DETAILED ACTION
The following Office action concerns Patent Application Number 18/710,911. Claims 1, 3, 8-10 are pending in the application.
The applicant’s amendment filed April 24, 2026 has been entered.
The previous grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the applicant’s amendment.
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 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, 3, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dufaure et al (US 2011/0281051) in view of Nosker et al (US 2017/0218141).
Dufaure et al teaches a composite comprising a thermoplastic polymer matrix and expanded graphite (par. 49-50, 61). The expanded graphite has a surface area of 15-30 m2/g (par. 50). Expanded graphite is graphitic carbon. The polymer matrix includes polyphthalamide (par. 23).
The amount of graphite is 1-50 % by weight (par. 51). The graphite has a particle size of 20-500 µm (par. 16). The polymer includes polyphthalamide (par. 23). Polyphthalamide is an aromatic polymer.
The limitation regarding the method of measuring the surface area is a product by process type limitation. Product by process limitations are examined based upon the structure implied by the process. Since Dufaure et al teaches a surface area within the claimed range, the limitation regarding the method of measuring surface area is also satisfied.
Dufaure et al does not teach graphene.
However, Nosker et al teaches a composite comprising graphene and graphite in a thermoplastic polymer matrix (par. 8-9). Graphene reinforces the polymer matrix by inhibiting crack propagation and further provides conductivity (par. 6). The total amount of graphene and graphite is 10-50 % by weight, of which at least 50 % is graphene (par. 9). The resulting amount of graphene is about 5-50 % by weight.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the graphene of Nosker et al with the polymer composite of Dufaure et al in order to obtain protection against crack propagation and additional conductivity.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dufaure et al in view of Nosker et al and Chandrasekhar et al (US 2011/0040007).
Dufaure et al in view of Nosker et al teaches expanded graphite as discussed above. Dufaure et al in view of Nosker et al does not teach the thickness of the graphite.
However, Chandrasekhar et al teaches expanded graphite having a thickness of less than 0.1 µm (100 nm)(par. 48). The expanded graphite provides thermal conductivity (par. 48).
Dufaure et al is silent regarding the thickness of the expanded graphite. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by design need to combine the graphite thickness of Chandrasekhar et al with the graphite of Dufaure et al in view of Nosker et al in order to obtain a thickness which is suitable for providing thermal conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Dufaure et al specifically teaches polyphthalamide (par. 23). Dufaure et al teaches an amount of graphite of 1-50 % by weight which encompasses the claimed range of 25-50 % (par. 51). Nosker et al teaches including graphene in a polymer matrix for improved reinforcement and conductivity (par. 6).
Conclusion
The applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Examiner’s Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Young whose telephone number is (571) 270-5078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000./WILLIAM D YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 May 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights