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 .
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.
Claims 1-16 are 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “polymer is polyamide”, and the claim also recites “polyamide is selected from the group consisting of PA6…PA66” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claims 2-3 recites the broad recitation “concentration of graphene is 0.05-1.5% in weight” and “0.05-0.85 % by weight”, and the claim also recites “0.3-1.5% by weight” and “0.07-0.85% by weight” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “concentration of graphene is 0.05-1.4% in weight”, and the claim also recites “0.07-1.4% by weight” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “concentration of graphene is 0.5-1% in weight”, and the claim also recites “0.5-0.9% by weight” and “0.6-0.8% by weight” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “average particle size of the particulate polymer is 20-1000 microns”, and the claim also recites “20-700 and 20-500 microns” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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) 1-5, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nazarpour et al. (US 2018/0155520).
Regarding claims 1-4, Nazarpour discloses production of graphene/polymer compounds. In some embodiments, a method for producing graphene/polymer compounds includes compounding graphene nanoflakes with non-conductive polymer hosts via electrospray coating techniques (abstract). In one embodiment, the electrospray coating of graphene nanoflake powders can be carried out for polymer fine powders having sizes in the range of from about 0.5 μm to about 1 mm, from about 1 to about 500 μm, from about 50 to about 200 μm, etc. (para 0123). Nazarpour discloses method of coating non-conductive polymer particles with graphene nanoflakes (claim 1). The polymer particles can include particles of a thermoplastic polymer selected from a group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyolefin, ABS, poly(meth)acrylates, polystyrene, polyamides, polyester, polycarbonate, polyurethane, polyimides, polysulfones, poly(aryl ether ketone)s, fluorinated polymers, and combinations thereof (claim 18). The weight ratio of dry graphene nanoflakes to the polymer powders in coated powders can be no greater than about 10% by weight, no greater than about 7% by weight, no greater than about 3% by weight, etc (para 0126).
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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, Nazarpour discloses the graphene nanoflakes can be single-layer graphene, few-layer (e.g., about 2-about 10 layers) graphene, graphene nanoplatelets (e.g., >about 10 layers), graphene oxide, expanded graphite oxide, or a mixture thereof (para 0108).
Regarding claim 11-12, Nazarpour discloses the polymer particles can be at least one of irregular, spherical, square, and columnar in shape (claim 19) and the polymer particles have sizes in the range of about 0.5 μm to about 1 mm (claim 20).
Regarding claims 13-14, Although Nazarpour does not disclose composite powder used to manufacture printed polymer product using selective laser sintering, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Nazarpour meets the requirements of the claimed product, Nazarpour clearly meet the requirements of present claims printed polymer product.
As Nazarpour discloses composite powder comprising components as presently claimed which is used to make printed product using selective laser sintering, therefore the composite powder would intrinsically have the claimed resistivity.
Regarding claims 15-16, Although Nazarpour does not disclose composite powder used to manufacture extruded polymer product such as injection molded or blow molded or rotational molded, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Nazarpour meets the requirements of the claimed product, Nazarpour clearly meet the requirements of present claimed extruded polymer product such as injection molded or blow molded or rotational molded.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nazarpour et al. (US 2018/0155520) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Mao (CN 109880353).
Regarding claim 6, Nazarpour discloses the polymer particles can include particles of a thermoplastic polymer selected from a group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyolefin, ABS, poly(meth)acrylates, polystyrene, polyamides, polyester, polycarbonate, polyurethane, polyimides, polysulfones, poly(aryl ether ketone)s, fluorinated polymers, and combinations thereof (claim 18). The weight ratio of dry graphene nanoflakes to the polymer powders in coated powders can be no greater than about 10% by weight, no greater than about 7% by weight, no greater than about 3% by weight, etc (para 0126).
However, Nazarpour fails to disclose that the polyamide is PA11.
Whereas, Mao discloses white graphene composite polyamide material, comprising the following components parts by weight: 0.5~20 parts of modified white graphene, polyamide resin and 60~99.4 parts of compatilizer 0.1~20 parts (abstract). The polyamide resin is at least one of PA6, MXD6, PA66, PA10, PA11, PA12, PA46, PA610, PA1010, and PA612, the compatilizer is maleic anhydride graft PP. polyamide resin can be PA6 (nylon 6), MXD6 (modified nylon 6), PA66 (nylon 66), PA10 (nylon 10), PA11 (nylon 11), PA12 (nylon 12), PA46 (nylon 46), PA610 (nylon 610), PA1010 (nylon 1010), PA612 (nylon 612) in at least one (page 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include PA11 as taught by Mao as the polymer of Nazarpour motivated by the desire to have excellent mechanical strength (page 3).
Claim(s) 7-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nazarpour et al. (US 2018/0155520) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Schwab (WO 2015/132707).
Regarding claim 7, Nazarpour discloses the polymer particles can include particles of a thermoplastic polymer selected from a group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyolefin, ABS, poly(meth)acrylates, polystyrene, polyamides, polyester, polycarbonate, polyurethane, polyimides, polysulfones, poly(aryl ether ketone)s, fluorinated polymers, and combinations thereof (claim 18). The weight ratio of dry graphene nanoflakes to the polymer powders in coated powders can be no greater than about 10% by weight, no greater than about 7% by weight, no greater than about 3% by weight, etc (para 0126).
However, Nazarpour fails to disclose that the polymer is polyester thermoplastic polyurethane.
Whereas, Schwab discloses core-shell particles, where the core comprises a polymer A and the shell comprises polymer and low bulk density carbon such as graphene (claim 1 and 5). The choice of polymers A and B and their combination is principally limited by only two conditions. First, the polymers must be chosen in such a way that they sufficiently adhere to each other so that stable core-shell particles are formed. Polymer adherence is generally based on electronic attraction, but mostly on van der Waals forces. In general, adherence is higher if the polymeric structure in A and B is chemically similar. Second, advantageously, polymer B is to be processable in liquid phase (see below description of the method for producing the core-shell particles of the invention). Thus it advantageously either has a low melting (or softening) point, suitably below 100°C or preferably below 80°C, or, preferably, it is soluble or swellable in a solvent with a boiling point of below 150°C, preferably below 130°C and more preferably below 1 10°C. Polymer A and polymer B = polyester-polyurethane (e.g. prepared from a polyesterdiol with M = 2000 which in turn is prepared from butanediol, hexanediol and adipic acid; 1 ,4-butanediol as diol component and M DI as diisocyanate component) - Polymer A = polypropylene; polymer B = ethylene/1 -octene copolymer (page 19-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include polyester-polyurethane as taught by Schwab as the polymer of Nazarpour motivated by the desire to have excellent mechanical strength and chemical resistance.
Regarding claim 8, Nazarpour discloses the polymer particles can include particles of a thermoplastic polymer selected from a group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyolefin, ABS, poly(meth)acrylates, polystyrene, polyamides, polyester, polycarbonate, polyurethane, polyimides, polysulfones, poly(aryl ether ketone)s, fluorinated polymers, and combinations thereof (claim 18). The weight ratio of dry graphene nanoflakes to the polymer powders in coated powders can be no greater than about 10% by weight, no greater than about 7% by weight, no greater than about 3% by weight, etc (para 0126).
However, Nazarpour fails to disclose that the polymer is LDPE or HDPE.
Whereas, Schwab discloses core-shell particles, where the core comprises a polymer A and the shell comprises polymer and low bulk density carbon such as graphene (claim 1 and 5). The choice of polymers A and B and their combination is principally limited by only two conditions. First, the polymers must be chosen in such a way that they sufficiently adhere to each other so that stable core-shell particles are formed. Polymer adherence is generally based on electronic attraction, but mostly on van der Waals forces. In general, adherence is higher if the polymeric structure in A and B is chemically similar. Second, advantageously, polymer B is to be processable in liquid phase (see below description of the method for producing the core-shell particles of the invention). Thus it advantageously either has a low melting (or softening) point, suitably below 100°C or preferably below 80°C, or, preferably, it is soluble or swellable in a solvent with a boiling point of below 150°C, preferably below 130°C and more preferably below 1 10°C. (page 19) and polymers include HDPE and LDPE (page 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include LDPE or HDPE as taught by Schwab as the polymer of Nazarpour motivated by the desire to have excellent impact performance, durability and flexibility.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nazarpour et al. (US 2018/0155520) in view of Schwab (WO 2015/132707) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 105885162).
Regarding claim 9, Nazarpour in view of Schwab discloses polymer is high density polyethylene as stated above but fails to disclose that polyethylene is crosslinked polyethylene.
Whereas Zhang discloses irradiation crosslinking polyethylene insulation single core cable for a locomotive vehicle. The irradiation crosslinking polyethylene insulation single core cable is good in thermal stability and mechanical property (English abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include crosslinked HDPE as taught by Schwab in view of Zhang as the polymer of Nazarpour motivated by the desire to have good thermal stability and mechanical property.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nazarpour et al. (US 2018/0155520) in view of Almadhoun et al. (US 2014/0098458).
Regarding claim 9, Nazarpour discloses polymer is fluorinated polymer as stated above but fails to disclose that polymer is PVDF such as poly(vinylidene fluoride-trifluoroethylene).
Whereas Almadhoun discloses a composite material comprising a polymeric material and a hydrazine-reduced graphene oxide and polymeric material comprises PVDF, poly(vinylidene fluoride-trifluoroethylene) (claims 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include poly(vinylidene fluoride-trifluoroethylene) as taught by Almadhoun as the polymer of Nazarpour motivated by the desire to have thermal stability and exhibits strong piezoelectric properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONAK C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-6:30PM (FLEX).
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 at 5712721490. 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.
/RONAK C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights