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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 7/13/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd et al. (EP 2470472) in view of Wardle et al. (US Patent Application No. 2019/0189988).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 14, Todd et al. teach an article comprising a domain comprising a solid support material (paragraphs [0010], [0026]) and a plurality of elongated nanostructures (paragraphs [0010], [0011], [0026], [0028]); wherein within the domain, the elongated nanostructures occupy a volume fraction of at least 5 vol% (paragraph [0030]). Todd et al. do not teach wherein the domain has voids (entire document). Therefore, 0% of the domain is occupied by voids which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of less than or equal to 20 vol% of the domain is occupied by voids having a volume of at least 107 µm3 (entire document).
Todd et al. fail to teach wherein the plurality of elongated nanostructures distributed within the solid support material; the domain comprises a first dimension having a length of at least 1 centimeter; and the domain comprises a second dimension that is perpendicular to the first dimension, the second dimension having a length of at least 1 centimeter. However, Wardle et al. teach an article comprising a domain comprising a solid support material (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004]); and a plurality of elongated nanostructures distributed within the solid support material (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004]); the domain comprises a first dimension and the domain comprises a second dimension that is perpendicular to the first dimension (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004], Figs. 1B, 1C, 3B, 3C).
Wardle et al. do not disclose wherein the first dimension has a length of at least 1 centimeter; and the second dimension has a length of at least 1 centimeter. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in length involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the first and second dimension lengths of the domain of Wardle et al. in order to provide adequate electronic conductivity (Wardle et al., page 1, paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to distribute the nanostructures in the solid support material of Todd et al. as that of Wardle et al. in order to provide structural reinforcement while maintaining electronic insulation (Wardle et al., page 1, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Todd et al. fail to teach wherein the solid support material comprises a polymer. However, Wardle et al. teach an article comprising a domain comprising a solid support material (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004]); and a plurality of elongated nanostructures distributed within the solid support material (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004]); the domain comprises a first dimension and the domain comprises a second dimension that is perpendicular to the first dimension (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004], Figs. 1B, 1C, 3B, 3C), wherein the solid support material comprises a polymer (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004], page 4, paragraph [0060]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polymer of Wardle et al. in the support material of Todd et al. because they are functionally equivalent materials (Todd et al., page 3, paragraph [0010]; Wardle et al., page 4, paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 3, Todd et al. teach wherein solid support material comprises a ceramic (paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 4, Todd et al. teach wherein the solid support material comprises a ceramic (paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 5, Todd et al. fail to teach wherein the solid support material comprises a metal. However, Wardle et al. teach an article comprising a domain comprising a solid support material (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004]); and a plurality of elongated nanostructures distributed within the solid support material (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004]); the domain comprises a first dimension and the domain comprises a second dimension that is perpendicular to the first dimension (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004], Figs. 1B, 1C, 3B, 3C), wherein the solid support material comprises a metal (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004], page 4, paragraph [0060]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the metal of Wardle et al. in the support material of Todd et al. because they are functionally equivalent materials (Todd et al., page 3, paragraph [0010]; Wardle et al., page 4, paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 6, Todd et al. teach wherein the elongated nanostructures comprise nanotubes (paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 7, Todd et al. fail to teach wherein the domain comprises a third dimension that is perpendicular to the first dimension and the second dimension, the third dimension having a length of at least 1 micrometer. However, Wardle et al. teach an article comprising a domain comprising a solid support material (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004]); and a plurality of elongated nanostructures distributed within the solid support material (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004]); the domain comprises a first dimension and the domain comprises a second dimension that is perpendicular to the first dimension, wherein the domain comprises a third dimension that is perpendicular to the first dimension and the second dimension (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004], Figs. 1B, 1C, 3B, 3C).
Wardle et al. do not disclose wherein the third dimension has a length of at least 1 micrometer. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in length involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the third dimension length of the domain of Wardle et al. in order to provide adequate electronic conductivity (Wardle et al., page 1, paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dimensions of Wardle et al. in the domain of Todd et al. in order to provide adequate electronic conductivity (Wardle et al., page 1, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Todd et al. teach wherein at least a portion of the elongated nanostructures within the plurality of nanostructures are arranged in a non-overlapping fashion (paragraphs [0011], [0029]).
Regarding claim 9, Todd et al. teach wherein a first portion of the elongated nanostructures within the plurality of nanostructures are arranged such that the first portion of the elongated nanostructures at least partially overlap a second portion of the elongated nanostructures within the plurality of nanostructures (paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 11, Todd et al. fail to teach wherein the first dimension of the domain is substantially parallel to longitudinal axes of the elongated nanostructures. However, Wardle et al. teach an article comprising a domain comprising a solid support material (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004]); and a plurality of elongated nanostructures distributed within the solid support material (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004]); the domain comprises a first dimension and the domain comprises a second dimension that is perpendicular to the first dimension (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004], Figs. 1B, 1C, 3B, 3C), wherein the first dimension of the domain is substantially parallel to longitudinal axes of the elongated nanostructures (paragraphs [0003], [0004]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to distribute the nanostructures in the solid support material of Todd et al. as that of Wardle et al. in order to provide structural reinforcement while maintaining electronic insulation (Wardle et al., page 1, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 12, Todd et al. teach wherein longitudinal axes of the elongated nanostructures are substantially aligned with each other (paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 13, Todd et al. fail to teach wherein the domain is a first domain and the article comprises at least a second domain at least partially in contact with the first domain. However, Wardle et al. teach an article comprising a domain comprising a solid support material (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004]); and a plurality of elongated nanostructures distributed within the solid support material (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004]); the domain comprises a first dimension and the domain comprises a second dimension that is perpendicular to the first dimension (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004], Figs. 1B, 1C, 3B, 3C), wherein the domain is a first domain and the article comprises at least a second domain at least partially in contact with the first domain (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the domains of Wardle et al. in the article of Todd et al. in order to provide structural reinforcement while maintaining electronic insulation (Wardle et al., page 1, paragraph [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights