutchko and the curable coating composition presently claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a curable coating composition that is both disclosed by Kutchko and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Kutchko discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Kutchko further discloses the multilayer system forms a sealant, which may be capable of resisting water (para 0066), but does not explicitly disclose the composition is superhydrophobic. However, since the multilayer system comprises layers as claimed comprising materials as claimed, the multilayer system would necessarily be superhydrophobic.
Regarding Claims 3-4, Kutchko discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Kutchko further discloses use of epoxy resins such as DER 331 (a product of bisphenol A and epichlorohydrin, according to the evidence of PalmerHolland) and DEN 431 (an epoxy novolac resin) (para 0586, Table 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Kutchko discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Kutchko further discloses nothing is required in the layers besides a first and second reactive compound, which may both be epoxy resins (para 0282). When the compositions also include conductive filler (i.e. the hybrid nanofiller and carbon nanotubes), the compositions comprise 1-95 wt% conductive filler (para 0408). Therefore, the layers may each comprise 5-99% epoxy resin.
Regarding Claim 6, Kutchko discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Kutchko further discloses the compositions may comprise 1-95 wt% conductive filler (para 0408), including the fullerenes and graphenic carbon particles, and that the composition comprises 2-50 wt% graphenic carbon particles (para 0384).
Regarding Claims 11-12, Kutchko discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Kutchko further discloses the layers may have first and second reactive compounds such as amine and epoxy (paras 0276, 0281) (i.e. epoxy resin with polyamine curing agent).
Regarding Claims 11-13, Kutchko discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Kutchko further discloses the co-reactive compositions may each comprise prepolymers including epoxy polymers or epoxy-functional monomers (paras 0119, 0123, 0132, 0268) and polyamide (para 0131) (i.e. epoxy resin and polyamide curing agent).
Regarding Claim 14, Kutchko discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Kutchko further discloses the particular functional groups and curing chemistries can be selected to provide a desired curing rate and/or to impart a desired property to a cured layer of a multilayer system (para 0278).
While Kutchko does not disclose the molar ratio of the epoxy resin to the curing agent, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a ratio, including that claimed, to optimize the curing rate and/or impart desired properties to a cured product of the multilayer system.
Regarding Claim 15, Kutchko discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Kutchko further discloses there may be uniformity throughout each layer (para 0079).
Regarding Claim 16, Kutchko discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Kutchko further discloses the carbon nanotubes have an average outer diameter of 9-20 nm and an average length of 100 nm to 10 microns (para 0404).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutchko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thomann et al. (US 5,281,653).
Regarding Claim 7-8, Kutchko discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above, including the layers comprising electrically conductive filler (para 0368) such as graphenic carbon particles (paras 0378-0379), which are 10 nm or less thick and 50-500 nm wide (para 0380), with fullerenes (para 0391) (i.e. hybrid nanofiller). Kutchko further discloses the layers may comprise 2-50 wt% graphenic carbon particles (para 0384).
Kutchko does not disclose the type of fullerenes or the amount of fullerenes as claimed.
Thomann discloses a fullerene-polymer composition (Abstract). The polymer includes epoxy resin (claim 12). The fullerene includes C60 fullerene (col.4, lines 19-21) and is in the form of a powder (col.4, line 8). The fullerene is present in an amount of 0.1-85 wt.% (col.4, lines 31-34), in order to modify viscoelastic properties of the composition which would result in changes in melt flow, stiffness, softening point, tensile strength, and toughness (col.4, lines 24-28 and 61-65).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Kutchko to incorporate the teachings of Thomann and produce the multilayer system of Kutchko wherein the layers comprise 0.1-85 wt% C60 fullerene powder.
Therefore, the ratio of graphenic carbon particles to C60 fullerene powder would be 2.3:97.7 to 99.8:0.2 (2/85 to 50/0.1).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutchko in view of Thomann as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Al-Harthi et al. (US 2017/0206997 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Kutchko in view of Thomann discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 7 above. Kutchko discloses the graphenic carbon particles are 10 nm or less thick and 50-500 nm wide (para 0380) and may be substantially flat platelets having portions that are creased (para 0379).
Kutchko in view of Thomann does not disclose the average specific surface area of the graphenic carbon particles.
Al-Harthi discloses nanocomposite films comprising a polymer matrix such as epoxy and polyamide (paras 0067, 0137) with nanofiller such as graphene nanoplatelets (para 0152) having an average thickness of 0.5-300 nm (para 0156). The graphene provides high strength and efficient heat and electrical conductivity (para 0148) and has a preferable specific surface area of 2.5-750 m2/g (para 0156) which is achieved by wrinkles on the nanoplatelets (para 0154).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kutchko in view of Thomann to incorporate the teachings of Al-Harthi and produce the multilayer system using the graphene nanoplatelets of Al-Harthi (having specific surface area of 2.5-750 m2/g) as the graphenic carbon particles. Doing so would provide high strength and efficient heat and electrical conductivity.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutchko in view of Thomann as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kiritani (JP 2004/182775).
Regarding Claim 10, Kutchko in view of Thomann discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 7 above. Kutchko in view of Thomann does not disclose the particle size of the fullerene-C60 powder.
Kiritani discloses a curable resin composition comprising fullerene and epoxy resin (paras 0001, 0024). The fullerene includes C60 fullerene (para 0017) and has an average particle diameter of 0.001-5 microns (1-5000 nm) (para 0055) in order to improve the heat resistance of the resin composition (para 0057).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kutchko in view of Thomann to incorporate the teachings of Kiritani and produce the multilayer system using the C60 fullerene of Kiritani (having average particle diameter of 1-5000 nm) as the C60 fullerene powder. Doing so would improve the heat resistance of the resin composition.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lima et al. (US 2018/0194101 A1) discloses a nanofiber sheet comprising carbon nanotubes (para 0020), with diameter of 0.4-100 nm and length of 1nm or more (para 0021). The carbon nanotubes are hydrophobic (para 0022) and the nanofiber sheet may be hydrophobic (para 0038). Lima further discloses a polymer layer adjacent to the nanofiber sheet (para 0040), which comprises epoxy adhesive (para 0041), crosslinking agent, and conductivity improvers such as graphene and fullerene (para 0043).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETHANY M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2109. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/BETHANY M MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights