Patent Application 17765323 - CROSS-LINKED AND RECYCLABLE ELECTROCONDUCTIVE - Rejection

Patent Application 17765323 - CROSS-LINKED AND RECYCLABLE ELECTROCONDUCTIVE

Title: CROSS-LINKED AND RECYCLABLE ELECTROCONDUCTIVE CARBONACEOUS NANOCOMPOUNDS AND POLYMERS CAPABLE OF DISPERSING AND STABILISING THEM, METHOD, DERIVED MATERIALS AND USES

Application Information

• Invention Title: CROSS-LINKED AND RECYCLABLE ELECTROCONDUCTIVE CARBONACEOUS NANOCOMPOUNDS AND POLYMERS CAPABLE OF DISPERSING AND STABILISING THEM, METHOD, DERIVED MATERIALS AND USES
• Application Number: 17765323
• Submission Date: 2025-04-07T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2022-03-30T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2022-03-30T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 524
• National Sub-Class: 495000
• Examiner Employee Number: 88592
• Art Unit: 1764
• Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 1
• 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0002680🔗

Office Action Text

    DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application is a national stage entry under 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Application No. PCT/CL2020/050109 filed 9/30/2020.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d) by Application No. CL 2791-2019 filed 9/30/2019, which papers have been placed of record in the file.  
Claims 94-117 are pending. 


Election/Restrictions

Applicant's election with traverse of Group I Claims 94-104 in the reply filed on 3/17/2025 is acknowledged.  The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups II correspond to allowable subject matter and be reinstated upon allowance of Group I.  
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.


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 94-104 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.
Claims 94, 97 recite “polytone”. However, one skilled in the art would not understand the meaning of a polytone. The term “polytone” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of Examination, polyketone will be considered to be equivalent to a polytone. 
Claim 94 recites …said derivatized polytone has a carbon chain length greater than 50 carbons… and it would not be clear how the claimed polytone can have a carbon chain greater than 50 carbons. For instance, the reaction scheme in Figure 1 and Figure 2 do not contain a continuous carbon chain of 50 carbons. Specifically, the longest continuous carbon chain in Figure 1 is 6 carbon atoms, excluding the furfurylamine monomer. 
Claims 95-104 are subsumed by the rejection of claim 94 because of their dependence. 
Claims 98 recites “polystones”. However, one skilled in the art would not understand the meaning of a polystones. The term “polystones” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 
Claim 102 recites the limitation "they" in line 1.  There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 102 recites …comprise additional organic and inorganic components.. followed by species of either organic or inorganic components. It would not be clear how the claim requires both organic and inorganic components when species listed are either organic or inorganic components.
Claim 103 recites the limitation " such metal oxides " in lines 2-3.  There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 104 recites the limitation "they" in line 1.  There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 104 recites …wherein they are useful in the manufacture of … The term “useful” in claim 104 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “useful” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 
Claim 104 recites …they are useful… and it would not be clear if the cross-linked and recyclable nanocomposites are required to be used for the claimed materials recited, or simply useful for the claimed materials. 
Claim 104 recites …when mixed with various materials chosen from… and it would not be clear if the cross-linked and recyclable nanocomposites are required to comprise a various materials, or if the can be mixed with various materials. 
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. 


Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102



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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –

(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

Claims 94-98, 100-101, 104 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Araya-Hermosilla et al. (Polymers 2018, 10, 1076, cited in IDS filed 6/8/2022). 
	Regarding claim 94: Araya-Hermosilla is directed to a cross-linked and recyclable nanocomposites comprising electricity conducting carbonaceous materials and a polymer capable of dispersing and stabilizing such carbonaceous materials, 
	Where said electricity conducting carbonaceous materials are combustion residues of organic material of carbon nanotubes. 
The polymer is a polyketone (equivalent to a polytone) 
Wherein said polymer is a polyketone derivatized with primary amines wherein said primary amine acts as a diene or dienophile, or a combination therefore and is a furan (Fig. 2). 
The derivatized polyketone has a carbon chain of greater than 50 carbons. 
The glass transition temperature is below 200 ˚C (p. 8 Araya-Hermosilla). 
	Regarding claims 95-96: Furfurilamine is disclosed (Fig. 2).
	Regarding claim 97: Additional saturated or unsaturated hydrocarbon groups are disclosed in Fig. 1. 
	Regarding claim 98: The hanging groups of the primary amine comprise a functionalized derivative of a polyolefin, i.e. Furfurylamine, benzylamine (Figure 1). 
	Regarding claims 100-101: A reversible junction crosslinker of bismaleimide is disclosed (abstract Araya-Hermosilla).  
	 Regarding claim 104: Araya-Hermosilla teaches Conductive polymer nanocomposites are useful as supercapacitors, solar cells, conductive adhesives, advanced electronic devices, among many others (1. Introduction). It is the Examiners position the cross-linked and recyclable nanocomposites would be useful for the manufacturing of thermoconductive materials when mixed with the claimed various materials. 


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.

Claims 99, 102-103 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araya-Hermosilla in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0002680). 
Regarding claim 99: Araya-Hermosilla doesn’t mention graphite. 
Kim is directed to a conductive antistatic composition that can comprise a polyketone, carbon nanotubes, and a carbon material of graphite fibers of 120-500 nm (equivalent to graphite of nanometric dimensions). One skilled I the art would have been motivated to have included graphite fibers in the composite of Araya-Hermosilla to produce an antistatic composition used to simultaneously improve physical properties such as strength, low-sloughing, surface resistance and electrostatic
dispersion, so that the present invention can be applied to products requiring strength and electric conductivity. ([0033] Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included a carbon material of graphite fibers of 120-500 nm in the composition of Araya-Hermosilla. 
	Regarding claim 102: Araya-Hermosilla doesn’t mention additional organic and inorganic components. 
	Kim discloses the composition comprises additional organic and inorganic components of micrometric, micrometric, or nanometric size polymer of acrylonitrilebutadiene-styrene copolymer and polystyrene. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have included an additional organic component of acrylonitrilebutadiene-styrene copolymer and polystyrene in Araya-Hermosilla for improvement in moldability and improving low sloughing ([0044] Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included acrylonitrilebutadiene-styrene copolymer and polystyrene polymer in Araya-Hermosilla to arrive at claim 102 of the present invention. 
Regarding claim 103: While claim 103 further limits the wood and paper derivatives and metal salts, base claim 102 recites polymer in the alternative. Hence, claim 103 is met by the combination of Araya-Hermosilla and Kim since a polymer is taught by Kim.


Contact Information

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT T BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3514. The examiner can normally be reached Telework M-F 9-5 Pacific Time Zone.
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, Lanee Reuther can be reached on (571) 270-7026. 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.





/ROBERT T BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764