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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-10, 13-15 in the reply filed on 2/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-21, 23 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/26/2026.
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 8 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 8 recites the phrase “the graphene flake”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, wherein, the claim 1 refers to the broad term “graphene” whereas claim 8 recites “graphene flake” and as such it cannot be clearly understood if this is the “graphene” recited in claim 1 or a second/additional graphene.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN105001716, herein Chen, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), in the view of Shen (WO2020150821, herein Shen), Scheffer (US20120277360, herein Scheffer) and Gataoullin, Organic Synthesis and Industrial Organic Chemistry, Volume 86, pages 1656–1662, as evidenced by Sigma-Aldrich product data sheet.
Regarding Claims 1-3, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, Chen teaches graphene-based conductive ink composition [0008], for printing application [0039], comprising: Graphene-based materials: 5-40 wt% [0011], overlaps the claimed range, auxiliary conductive agent, carbon-based conductive materials, carbon nanotubes [0017] reads on second carbon-based conductive material, 5-20 wt% [0013], lies in the claimed range. Additive, dispersants [0018] in the range of 1-15 wt% [0014]. Binder copolymer [0039]; Additive, anti-settling agents [0018] in the range of 1-15 wt% [0014], wherein, the anti-setting (or anti-settling) agents serve as surfactant, by keeping solid particles suspended in liquid, preventing them from clumping and settling to the bottom. Water and xylene as solvent [0019], the range is the remaining component is solvent [0015], therefore the solvent range is 0-84 wt%, overlaps the claimed range.
Chen teaches additive, dispersants [0018], but does not teach the specific dispersant; however, Shen teaches the graphene, carbon nanotube [0044] based ink, with specific dispersant of (3-Aminopropyl)-triethoxysilane (APTES) [0054]. Chen and Shan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the formulation of the carbon based conductive materials dispersion via selection of the effective dispersant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chen and substitute the teachings of Shan and provide the specific dispersant of (3-Aminopropyl)-triethoxysilane (APTES), with the purpose of creating favorable interactions between the nanoparticles 202 and other chemicals in the TIR ink 200 [0055], wherein, the nanoparticles 202 including: carbon nanotube, and the TIR ink 200 including: graphene, carbon nanotube, and further lead to the uniform dispersion.
Chen teaches binder copolymer system [0039], and 60g of the PVDF-g-PANI composite binder with 50.0g of graphene [0061], indicates the binder to graphene ratio is 6:5, Chen also teaches graphene-based materials: 5-40 wt% [0011], therefore, the binder range is 6-48%, hence overlaps the claimed binder range, but Chen does not teach the specific binder as claimed. However, Scheffer teaches polymeric binders, polysiloxanes [0034]. Chen and Scheffer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the formulation of the carbon-based conductive materials coating composition, via selection of effective polymeric binder toward radiofrequency identification (RFID) application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chen and substitute the teachings of Scheffer and provide the specific polymeric binders, polysiloxanes [0034]. Doing so would further lead to the graphene sheets dispersed in the specific binder [0060] for further ink coating process [0059], as taught by Scheffer, toward effective coating application toward radiofrequency identification (RFID) [0100] as taught by Scheffer.
Chen teaches additive, anti-settling agents [0018] in the range of 1-15 wt% [0014], anti-settling agent is known as surfactant, but Chen does not teach the specific surfactant polyoxyethylene as claimed, however, Gataoullin teaches specific nonionic surfactant, OE HFA with various contents of oxyethylated groups [P1657; Left Column, Para. 3], the OE HFA structure see below:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen and Gataoullin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the formulation of the nanocarbon-based conductive materials aqueous dispersion, via selection of effective surfactant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chen and substitute the teachings of Gataoullin and provide the specific nonionic surfactant, OE HFA with various contents of oxyethylated groups [P1657; Right Column, Para. 3] and select the m=13, n=10, which is Polyoxyethylene (10) tridecyl ether, also as evidenced by CAS Number: 78330-21-9 [Sigma-Aldrich product data sheet] into the composition formulation. Doing so would further lead to the strongest dispersing and stabilizing effect is observed at the degree of oxyethylation n = 10 [P1657; Right Column, Para. 3], as taught by Gataoullin, toward effective nanocarbon aqueous dispersion formation and stabilization.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding to the electromagnetic interference shielding from 30 MHz to 300 GHz frequencies, Chen, Shen, Scheffer and Gataoullin collectively teach the graphene-based coating composition as set forth above, which is capable of performing the electromagnetic interference shielding from 30 MHz to 300 GHz frequencies. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN105001716, herein Chen, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), Shen (WO2020150821, herein Shen), Scheffer (US20120277360, herein Scheffer) and Gataoullin, Organic Synthesis and Industrial Organic Chemistry, Volume 86, pages 1656–1662, as applied in claim 1 above, in the view of Blatherwick (US20200269522, herein Blatherwick).
Regarding Claims 4-8, Chen, Shen, Scheffer and Gataoullin collectively teach the graphene-based coating composition as set forth above in claim 1, Chen teaches few-layer graphene [0016], but does not teach the specific nanoplatelet graphene and dimensions as claimed, however, Blatherwick teaches graphene platelets may comprise platelets comprising a plurality of layers of graphene have an average thickness of between 0.8 and 12 nanometres [0022], lies in the claimed range. The graphene platelets may have an average platelet size of up to 40 μm, d90 size of between 1 μm and 40 μm, d50 size of between 1 μm and 30 μm [0028], overlaps the claimed range. Chen and Blatherwick are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the formulation of the graphene-based conductive materials dispersion in the water and xylene co-solvent system, for further print coating application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chen and substitute the teachings of Blatherwick and provide the specific graphene platelets may comprise platelets comprising a plurality of layers of graphene have an average thickness of between 0.8 and 12 nanometres [0022], the graphene platelets may have an average platelet size of up to 40 μm, d90 size of between 1 μm and 40 μm, d50 size of between 1 μm and 30 μm [0028], into the graphene based composition dispersed in water and xylene co-solvent system. Doing so would further lead to the composition including the specified graphene, dispersed in water-xylene co-solvent system [0033], as suitable to be used as high-performance functional ink for precise printing application [0176] as taught by Blatherwick.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 on (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.
/Z.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights