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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 12/22/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/22/25.
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of examination per “plant powder” is interpreted per plain meaning as powdered plant material.
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- 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al (“All-solid-state supercapacitors from natural lignin-based composite film by laser direct writing” in Appl. Phys. Lett. 115, 083904 (2019) pg 1-5; hereafter Wang). {Bai et al (CN 101525487, citations directed to machine translation provided herein, hereafter Bai) relied upon as evidence only (claim 5)}
Claim 1: Wang teaches a method of manufacturing a resin member (lignin / polyacrylonitrile composite), (see, for example, abstract) comprising:
irradiating a surface of a member containing a resin (PAN) and a plant powder (lignin) dispersed in the resin with laser light (laser) to change the plant powder or both the resin and the plant powder into diamond-like carbon (diamondlike phase) in a surface layer region including the surface of the member (See, for example, abstract, Fig 1-2, pg 1-3).
Claim 2: Wang further teaches wherein a wavelength of the laser light is 532 nm, 325 nm, or 244 nm, and wherein a fluence of the laser light is at least 3.1 kJ/ cm2 (fluence threshold) (See, for example, pg 2-3).
Claim 3: Wang further teaches wherein the laser light is pulsed light, and wherein a pulse width of the laser light is 100 ps or less (femtosecond laser, thus .01-1 ps pulse width) (See, for example, abstract, pg 2-3).
Claim 4: Wang further teaches wherein a content rate of the plant powder in the member before irradiation with the laser light is 50 wt % (1:1 mass ratio) (See, for example, pg 3).
Claim 5: Wang further teaches wherein the plant powder includes one or both of a wood powder and a bamboo powder (lignin powder) (See, for example, abstract, pg 3, {Bai at [0019] teaches lignin is wood powder: “lignin (wood powder)”).
Claim 7: Wang further teaches wherein when irradiating the surface of the member with laser light, scanning with the laser light is performed along the surface while condensing (focusing) the laser light (scanning with focused femtosecond pulsed laser irradiation) (see, for example, abstract, Fig 2, pg 2-4)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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) 5 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bai.
Claim 5: Wang further teaches wherein the plant powder includes lignin (See, for example, abstract, pg 3). For sake of argument that lignin does not read on at least wood powder, Bai teaches forming composites of renewable raw materials, and further teaches wherein lignin and wood powder, if not synonymous are at least interchangeable, as well as bamboo powder (See, for example, [0019]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wood powder and / or bamboo powder since such renewable carbon sources are similarly well known in art, since It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) and / or since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gurijala et al (US 2020/0024795; hereafter Gurijala).
Claim 6: Wang teaches the method of claim 1 above, and further teaches preparation of composite membranes, further for supercapacitor applications, comprising carbon source agent (such as lignin) and a binder (such as PAN) (See, for example, abstract, pg 3-5). But it does not explicitly teach wherein binder / resin includes at least one material among polypropylene, nylon 6, and an ABS resin. Gurijala teaches a method of preparing composite membranes, including for supercapacitor applications similarly formed from carbonaceous discontinuous agents and a binders (See, for example, abstract, [0049-0050], [0060-0062], [0127]). Gurijala further teaches wherein various materials are known in the art to serve predictably as binder in addition to PAN, including polypropylene, nylon (further PA-6), and ABS (See, for example, [0060-00663]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the resin include at least one material among polypropylene, nylon 6, and an ABS resin since such materials are known in the art to be used as resins for such supercapacitive membranes and since “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) and / or since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
Claim(s) 7 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukuda et al (US 2004/0047578; hereafter Fukuda).
Claim 7: Wang teaches the method of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein when irradiating the surface of the member with laser light, scanning with the laser light is performed along the surface while focusing the laser light (focused femtosecond pulsed laser irradiation) (see, for example, abstract, Fig 2, pg 2-4). For sake of argument that such beam focusing does not equate or involve condensing; Wang is silent as to how to achieve said focusing. Fukuda teaches a method of laser treatment involving scanning of the laser beam along the surface of member with femtosecond laser light (See, for example, abstract, [0003], Fig 1). Fukuda further teaches wherein laser beam focusing is attributed to condensing of the light through a condenser (see, for example [0036-0037, Fig 1). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated condensing the laser light, as it is a conventional and predictable means to achieve focusing for a laser beam.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712