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 .
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.
Claims 6 and 7 are 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.
Considering Claim 6: Claim 6 recites a step of mixing the first mixture, the second mixture and a graphene-based material. However, the first mixture is consumed in the preparing of the second mixture, and thus is incapable of being mixed with the second mixture in a subsequent step. For the purpose of further examination, the claim will be interpreted as requiring mixing the second mixture and graphene based material to prepare a third mixture.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moon et al. (Materials Science and Engineering B, 178, 2013, 1097-1103).
Considering Claim 1: Moon et al. teaches polyvinyl alcohol composite comprising polyvinyl alcohol, polyacrylic acid, and graphene oxide (Section 2.3, Table 1).
Considering Claim 2: Moon et al. teaches the polyacrylic acid as being 20 parts per 100 parts of polyvinyl alcohol (Table 1).
Considering Claim 3: Moon et al. teaches the graphene oxide as being 0.3 parts of per 100 parts of polyvinyl alcohol (Table 1).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Al-shammari et al. (Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1973, 2021, 012165).
Considering Claim 1: Al-shammari et al. teaches a polyvinyl alcohol composite comprising polyvinyl alcohol, polyacrylic acid, and graphene oxide (Section 2.2.2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Al-shammari et al. (Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1973, 2021, 012165).
Considering Claim 6: Al-shammari et al. teaches forming a polyvinyl alcohol composite by a process comprising mixing polyvinyl alcohol with water/a first solvent; mixing the polyvinyl alcohol mixture with polyacrylic acid and water/a second solvent; and mixing the mixture of both polymers with graphene oxide to form a third mixture (Section 2.2.2).
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.
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (Materials Science and Engineering B, 178, 2013, 1097-1103) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jia et al. (International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 161 (2020) 223–230).
Considering Claims 4 and 5: Moon et al. teaches the composite of claim 1 as shown above.
Moon et al. does not teach the presence of cellulose nanofibers in the composite. However, Jia et al. teaches replacing graphene oxide with a blend of cellulose nanofibers and graphene oxide in a ratio of 2:1 to 16:1 (Abstract). When replacing the 0.3 parts of graphene oxide in Moon et al. with the blend of Jia et al., the amount of cellulose nanofibers would be 0.2 to 0.3 parts of cellulose nanofibers. Moon et al. and Jia et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyvinyl alcohol composites. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the graphene oxide of Moon et al. with the blend of Jia et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Jia et al. suggests, to avoid agglomeration and to improve the mechanical properties of the composite (Abstract).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-shammari et al. (Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1973, 2021, 012165) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Moon et al. (Materials Science and Engineering B, 178, 2013, 1097-1103).
Considering Claim 7: Al-shammari et al. teaches the process of claim 6 as shown above.
Al-shammari et al. does not teach heating the polyvinyl alcohol and first solvent followed by cooling. However, Moon et al. teaches preparing a polyvinyl alcohol solution by heating the polyvinyl alcohol and water to 90 ºC, followed by cooling to room temperature (Section 2.3). Al-shammari et al. and Moon et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyvinyl alcohol composites. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have heating and cooled the polyvinyl alcohol mixture of Al-shammari et al., as in Moon et al., and the motivation to do so would have been to ensure complete dissolution of the polyvinyl alcohol in water.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al. (CN 116285519) teaches a composite comprising polyvinyl alcohol, a polyacrylic acid crosslinking agent, and a graphene material.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights