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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: please update the first paragraph of the specification as the status of the parent application (16/760,392) has changed to abandoned. Appropriate correction is required.
The title is objected to as the first instance of “GFRP” should be spelled out in its entirety for clarity of reference. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB 20170037203 A1 issued to Sun et al. in view of USPUB 20190002286A1 issued to Wang et al.
Regarding Claim 1, where Applicant seeks a glass fiber reinforced polymer reinforcing structure comprising: an elongated structure; said structure comprised of glass fibers mixed with one or more polymers; a plurality of multi-walled carbon nanotubes at 0.1- 4.0 wt.% of said one or more polymers are incorporated in said one or more polymers; multi-walled carbon nanotubes functionalized with carboxylic group at 0.1- 2.0 wt.% of said polymer are incorporated in said one or more polymers; and wherein said multi-walled carbon nanotubes have an inner diameter of 5-10 nm and outer diameter of 20-30 nm; Applicant is directed to the combined teachings of Sun et al., modified by Wang et al.
Sun et al., teach glass fiber reinforced polymer reinforcing structures comprising an elongated structure [¶ 0083] said structure comprised of glass fibers (“glass fibers, carbon nanotubes” [¶ 0018]) mixed with one or more polymers (“polyurethane resin matrix” [¶0013]); a plurality of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (carbon nanotubes [¶0018]). Sun et al. fails to expressively suggest-
0.1-4.0wt.% of said one or more polymers are incorporated in said one or more polymers; and
multi-walled carbon nanotubes functionalized with carboxylic group at 0.1-2.0wt.% of said polymer one or more polymers are incorporated in said one or more polymers.
and wherein said multi-walled carbon nanotubes have an inner diameter of 5-10 nm and outer diameter of 20-30 nm.
This is remedied by the teachings of Wang et al.
Wang et al. is from the same field of endeavor as they too create reinforced composites.
Wang et al. disclose polymer coated carbon nanotubes including multiwall carbon nanotubes (MWNT) and methods of making same, more specifically polypropylene-coated functionalized multiwall carbon nanotubes (PP/f-MWNT), where the polypropylene-coated functionalized multiwall carbon nanotubes (PP/f-MWNT) comprising functionalized multiwall carbon nanotubes (f-MWNT) in an amount of from about 0.5 wt. % to about 10 wt. %, based on the total weight of the PP/f-MWNT, and polypropylene (PP) in an amount of from about 90 wt. % to about 99.5 wt. % [Abstract and ¶ 0001, 0003, 0007-0011]. The f-MWNT have a diameter of from about 5 nm to about 210 nm, a length of from about 0.5 microns to about 20 microns, and from about 5 walls to about 15 walls; and wherein a PP coating has thickness of from about 1 nm to about 10 nm [¶¶ 0011, 0031-0032 and 0094]. At ¶¶ 0042, 0051 and 0082, the instant reference teaches that chemical functionalization” refers to a method or process of introducing a functional group in a given structure, for example introducing one or more carboxyl groups into a MWNT structure. At ¶ 0088, Wang et al., teach that the outer coating thickness of from about 1 nm to about 10 nm, alternatively from about 1.5 nm to about 9.5 nm, or alternatively from about 2 nm to about 9 nm.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to modify the assembly of Sun et al., by substituting the ranges of nanotubes incorporated into the polymer as taught by Wang in order to contribute a desired bond and therefore an increased tensile strength to the substrate to which the nanotubes are applied.
Regarding the outer diameter 20-30 nm; while there is no explicit disclosure of the dimensions of the outer diameter, and since Applicant’s specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific dimensions of the outer diameter of 20-30 nm is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As dimensions are variable and can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of polymer, the precise amount creating the outer diameter dimension would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed diameter cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, to create an outer diameter of 20-30nm within the combination of Sun and Wang et al. to obtain the desired outer diameter (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 2, where Applicant seeks a glass fiber reinforced polymer reinforcing structure comprising: an elongated structure; said structure comprised of glass fibers mixed with one or more polymers; a plurality of multi-walled carbon nanotubes at 0.1-4.0 wt.% of said one or more polymers are incorporated in said one or more polymers; multi-walled carbon nanotubes functionalized with carboxylic group at 0.1- 2.0 wt.% of said polymer are incorporated in said one or more polymers; and wherein said multi-walled carbon nanotubes have a bulk density of 0.21 gm/cm and 110 m2/3g specific surface area; Applicant is directed to the combined teachings of Sun et al., modified by Wang et al.
Sun et al., teach glass fiber reinforced polymer reinforcing structures comprising an elongated structure [¶ 0083] said structure comprised of glass fibers (“glass fibers, carbon nanotubes” [¶ 0018]) mixed with one or more polymers (“polyurethane resin matrix” [¶0013]); a plurality of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (carbon nanotubes [¶0018]). Sun et al. fails to expressively suggest-
0.1-4.0wt.% of said one or more polymers are incorporated in said one or more polymers; and
multi-walled carbon nanotubes functionalized with carboxylic group at 0.1-2.0wt.% of said polymer one or more polymers are incorporated in said one or more polymers.
and wherein multi-walled carbon nanotubes have a bulk density of 0.21 gm/cm and 110 m2/3g specific surface area.
This is remedied by the teachings of Wang et al.
Wang et al. is from the same field of endeavor as they too create reinforced composites.
Wang et al. disclose polymer coated carbon nanotubes including multiwall carbon nanotubes (MWNT) and methods of making same, more specifically polypropylene-coated functionalized multiwall carbon nanotubes (PP/f-MWNT), where the polypropylene-coated functionalized multiwall carbon nanotubes (PP/f-MWNT) comprising functionalized multiwall carbon nanotubes (f-MWNT) in an amount of from about 0.5 wt. % to about 10 wt. %, based on the total weight of the PP/f-MWNT, and polypropylene (PP) in an amount of from about 90 wt. % to about 99.5 wt. % [Abstract and ¶ 0001, 0003, 0007-0011]. The f-MWNT have a diameter of from about 5 nm to about 210 nm, a length of from about 0.5 microns to about 20 microns, and from about 5 walls to about 15 walls; and wherein a PP coating has thickness of from about 1 nm to about 10 nm [¶¶ 0011, 0031-0032 and 0094]. At ¶¶ 0042, 0051 and 0082, the instant reference teaches that chemical functionalization” refers to a method or process of introducing a functional group in a given structure, for example introducing one or more carboxyl groups into a MWNT structure. At ¶ 0088, Wang et al., teach that the outer coating thickness of from about 1 nm to about 10 nm, alternatively from about 1.5 nm to about 9.5 nm, or alternatively from about 2 nm to about 9 nm.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to modify the assembly of Sun et al., by substituting the ranges of nanotubes incorporated into the polymer as taught by Wang in order to contribute a desired bond and therefore an increased tensile strength to the substrate to which the nanotubes are applied.
Regarding the limitation of the multi-walled carbon nanotubes have a bulk density of 0.21 gm/cm and 110 m2/3g specific surface area, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have constructed the he multi-walled carbon nanotubes have a bulk density of 0.21 gm/cm and 110 m2/3g specific surface area, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges that would be discovered through routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
A skilled artisan would be motivated to use a MWCNTs with 0.21 g/cm³ bulk density and 110 m²/g specific surface area in GFRP is beneficial because, a low density keeps the composite lightweight. A high surface area ensures good dispersion and interfacial bonding. These properties together improve mechanical, thermal, and electrical performance while maintaining compatibility with the glass fiber reinforcement.
Regarding Claim 3, where Applicant seeks a glass fiber reinforced polymer reinforcing structure comprising: an elongated structure; said structure comprised of glass fibers mixed with one or more polymers; a plurality of multi-walled carbon nanotubes at 0.1-4.0 wt.% of said one or more polymers are incorporated in said one or more polymers; multi-walled carbon nanotubes functionalized with carboxylic group at 0.1- 2.0 wt.% of said polymer are incorporated in said one or more polymers; and wherein said multi-walled carbon nanotubes have an inner diameter of 5-10 nm and outer diameter of 20-30 nm with bulk density of 0.21 gm/cm' and 10 m/g specific surface area; Applicant is directed to rationale set forth for claims 1 and 2 and the last limitation of Claim 3, is just a combination of the last limitations of claims 1 and 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al. US 20110303866 A1: The weight percentage of the nanoparticles in the magnesium based composite material can be in a range from about 0.01% to about 10%... “weight percentage of the carbon nanotubes in the range from 0.5% to 1.5%...“The highest tensile strength is achieved at the 1.5% of the weight percentage of the carbon nanotubes.”
El Badawi et al. US 10898865 B2: ”In another embodiment, the composite membrane contains less than or equal to about 5 wt % of multi-walled carbon nanotubes…“nanotubes in the polymer solution is such that a proportion of the carbon nanotubes in the composite membrane is less than or equal to 5 wt %...“MWCNTs ranges from greater than or equal to 0.0005 wt % to equal to or less than 0.005 wt % relative to a weight of the polymeric matrix.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Melvin Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp
Prosecution Insights