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 with traverse of Group I (claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, and 19-22) in the reply filed on 12/1/2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground that Traversal is based upon the fact that there is no undue burden to examine all of the claims in the application. In particular, the Examiner in the international application examined all of the claims as evidenced by the International Search Report/Written Opinion dated August 24, 2022. In addition, each of the claims of Groups II and III is dependent, either directly or indirectly, on claim 1 and incorporates the features of claim 1. This is not found persuasive because the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction. Furthermore, the standard for determining whether or not claims are restrictable in a national stage entry of PCT application is unity or lack thereof and not whether or not the claims are sufficiently related. Therefore, the groups of claims are still seen to be restrictable for reason of record. Lack of unity is proved in the restriction requirement mailed 10/2/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Groups (II-III), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/14/2024 has been considered by the examiner. Initialed copies accompany this action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 12/7/2023 are approved by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “lyophilised” is misspelled. It should be “lypophilised”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 6, 19 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.
Regarding claims 3, 6, 19, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites “combing the first solution with the functional filler dispersed in the aqueous phase and forming an aqueous dispersion of said polymer to produced said polymer particles”. This recitation is unclear, because in claim 1, which claim 3 depends from, the step a) recites “providing an aqueous dispersion comprising polymer particles and a nanoparticulate functional filler dispersed in the aqueous phase” and thus a dispersion mixture of the polymer particles and the nanoparticulate functional filler is provided in step a) while step a) in claim 3 is to produce the polymer particles. A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314, 110 USPQ 2d 1785, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
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, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 19, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colard (A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick, 2010).
Regarding claim 1, Colard discloses a method of forming a foam material, the method comprises a) providing an aqueous dispersion comprising polymer particles (Poly(vinyl laurate) (PVL) Latexes via miniemulsion, polystyrene nanoparticles) and a nanoparticulate functional filler (carbon black) dispersed in the aqueous phase, and b) lyophilizing (freeze-drying) the aqueous dispersion, to thereby form the nanocomposite foam material, wherein the polymer particles have a glass transition temperature (Tg) in the range of about -65°C to about 250°C (Poly(vinyl laurate) (PVL) Latexes (PVL) has a glass-transition temperature far below ambient temperatures, around -60oC, page 156). See Chapter VI, 2.8, Experimental, pages 146-152).
Regarding claim 2, Colard discloses the polymer particles in step (a) are produced by: (i) providing a monomer (vinyl laurate); (ii) emulsifying the monomer to provide an emulsion comprising stabilised monomer droplets in an aqueous phase (A Branson 450 W digital sonifier (in pulse mode, at 70% amplitude with the following procedure: 6 cycles of 1 minute each, with 40-second intervals inbetween) was used to generate submicron-sized emulsion droplets of monomer/hydrophobe in the aqueous phase (referred to as miniemulsion), page 147. Also see Chapter II.3) and (iii) polymerising the monomer to form said polymer particles (see Chapter VI, Experimental, pages 146-152).
Regarding claim 5, Colard discloses said functional filler is carbon black (page 151).
Regarding claim 8, Colard discloses the polymer particles are comprised of a homopolymer (page 150-151).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Colard discloses the polymer particles are polyesters (polyvinyl laurate) and polystyrene nanoparticles (page 150-151).
Regarding claim 19, Colard discloses the method further comprising a step of adding a surfactant (SDS, page 151).
Regarding claim 20, Colard discloses the aqueous dispersion is lypophilized at about -20oC (-23oC).
Regarding claim 22, Colard discloses the polymer particles have an average particle size about 200-300nm (page 148).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tkalya et al.( J. Mater. Chem., 2010, 20, 3035–3039) in view of Feng et al. (Soft Matter, 2013, 9, 4614) and Colard et al. (Adv. Mater. 2009, 21, 2894–2898).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Tkalya discloses a method of forming nanocomposites, the method comprises a) providing an aqueous dispersion comprising polymer particles (PS latex) and a nanoparticulate functional filler (graphene covered with PSS) and b) lyophilizing (freeze-drying) the aqueous dispersion, to thereby form the nanocomposite material (page 3036). See Chapter VI, 2.8, Experimental, pages 146-152). Tkalya does not specify the polymer particles have a glass transition temperature (Tg) in the range of about -65°C to about 250°C. Feng discloses the glass transition of the PS nanospheres ranges from 300K to 370K (27oC to 97oC) and is size-dependent on the surfactant-free PS nanospheres and nonionic PS latex nanospheres, and that the glass transition temperature (Tg) decreases with the reduction of size for PS nanospheres (Figures 3, 7 and 8 and Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to recognized that the glass transition temperature (Tg) of Tkalya would be ranging from 35oC to 105oC and fall within the claimed range of about -65°C to about 250°C since Tkalya’s PS particles have an average size of 90nm (page 3036), which is similar with the average size disclosed in Feng. Tkalya does not disclose the nanocomposite is a foam material. However, it is known in the art that by freeze drying method, the dispersion comprising polymer particles (PS latex) and graphene will convert to solid foams due to ice crystals being formed in situ (see Colard, 2009).
Regarding claim 5, Tkalya discloses said functional filler is graphene (Abstract and page 3036).
Regarding claim 6, Tkalya discloses the method further comprising a step of at least partially reducing the GO to form rGO prior to step (b), preferably the GO is chemically reduced to form rGO (page 3036).
Regarding claim 8, Tkalya discloses the polymer particles are comprised of a homopolymer.
Regarding claim 10, Tkalya discloses the polymer particles are polystyrene (abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Tkalya discloses the method further comprising a step of adding a surfactant (SDS, page 3035).
Regarding claim 22, Tkalya discloses the polymer particles have an average particle size about 90nm (page 3036).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tkalya et al.( J. Mater. Chem., 2010, 20, 3035–3039) in view of Feng et al. (Soft Matter, 2013, 9, 4614) and Colard et al. (Adv. Mater. 2009, 21, 2894–2898) as applied above, further in view of Luo et al. (Appl Sci (2019), 92188).
Tkalya in view of Feng and Colard discloses a method of forming nanocomposites as described above and is incorporated herein by reference. Tkalya does not disclose the method further comprising a step of at least partially reducing the GO to form rGO after step (b). Luo discloses thermal annealing of freeze-dried reduced graphene oxide (rGO) will further remove oxygenated groups from the rGO, therefore improving its electrical conductivity (abstract and pages 2 and 3) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to reduce the graphene oxide in the composite of Tkalya, to further improve its electrical conductivity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
3/17/2026