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. DETAILED ACTION This Office action is based on the 18/368857 application originally filed September 15, 2023. Claims 1-20, filed September 15, 2023, are pending and have been fully considered. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 11 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 11 recites the limitation " the agglomerate flake " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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 , 12, 13, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (CN 112248594 A) hereinafter “Zhou” . Regarding Claim 1, 12, 13, 15 and 16 Zhou discloses in the abstract, the field of building materials, and particularly discloses a wear-resistant composite building template, which comprises a substrate layer and a wear-resistant protective layer covering at least one surface of the substrate layer . Zhou discloses on page 4, the preparation method of the wear-resistant composite building template specifically comprises the following steps: the method comprises the following steps: preparing a matrix layer according to the following components in parts by mass: 30-50 parts of unsaturated resin matrix, 0.1-0.3 part of graphene nanoplatelets , 10-20 parts of glass fiber and 40-60 parts of hard filler; wherein, the graphene nanoplatelets are prepared by an ultrasonic stripping physical method. Step two: covering at least one surface of the composite material substrate layer with a wear-resistant protective layer, and carrying out hot pressing to obtain a wear-resistant composite material building template . Zhou discloses on page 3, the wear-resistant protective layer is selected from one or more of polyethylene, polytetrafluoroethylene, polypropylene , polyethylene terephthalate and aluminum oxide. Zhou discloses on page 3, i n the matrix layer, graphene has excellent mechanical property and thermal property, and the graphene microchip is an ultrathin graphene laminated accumulation body with more than 10 carbon layers and a thickness of 5-100 nanometers , maintains the original planar carbon six-membered ring conjugated crystal structure of graphite, and has excellent mechanical strength, electric conduction and heat conduction properties, and good lubricating, high temperature resistant and corrosion resistant properties; the glass fiber is an inorganic non-metallic material with excellent performance, has various varieties and has the advantages of good insulative, strong heat resistance and good corrosion resistance; the graphene nanoplatelets and the glass fibers are introduced into the substrate layer, so that the obtained composite building template has the characteristics of high strength and rigidity, ultraviolet resistance, low aging speed, strong impact resistance and the like. The claimed invention is anticipated by the reference because the reference teaches a composition which comprises all of the claimed components. In the alternative, no patentable distinction is seen to exist between the reference and the claimed invention absent evidence to the contrary. Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 13, 14, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Young et al. “Hybrid multifunctional graphene/glass-fibre polypropylene composites” October 2016 hereinafter “ Young ” . Regarding Claim s 1 , 7- 9 , 13 , 14, 16 and 1 7 Young discloses in the abstract, t he effect of the simultaneous addition, using a melt-mixing procedure, of glass fibres (GFs) and graphene in the form of graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs) upon the properties of polypropylene (PP) . Young further discloses in Section 2.1, t he polypropylene homopolymer employed was produced by Lyondellbasell under the commercial name, Moplen HP501L and exhibited a flow index of 6 g 10 min −1 and a melt density of 900 kg m −3 (0.90 g/cm3). The glass-filled polypropylene was provided by Albis UK Ltd under the commercial name Altech PP-H A 2020/159 GF20 CP. This material was filled with 20 wt% of E-glass fibres ( average length over 5 mm and average diameter of 15 μm ), and had a melt density of 1040 kg m −3 (1.04 g/cm3). Exfoliated graphite nanoplatelets (xGNP-M25), produced by via the sulphuric intercalation of graphite, were obtained from XG Sciences (East Lansing, MI). The nanoplatelets had a mean platelet diameter of 25 μm and an average thickness of 6–8 nm ( ∼ 20 graphene layers) . A sample filled with 10 wt% GF and 10 wt% GNP (PP-GF10-GNP10) was prepared for comparison purposes. The claimed invention is anticipated by the reference because the reference teaches a composition which comprises all of the claimed components. In the alternative, no patentable distinction is seen to exist between the reference and the claimed invention absent evidence to the contrary. Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 1 08250561 A) hereinafter “ Li ” . Regarding Claim 1 and 6 Li discloses in the abstract, a glass fibre and graphene hybrid filler filling polypropylene composite material and preparation method thereof, the glass fibre and graphene hybrid filler filled polypropylene composite material comprises the following components: polypropylene 45-85 parts, 10-50 parts of glass fibre, 0.0001-1 parts of graphene, the glass fibre is chopped glass fibre; the section is flat-shaped, the section width-to-thickness ratio is 2~10, the preparation method is using electrostatic self-assembling principle to realize graphene oxide coated glass fibre. melt blending synchronous realizing in-situ reduction of the graphene oxide. The advantages of this invention are glass fibre as the graphene carrier, it can realize very small graphene uniformly dispersed in the matrix, to form a conductive network obviously reduce surface material resistance, which can reach excellent anti-static effect, physical and chemical property stability of graphene material in moist, heated, insolation, long-acting antistatic under harsh conditions such as vibration. Li further discloses on page 4, the composite additionally contains a silane coupling agent. The claimed invention is anticipated by the reference because the reference teaches a composition which comprises all of the claimed components. In the alternative, no patentable distinction is seen to exist between the reference and the claimed invention absent evidence to the contrary. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 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. 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. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1 , 4, 5, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zong et al. ( CN 112759846 A ) hereinafter cited under English Translation “ Zong ” . Regarding Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 10 Zong discloses in the abstract, a graphene modified polymer composite material for a bearing seat, which is prepared from the following raw materials in parts by weight: 45-55 parts of polypropylene , 12-20 parts of high-density polyethylene, 10-30 parts of alkali-free glass fiber , 0.1-1 part of graphene , 2-6 parts of toughening agent, 2-6 parts of grafting agent, 0.1-0.5 part of antioxidant, 0.1-0.5 part of anti-ultraviolet agent and 3.5-4.4 parts of lubricant; the total is 100 parts. Zong discloses on page 5, t he graphene modified polymer composite material obtained by the formula and the process is subjected to performance detection, and the obtained main performance data are as follows, so that the basic requirements for manufacturing a carrier roller bearing seat product are met: the tensile strength is more than or equal to 55MPa, the bending strength is more than or equal to 65MPa, the bending modulus is more than or equal to 3500MPa, and the density is less than or equal to 1.3g/cm 3 , S hore Hardness (Shore Hardness) is not less than 60D, and the notched impact strength of the cantilever beam is not less than 27KJ/m 2 . Zong further discloses on page 6, t he alkali-free glass fiber refers to glass fiber after surface treatment, is obtained by direct purchase, and has the diameter range of 8-14 microns . The claimed invention is anticipated by the reference because the reference teaches a composition which comprises all of the claimed components. In the alternative, no patentable distinction is seen to exist between the reference and the claimed invention absent evidence to the contrary. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Claim(s) 1, 2 , 3 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hemath et al. “ A comprehensive review on mechanical, electromagnetic radiation shielding, and thermal conductivity of fibers/ inorganic fillers reinforced hybrid polymer composites ”. June 10, 2020 hereinafter “ Hemath ” . Regarding Claims 1, 2 , 3, 19 and 20 Hemath discloses in the abstract, p eripheral such as aerospace, armor, sensors, heat exchanger, automobile, storage, and any other electronic equipment are frequently subjected to varying mechanical and thermal stress, which substantially influence their reliability, life cycle, and performance. It is due to the specific parameters that advanced polymer composites exhibit, there are growing research interests in heat management schemes, where both higher thermal characteristics and strength with significantly lower density are simultaneously essential. In the same manner, nanohybrid particles are commonly utilized as reinforcement fillers to enhance mechanical, electromagnetic shielding efficiency, and thermal characteristics of any polymer matrices. This survey discusses the polymer-based nanocomposites incorporated with hybrid nanoparticles for applications in high-performance materials. The subsequent interaction between the selected polymer matrix and hybrid nanofillers, which affects the characteristics of the polymer-based nanocomposites: mechanical, electromagnetic radiation shielding efficiency as well as thermal conductivity have been critically reviewed. The hybrid nanoparticles' synergy facilitates effective dispersion without damaging the structures of the nanofillers tend to optimized electrical properties, thermal conductivity, and higher overall functionality of the fabricated nanocomposites. Hemath discloses on pages 3951-3953, the polymer composite comprising polypropylene, graphene and glass fiber has an electromagnetic shielding (dB). Under ultralow concentration of particles as 0.15 wt% and treated at 800C, exhibits an electromagnetic radiation shielding efficiency as 25 dB, which matches the aimed quantity of the electromagnetic radiation shielding efficiency required for general purpose around 20 dB. Hemath further discloses on pages 3954-3957, t he enhancement in thermal conductivity was achieved up to 1.74 W/mK, due to lower interfacial and interaction within the nanoparticles and the matrix material. The claimed invention is anticipated by the reference because the reference teaches a composition which comprises all of the claimed components. In the alternative, no patentable distinction is seen to exist between the reference and the claimed invention absent evidence to the contrary. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 18 is allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The applied prior art fails to teach and/or suggest a polymer composite for electromagnetic interference shielding, the polymer composite comprising: polypropylene; 25 ±1% by weight of the polymer composite of glass fibers; and 1.8 ±0.4% by weight of the polymer composite of graphene nanoplatelets, the graphene nanoplatelets comprising an average of 6 to 10 layers of graphene; wherein the polymer composite has an electromagnetic interference shielding effectiveness of at least about 20 dB. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LATOSHA D HINES whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5551 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Prem Singh can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6381 . 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. /Latosha Hines/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771