DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 and 21-23 in the reply filed on 10/13/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 18-20 directed to a method were cancelled and as such, acknowledged by the Examiner.
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 4 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 3, upon which claim 4 depends, recites “wherein at least some of the graphene oxide of the exfoliated graphene oxide is reduced graphene oxide”. Given that claim 4 recites “wherein the graphene oxide of the exfoliated graphene oxide exhibits a carbon-to-oxygen ratio of 1 to 5”, it is not clear if the term “the graphene oxide” in claim 4 is all of the graphene oxide which would include reduced graphene oxide and non-reduced graphene oxide, as having a carbon-to-oxygen ratio of 1 to 5 or if this is in reference to the reduced graphene oxide. Examiner assumes either scenario as meeting the limitations as claimed. Additionally, it is not clear what value “some” would encompass since the term is not defined in the art or specification. Clarification is requested.
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.
Claims 1-5, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berlin et al. (WO 2022/136463) with evidence from Kwon et al. (The Journal of Physical Chemistry).
Berlin discloses a barrier-coated cellulose-based substrate and laminated packaging material thereof. Concerning claims 1, 3, and 5, Berlin discloses the laminated packaging material comprises a cellulose-based substrate that is specifically paper or paperboard and a layer comprising a reduced graphene oxide, wherein the graphene oxide is present from a content of 0.1 to 5 wt%, which overlaps and includes the claimed range (pp. 7-17). Regarding claim 2, Berlin discloses the graphene oxide is an exfoliated graphene oxide that is in the shape of nanoplatelets (pp. 13-14). As evidenced by Kwon, nanoplatelets have a thickness of 0.8 ± 0.04 nm, which would meet the instant claims. Regarding claim 4, given that the materials are the same, the carbon-to-oxygen ratio is within the claimed range. With respect to claim 12, the aqueous composition is free of polymers or similar components and such, meets the limitations as claimed (p. 15). In regards to claim 14, Berlin discloses the laminated packaging material is used as food packaging that is contact with a food product (p. 24).
Claims 1-8, 10-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (US 20160272575) in view of Shim et al. (Chapter 11: Food Packaging) with evidence from Kwon et al. (The Journal of Physical Chemistry).
Zheng discloses a functionalized graphene composition that have gas, fluid, and/or vapor resistant properties and substrates coated with said composition. Concerning claims 1, 3, 5, and 8, Zheng discloses the composition comprises exfoliated functionalized reduced graphene oxide at a content of 0.001 to 20 wt% and a water soluble polymer material such as polyvinyl alcohol, wherein said composition is disposed on a substrate, resulting in a laminate for food packaging (para. 0007-0039). However, Zheng is silent to the substrate being a paper substrate. Regarding claim 2, Zheng discloses the graphene oxide is an exfoliated graphene oxide that is in the shape of nanoplatelets (para. 0035). As evidenced by Kwon, nanoplatelets have a thickness of 0.8 ± 0.04 nm, which would meet the instant claims.
In regards to claim 4, given that the materials are the same, the carbon-to-oxygen ratio is within the claimed range. Concerning claims 10 and 16, the exfoliated functionalized reduced graphene oxide at a content of 0.001 to 20 wt% and a water soluble polymer material such as polyvinyl alcohol is found at 5 to 15 wt% (para. 0038-0040). With respect to claim 11, since the materials are the same as that claimed, at least some would be covalently bonded to the polyvinyl alcohol. Regarding claims 13 and 17, the essential components are the exfoliated functionalized reduced graphene oxide platelets and polymer are required and as such, the coating can consist of the materials as claimed. With respect to claim 14, a food packaging would contain a food product and as such, meet the instant limitations (para. 0008). However, Zheng is silent to the substrate being a paper substrate.
Shin discloses materials used in food packaging that include polymeric materials such as PVC, polyvinyl alcohol, and the like and paper as known materials for food packaging (pp. 251-254 and 258-260). Paper and paperboard are the most commonly used food packaging materials in the world (p. 258). Given that the materials for the substrate of Zheng are known equivalents to paper, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use paper as the substrate of the food packaging laminate of Zheng. See MPEP 2144.06(II). Alternatively, Shin discloses the cost and properties of paper are used in producing packaging for a wide variety of foods (pp. 258-260). As such, for cost and properties for use in a wide variety of different foods, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use paper as the substrate. Given that the combination teaches the same materials, the covalent bonding of the graphene to the cellulose fibers of the paper would be the same as that claimed in claims 6-7 and 15.
Claims 9 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (US 20160272575) in view of Shim et al. (Chapter 11: Food Packaging) with evidence from Kwon et al. (The Journal of Physical Chemistry) as applied to claims 8 and 17 above, and further in view of BASF Joncryl® Brochure (Hereafter “Joncryl Brochure”).
The prior art discloses the above but is silent to a styrene-acrylate polymer as the water soluble polymer.
The Joncryl Brochure discloses that Joncryl emulsions (or water soluble styrene-acrylate polymer) allow for low-cost vehicles for pigment dispersions and also for rub resistance when used in paper applications (p. 1). As such, for cost and rub resistance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the styrene-acrylate Joncryl® as the polymer of Zheng. With respect to claims 21-23, the combination teaches the claimed elements as recited above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hurt (US 20140370246).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783