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 without traverse of Group I, Species 3 from Species Group 1, Species 3 from Species Group 2, Species 2 from Species Group 3, Species 1 from Species Group 4, and Species 1 from Species Group 5, in the reply filed on 3/2/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 17, 18 and 48-50 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 51-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109608676 to Lin in view of USPAP 2011/0236710 to Lee, USPAP 2017/0253750 to Okada, and/or USPAP 2011/0086206 to Scheffer.
Claim 1, Lin discloses an EMI shield comprising: a substrate; an EMI shielding coating disposed on the substrate and comprising: a metal-based conductive additive; a binder; and a carbon-based additive comprising one or more materials selected from the group consisting of graphene and reduced graphene oxide (see entire translation document including the summary of the invention section).
Lin does not appear to mention the specific amount of carbon-based additive but Lee discloses that it is known in the EMI coating art to include carbon-based additive in an amount of 0.01 to about 5 wt% (see entire document including [0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the carbon-based additive of Lin within the claimed amount to provide the coating with the benefits of a carbon-based additive.
Claim 2, the metal-based conductive additive is a metallic nanomaterial comprising copper, silver, nickel, zinc, aluminum, tin, or gold (summary of the invention section).
Claim 3, Lin does not appear to mention the metallic nanomaterial comprising a first metal forming a metallic core and a second metal forming a coating around the metallic core but Okada discloses that it is known in the EMI art to use silver coated copper particles to provide conductivity (see entire document including ([0002] and [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the metal-based conductive additive of Lin from any suitable material, such as claimed, to provide excellent conductivity and/or because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 4, the first metal comprises aluminum, nickel, copper, or iron, and the second metal comprises silver ([0002] and [0041] of Okada).
Claim 5, the metallic nanomaterial comprises a morphology comprising nanoparticles, nanorods, nanowires, nanoflowers, nanoflakes, nanofibers, nanoplatelets, nanoribbons, nanocubes, bipyramids, nanodiscs, nanoplates, nanodendrites, nanoleaves, nanospheres, quantum spheres, quantum dots, nanosprings, nanosheets, porous nanosheets, nanomesh, or any combination thereof (summary of the invention section).
Claim 6, Lin does not appear to mention the specific amount of metal-based conductive additive but Lee discloses that it is known in the EMI coating art to include metal-based conductive additive in an amount of 5 to about 95 wt% (see entire document including [0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the metal-based conductive additive of Lin within the claimed amount to provide the coating with the benefits of a metal-based conductive additive.
Claim 7, Lin does not appear to mention the specific amount of binder but Lee discloses that it is known in the EMI coating art to include binder in an amount of 20 to about 95 wt% (see entire document including [0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the binder of Lin within the claimed amount to provide the coating with the benefits of a binder.
Claim 8, the binder comprises one or more materials selected from the group consisting of an alkyd, an acrylic, a vinyl-acrylic, vinyl acetate/ethylene (VAE), polyurethane, polyethylene, polyester, styrene, styrene acrylic, melamine, a silane, and a siloxane, or any combination thereof (summary of the invention section).
Claim 51, Lin does not appear to mention the specific surface area of the at least one of the graphene and the reduced graphene oxide but Scheffer discloses that it is known in the art to use graphene or reduced graphene oxide having a specific surface area of greater than 1,000 m2/g (see entire document including ([0001], [0004], [0005], [0024]-[0027], [0036] and [0092]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include to use graphene or reduced graphene oxide having the claimed specific surface area to provide excellent conductivity.
Claim 52, Lin does not appear to mention the specific graphene or reduced graphene oxide conductivity but considering that the applied prior art teaches a substantially identical material in terms of composition and surface area, the claimed conductivity appears to be inherent. Plus, Scheffer discloses that it is known in the art to construct an EMI composition with the claimed conductivity (see entire document including ([0053] and [0092]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use graphene or reduced graphene oxide having the claimed conductivity based on the intended application and the desired product conductivity.
Claims 53 and 54, Lin does not appear to mention the carbon-based additive having the claimed properties but Scheffer discloses that it is known in the art to construct an EMI composition using the claimed carbon-based additive ([0024]-[0027] and [0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a carbon-based additive having the claimed structure based on the intended application and the desired product properties.
Claim 55, Lee discloses that an EMI shielding coating may have a thickness of less than 150 micrometers [0031]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the coating with any desired thickness, such as claimed, based on the intended application and the desired characteristics.
Claim 56, the carbon-based additive consists essentially of graphene (summary of the invention section).
Claim 57, Lin does not appear to mention the carbon-based additive being reduced graphene oxide but Scheffer discloses that it is known in the art to use graphene or reduced graphene oxide (see entire document including ([0001], [0004], [0005], [0024]-[0027], [0036] and [0092]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use graphene or reduced graphene oxide because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights