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 .
Drawings
The Drawings filed 15 July 2024 are approved by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner and an initialed copy is attached.
Citation Notation
The following citations are made for the convenience of the reader:
Citations to PG publications are made to paragraph number under the ¶ format. Citations to other publications made under the format “ col 1/2” or pp 1 are directed to column and line number or to a page - whichever is appropriate. It is noted that any reference to a figure or a table is also directed to any accompanying text in the specification or the document. Notwithstanding those citations, the reference(s) is (are) relied upon for the teachings as a whole.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-2 and 5-8, in the reply filed on 24 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is a lack of undue burden and distinctness. This is not found persuasive because Groups I-II are directed to specific inventions (i.e. different compositions) that require differing search strategies and databases (class/subclass) and/or the search for a particular invention would not necessarily lead to the same and overlapping prior art for the supplementary invention - thus leading to an undue burden on the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3-4 and 9-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 24 June 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angelopoulos (US-5804100-A).
Claim 1: Angelopoulos discloses a conductive composition with polyaniline and a surfactant such as tetrabutylammonium or tetrapentylammonium salts at a loading amount of 0.00001 to 5 wt.% (abs, Fig 9 with accompanying text, col 7 and 8, claims). The Angelopoulos reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the claimed components and loading range. Given that the Angelopoulos reference discloses the claimed components and a range that overlaps with the presently claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught components and loading amounts, including those presently claimed, to obtain a suitable composition. According to MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the components and the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select the component and a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the loading variables with the benefit gain of conductivity, stability and/or dispersion parameters of the composition. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection or optimization of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claim 2: Angelopoulos discloses polyaniline (Fig 9 with accompanying text and claims).
Claims 5-7: Angelopoulos discloses the additional surfactant and polymer (col 4, 7 and 8; claims). It is noted that the compound (D) is optional based on the lower limit of the claimed range.
Claim 8: Angelopoulos discloses water (col 6 and claims). The Angelopoulos reference(s) disclose(s) the claimed invention but do(es) not explicitly disclose the claimed loading range. It is noted that the claimed loading range is construed as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. Given that the Angelopoulos reference discloses a similar composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization such as varying the amount of the water solvent, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize known variables, i.e. the loading amount of water, since the reference also discloses a similar end-product. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection or optimization of the claimed component would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571.270.7026. 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.
/TRI V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights