DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/7/2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the mixture of step (i)” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the second solvent” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalton et al. (2023/0142469).
Regarding claim 1, Dalton teaches a method for the production of an ink for forming a conductive coating comprising
the steps of:
(i) providing a mixture comprising graphite ([0122]), an agent for exfoliation ([0124], thickening agent) and a first polar solvent ([0066], gamma-valerolactone), wherein:
the agent for exfoliation is selected from the group consisting of lignosulfonate,
cellulose nanocrystals, cellulose nanofibers, chitin nanocrystals, chitin nanofibers,
hemicellulose nanocrystals, hemicellulose nanofibers, starch nanocrystals, starch
nanofibers, lignin, tannins and mixtures thereof ([0070]-[0077]); and
(ii) homogenising the mixture provided in step (i) ([0125], note that the disclosed mixture includes the thickening agent and the graphite);
(iii) adding to the mixture resulting from step (ii) a binder ([0138]) that is different from the agent for exfoliation, wherein said binder is selected from the group consisting of polyaniline and a water soluble polysaccharide having a degree of polymerization higher than and optionally substituted at any available position with one or more radicals
independently selected from the group consisting of (Cn-Cn)alkyl, (Cn-Cn)alkylcarbonyl and (Cn-Cn)alkyl-COnH (0138], carboxymethylcellulose); and
wherein the binder is in an amount such that the weight ratio of binder to agent for exfoliation is comprised from 4:1 to 1:2 ([0112]-[0118]);
(iv) adding to the mixture resulting from step (iii) a second polar protic solvent ([0066], water) having a boiling point equal to or higher than the first polar solvent provided in step (i) ([0124]-[0125], note that the mixture of the graphite particles and exfoliating agent, i.e., thickening agent, is added to second protic solvent of water).
Dalton does not teach (v) removing substantially all the first polar solvent provided in step (i) while leaving substantially all the second polar protic solvent added in step (iv). Khan, [0008] teaches such a removal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to remove the first solvent of Dalton with the technique disclosed by Khan, [0008] because doing so would amount to applying a known technique to a known method in need of improvement to yield predictable results.
Dalton teaches wherein the weight ratio of agent for exfoliation to graphite is comprised from 1:6 ([0059], [0079], Note that if the graphite is present at 3% and the agent for exfoliation is present at 0.5%, the ratio is 1:6), not wherein the weight ratio of agent for exfoliation to graphite is comprised from 1:100 to 1:20. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a parameter disclosed in the prior art is not inventive unless the parameter is shown to be result-effective. Here, Examiner maintains that the claimed ratio is not result-effective and is thus not inventive.
Regarding claim 3, Dalton teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein the agent for exfoliation is selected from the group consisting of lignosulfonate, cellulose nanocrystals and cellulose nanofibers, whereby said cellulose nanofibers or cellulose nanocrystals are obtained by enzymatic digestion of filter paper mediated by endoglucanase ([0070]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 4, Dalton teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein the weight ratio of agent for exfoliation to graphite is comprised from 1:6 ([0059], [0079], Note that if the graphite is present at 3% and the agent for exfoliation is present at 0.5%, the ratio is 1:6), not wherein the weight ratio of agent for exfoliation to graphite is comprised from 1:90 to 1:30. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a parameter disclosed in the prior art is not inventive unless the parameter is shown to be result-effective. Here, Examiner maintains that the claimed ratio is not result-effective and is thus not inventive.
Regarding claim 5, Dalton teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein step (ii) is carried out by sonicating with a mild bath or a tip or by shear mixing the mixture of step (i) ([0125]).
Regarding claim 6, Dalton teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein the binder of step (iii) is selected from the group consisting of carboxymethylcellulose, polyaniline and mixtures thereof ([0138]).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Griesser et al. (2022/0298374).
Regarding claim 7, Dalton teaches the method according to claim 1. Dalton does not teach wherein the second solvent of step (iv) is 1,2-propanodiol. Griesser teaches wherein water and 1,2-propanediol are obvious variants (Griesser, [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use 1,2-propanediol instead of water for the second solvent of Dalton because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known solvent for another to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights