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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/18/2025 has been entered.
This action is responsive to Applicant's amendments/remarks filed 06/18/2025.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13-15, 26, 28, 29, and 31 are currently pending and under examination.
The rejection of claim 8, 9 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claims 4, 5, 11, 12, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson (US 2016/0376487 A1, hereinafter Abramson) in view of Lian (CN 107686635 A, hereinafter Lian) is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, 14, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson (US 2016/0376487 A1, hereinafter Abramson) in view of Lian (CN 107686635 A, hereinafter Lian) is maintained in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claims 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson (US 2016/0376487 A1, hereinafter Abramson) in view of Lian (CN 107686635 A, hereinafter Lian), and further as evidenced by Yoshida (WO 2013/065159 A1, hereinafter Yoshida) is maintained in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson (US 2016/0376487 A1, hereinafter Abramson) in view of Lian (CN 107686635 A, hereinafter Lian), and further in view of Fujimori (JP 2017050119 A, hereinafter Fujimori), as evidenced by “Thinky Mixer ARE-310” (“Thinky Mixer ARE-310 Information from Thinky”, 2025, hereinafter “Thinky Mixer ARE-310”) is maintained in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson (US 2016/0376487 A1, hereinafter Abramson) in view of Lian (CN 107686635 A, hereinafter Lian), and further in view of Masuko (JP 2001135140 A, hereinafter Masuko) is maintained in view of the above amendments.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
1. Claims 1, 8, 9, 14, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson (US 2016/0376487 A1, hereinafter Abramson) in view of Lian (CN 107686635 A, hereinafter Lian).
Regarding claim 1, the instant invention discloses that the polymer resin is an epoxy resin (instant US Publ. [0034]).
Abramson teaches a method of forming a high thermally conductive composite composition (para [0026], [0054]), and the high thermally conductive composite composition comprises graphite filler, graphene filler, an epoxy resin, and a hardener (para [0026], [0054], [0061]).
Abramson teaches that graphite and graphene fillers are dispersed within an epoxy resin to form a mixture, then a hardener is added into the mixture, then the mixture is press molded, then cured to form a cured product (para [0054], [0061]). Thus, the mixture comprising graphite filler, graphene filler, and an epoxy resin as taught by Abramson reads on the claimed wet polymeric filler mixture.
Abramson also teaches that the graphite is graphite flakes (para [0029], [0061]), and the graphene is graphene platelets (para [0040], Tables 1 and 2).
Abramson further teaches that in order to provide desirable high thermal conductivity, the total graphite and graphene fillers loading in the composite composition ranges from about 7 to about 40 parts based on 100 total parts by weight of graphite, graphene and epoxy resin (para [0052]). Thus, in the composite composition as taught by Abramson, the total amount of the graphite filler and graphene filler can be in a range of from about 7.5% to about 67% by weight with respect to the epoxy resin (the claimed polymeric resin), which overlaps with the claimed range of “between 55wt% and 80wt%”.
Abramson does not teach pressure in the range of up to 350 bar.
However, Lian teaches a method for preparing a high thermally conductive composite material comprising mixing epoxy resin, graphene and a curing agent into a mixture, then sending the mixture into a mold for molding at a pressure of 10-200 MPa to form a molded material, then heating and curing the molded material to obtain a composite material with high thermal conductivity (para [0011]-[0017], [0022]; claims 1, 2, 9). The molding at a pressure of 10-200 MPa as taught by Lian equals to 100-2000 bar, which overlaps with the claimed range of “up to 350 bar”.
Lian also teaches that during molding, the graphene materials contact each other under pressure to form a heat conduction channel, then heating and curing the molded material obtains a composite material with high thermal conductivity and certain strength (para [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to press mold the mixture comprising an epoxy resin, graphene filler, graphite filler, and a hardener as taught by Abramson at a pressure of 10-200 MPa prior to curing as taught by Lian, in order to make the fillers being contacted with each other to form a heat conduction channel for improving heat conductivity with a reasonable expectation of success, because the fillers such as graphene materials contact each other at a pressure of 10-200 MPa to form a heat conduction channel as recognized by Lian.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Abramson teaches that the high thermally conductive composite composition comprises graphite, graphene, and an epoxy resin (para [0026], [0054], [0061]). Abramson teaches that the graphene is graphene platelets (para [0040], Tables 1 and 2), and the graphene platelets can have a lateral dimension of 5 µm or 15-20 µm (para [0040], Table 1), which both fall within the claimed range of “1-25 micrometers”.
Regarding claim 9, Abramson teaches that the high thermally conductive composite composition comprises graphite, graphene, and an epoxy resin (para [0026], [0054], [0061]). Abramson teaches that the graphite is graphite flakes (para [0029], [0061]), and the graphite flakes can have a particle size of about 5 to about 500 microns in width, about 5 to about 500 microns in length (para [0030]). Abramson also teaches that the graphite flakes have lateral dimensions up to 500 μm (para [0062]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “20-250 micrometers”.
Regarding claim 14, Abramson teaches a high thermally conductive composite composition comprising graphite filler, graphene filler, an epoxy resin, and hardener (para [0026], [0054], [0061]). Abramson also teaches that the thermal conductivity of the composite composition can vary and depend upon the types and amounts of the components utilized in the composition, and the composite composition can have a thermal conductivity of at least 5 W/m·K, at least 27 W/m·K, and values between (para [0055], Fig. 3), which overlaps with the claimed range of “13-30 W/mK”.
Regarding claim 26, Abramson teaches a high thermally conductive composite composition comprising graphite filler, graphene filler, and an epoxy resin (para [0026]). Abramson teaches that graphite and graphene fillers are dispersed within an epoxy resin (para [0054], [0061]). Abramson also teaches that a synergistic relationship between the graphite filler, graphene filler and an epoxy resin can increase the thermal conductivity of the composite composition (para [0027]).
2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson (US 2016/0376487 A1, hereinafter Abramson) in view of Lian (CN 107686635 A, hereinafter Lian) as applied to claims 1, 8, 9, 14, and 26 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 108102300 A, hereinafter Liu).
The disclosure of Abramson in view of Lian is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, Abramson teaches that graphite and graphene fillers are dispersed within an epoxy resin to form a mixture, then a hardener is added into the mixture, then the mixture is press molded, then cured to form a cured product (para [0054], [0061]).
Abramson does not teach removing air voids by placing said polymeric filler mixture in a vacuum pressure condition after mixing of the hardening material prior to compressing said polymeric filler mixture.
However, Liu teaches a composite material comprising a graphene/inorganic powder particle hybrid material and an epoxy resin, wherein the graphene/inorganic powder particle hybrid material is uniformly dispersed as a filler in the epoxy resin ([0010], claim 1).
Liu also teaches a method for preparing the composite material comprising: mixing an epoxy resin, graphene/inorganic powder particle hybrid material, and a curing agent to obtain a mixture, then dispersing and mixing the mixture by using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine, then curing the mixture under a curing condition to obtain the composite material ([0021], [0024], claim 6). Mixing the mixture by using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine as taught by Liu reads on the claimed removing air voids by placing said polymeric filler mixture in a vacuum pressure condition.
Liu further teaches that the preparation of the composite material by using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine allows for a better uniform dispersion of the graphene/inorganic powder particle hybrid material in the epoxy resin, resulting in the composite material with high bonding strength, high toughness, high thermal conductivity, strong weather resistance, and high temperature resistance ([0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix the mixture comprising an epoxy resin, graphite filler, graphene filler, and a hardener as taught by Abramson by using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine as taught by Liu, in order to remove the air bubble and uniformly disperse the fillers in the epoxy resin, thereby making the composite composition having high bonding strength, high toughness, high thermal conductivity, strong weather resistance, and high temperature resistance with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, in the method of forming the composite composition as taught by the combination of Abramson and Liu, the step of using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine is after mixing the hardener into the polymeric filler mixture and prior to press molding the mixture. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
3. Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson (US 2016/0376487 A1, hereinafter Abramson) in view of Lian (CN 107686635 A, hereinafter Lian) as applied to claims 1, 8, 9, 14, and 26 above, and as evidenced by Yoshida (WO 2013/065159 A1, hereinafter Yoshida).
The disclosure of Abramson in view of Lian is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Abramson teaches a high thermally conductive composite composition comprising graphite filler, graphene filler, an epoxy resin, and hardener (para [0026], [0054], [0061]).
Yoshida as an evidentiary reference shows that an epoxy resin is a thermosetting resin (para [0021]). Thus, the composite composition comprising an epoxy resin as taught by Abramson is a thermosetting polymeric material article.
Abramson also teaches that the thermal conductivity of the composite compositions can vary and depend upon the types and amounts of the components utilized in the composition, and the composite composition can have a thermal conductivity of at least 5 W/m·K, at least 27 W/m·K, and values between (para [0055], Fig. 3), which overlaps with the claimed ranges of “exceeding 13 W/mK”, and “exceeding 16 W/mK”.
4. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson (US 2016/0376487 A1, hereinafter Abramson) in view of Lian (CN 107686635 A, hereinafter Lian) as applied to claims 1, 8, 9, 14, and 26 above, and further in view of Fujimori (JP 2017050119 A, hereinafter Fujimori), as evidenced by “Thinky Mixer ARE-310” (“Thinky Mixer ARE-310 Information from Thinky”, 2025, hereinafter “Thinky Mixer ARE-310”).
The disclosure of Abramson in view of Lian is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 28, Abramson teaches a high thermally conductive composite composition comprising graphite filler, graphene filler, and an epoxy resin (para [0026], [0054], [0061]). Abramson also teaches that the graphite filler, graphene filler, and epoxy are mixed, preferably the graphite and graphene being dispersed within the epoxy resin (para [0054]).
Abramson does not teach a planetary centrifugal mixer and zirconia balls.
However, Fujimori teaches a method for producing a conductive paste comprising mixing (A) an epoxy resin, (B) a curing agent, and (C) a conductive powder by using inorganic beads as a dispersion medium with a planetary mixer (para [0010]).
Fujimori teaches that the inorganic beads are used as a dispersion medium for mixing, and are used to break down the agglomeration of the conductive powder in order to improve the dispersion of the conductive powder in the resin (para [0036]), and the inorganic beads are preferably zirconia beads, because zirconia beads have excellent wear resistance (para [0037]), which reads on the claimed adding zirconia balls to enhance mixing.
Fujimori also teaches that the planetary mixer is used to mix materials uniformly, and the planetary mixer is a Thinky Mixer, ARE-310, manufactured by Thinky Corporation (para [0033]).
“Thinky Mixer ARE-310” as an evidentiary reference shows that Thinky Mixer, ARE-310, is a planetary centrifugal mixer (p. 1, 1st paragraph, § Feature). Thus, the planetary mixer as taught by Fujimori is a planetary centrifugal mixer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix graphite filler, graphene filler, and an epoxy resin as taught by Abramson in a planetary centrifugal mixer with zirconia beads as a dispersion medium as taught by Fujimori, in order to mix the materials uniformly and improve the dispersion of graphite and graphene within epoxy resin with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
5. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson (US 2016/0376487 A1, hereinafter Abramson) in view of Lian (CN 107686635 A, hereinafter Lian) as applied to claims 1, 8, 9, 14, and 26 above, and further in view of Masuko (JP 2001135140 A, hereinafter Masuko).
The disclosure of Abramson in view of Lian is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 29, Abramson teaches a high thermally conductive composite composition comprising graphite filler, graphene filler, an epoxy resin, and hardener (para [0026], [0054], [0061]). Abramson also teaches that graphite and graphene fillers are dispersed within an epoxy resin to form a mixture, then a hardener is added into the mixture (para [0054], [0061]).
Abramson does not teach a high shear mixer.
However, Masuko teaches a conductive paste composition comprising (A) a conductive powder, (B) an epoxy group-containing polymer, (C) an epoxy resin other than the component (B), and (E) an epoxy curing agent (abstract, para [0007]). Masuko also teaches a step of preparing the conductive paste composition by uniformly mixing the components in a high shear mixer (para [0039], [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix the graphite filler, graphene filler, epoxy resin, and hardener as taught by Abramson in a high shear mixer as taught by Masuko, in order to uniformly mix the components with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
6. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson (US 2016/0376487 A1, hereinafter Abramson) in view of Lian (CN 107686635 A, hereinafter Lian), and Liu (CN 108102300 A, hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 31, the instant invention discloses that the polymer resin is an epoxy resin (instant US Publ. [0034]).
Abramson teaches a method of forming a high thermally conductive composite composition (para [0026], [0054]), and the high thermally conductive composite composition comprises graphite filler, graphene filler, an epoxy resin, and a hardener (para [0026], [0054], [0061]).
Abramson teaches that graphite and graphene fillers are dispersed within an epoxy resin to form a mixture, then a hardener is added into the mixture, then the mixture is press molded, then cured to form a cured product (para [0054], [0061]). Thus, the mixture comprising graphite filler, graphene filler, and an epoxy resin as taught by Abramson reads on the claimed wet polymeric filler mixture.
Abramson also teaches that the graphite is graphite flakes (para [0029], [0061]), and the graphene is graphene platelets (para [0040], Tables 1 and 2).
Abramson does not teach pressure in the range of up to 350 bar.
However, Lian teaches a method for preparing a high thermally conductive composite material comprising mixing epoxy resin, graphene and a curing agent into a mixture, then sending the mixture into a mold for molding at a pressure of 10-200 MPa to form a molded material, then heating and curing the molded material to obtain a composite material with high thermal conductivity (para [0011]-[0017], [0022]; claims 1, 2, 9). The molding at a pressure of 10-200 MPa as taught by Lian equals to 100-2000 bar, which overlaps with the claimed range of “up to 350 bar”.
Lian also teaches that during molding, the graphene materials contact each other under pressure to form a heat conduction channel, then heating and curing the molded material obtains a composite material with high thermal conductivity and certain strength (para [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to press mold the mixture comprising an epoxy resin, graphene filler, graphite filler, and a hardener as taught by Abramson at a pressure of 10-200 MPa prior to curing as taught by Lian, in order to make the fillers being contacted with each other to form a heat conduction channel for improving heat conductivity with a reasonable expectation of success, because the fillers such as graphene materials contact each other at a pressure of 10-200 MPa to form a heat conduction channel as recognized by Lian.
Abramson does not teach removing air voids by placing said polymeric filler mixture in a vacuum pressure condition after mixing of the hardening material prior to compressing said polymeric filler mixture.
However, Liu teaches a composite material comprising a graphene/inorganic powder particle hybrid material and an epoxy resin, wherein the graphene/inorganic powder particle hybrid material is uniformly dispersed as a filler in the epoxy resin ([0010], claim 1).
Liu also teaches a method for preparing the composite material comprising: mixing an epoxy resin, graphene/inorganic powder particle hybrid material, and a curing agent to obtain a mixture, then dispersing and mixing the mixture by using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine, then curing the mixture under a curing condition to obtain the composite material ([0021], [0024], claim 6). Mixing the mixture by using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine as taught by Liu reads on the claimed removing air voids by placing said polymeric filler mixture in a vacuum pressure condition.
Liu further teaches that the preparation of the composite material by using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine allows for a better uniform dispersion of the graphene/inorganic powder particle hybrid material in the epoxy resin, resulting in the composite material with high bonding strength, high toughness, high thermal conductivity, strong weather resistance, and high temperature resistance ([0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix the mixture comprising an epoxy resin, graphite filler, graphene filler, and a hardener as taught by Abramson by using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine as taught by Liu, in order to remove the air bubble and uniformly disperse the fillers in the epoxy resin, thereby making the composite composition having high bonding strength, high toughness, high thermal conductivity, strong weather resistance, and high temperature resistance with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, in the method of forming the composite composition as taught by the combination of Abramson, Lian and Liu, the step of using a planetary vacuum degassing and mixing machine is after mixing the hardener into the polymeric filler mixture and prior to press molding the mixture. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1. Applicant argues that it is unclear how the Examiner reached the conclusion that the total graphite and graphene filler loading in the composite composition is between 7.5% and 67% (p. 9, 2nd para); Abramson fails to describe filler loading ratio greater than 40wt%, thus failing to teach currently amended claim 1 reciting that the selected amount of the two or more types of filler materials is in a range between 55wt% and 80wt% with respect to the polymeric resin (p. 10, 2nd para).
In response, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Abramson teaches that in order to provide desirable high thermal conductivity, the total graphite and graphene fillers loading in the composite composition ranges from about 7 to about 40 parts based on 100 total parts by weight of graphite, graphene and epoxy resin (para [0052]). Thus, in the composite composition as taught by Abramson, the total amount of the graphite filler and graphene filler can be in a range of from about 7.5% to about 67% by weight with respect to the epoxy resin (the claimed polymeric resin), which overlaps with the claimed range of “between 55wt% and 80wt%”.
The calculation is shown here: 7÷(100-7)=7.5% by weight;
40÷(100-40)=67% by weight.
2. Applicant argues that Abramson fails to teach pressing the polymeric filler mixture, and Lian describes that the pressure is applied on a cold mold after it solidifies (p. 10, last para; p. 11, 1st para).
In response, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Abramson teaches that graphite and graphene fillers are dispersed within an epoxy resin to form a mixture, then a hardener is added into the mixture, then the mixture is press molded, then cured at a curing condition to form a cured product (para [0054], [0061]). Thus, Abramson does teach pressing the polymeric filler mixture.
Lian teaches in para [0011]-[0014] and [0022]:
PNG
media_image1.png
637
1599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
146
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, Lian teaches that the pressure is applied on a cold mold before the mixture is cured.
3. Applicant argues that with respect to claim 28, Fujimoro describes mixing materials, but it is clear that the description of Fujimoro is directed at other targets rather than manufacturing thermally conducting composite materials (p. 12, 1st para).
In response, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Abramson teaches that the graphite, graphene and epoxy are mixed, preferably with the graphite and graphene being dispersed within the epoxy resin (para [0054]).
Fujimori teaches a method for producing a conductive paste comprising mixing (A) an epoxy resin, (B) a curing agent, and (C) a conductive powder by using inorganic beads as a dispersion medium with a planetary mixer (para [0010]). Fujimori teaches that the inorganic beads are used as a dispersion medium for mixing, and are used to break down the agglomeration of the conductive powder in order to improve the dispersion of the conductive powder (para [0036]), and the inorganic beads are preferably zirconia beads, because zirconia beads have excellent wear resistance (para [0037]), which reads on the claimed adding zirconia balls to enhance mixing.
Fujimori also teaches that the planetary mixer is used to mix materials uniformly, and the planetary mixer is a Thinky Mixer, ARE-310, manufactured by Thinky Corporation (para [0033]).
“Thinky Mixer ARE-310” as an evidentiary reference shows that Thinky Mixer, ARE-310, is a planetary centrifugal mixer (p. 1, 1st paragraph, § Feature). Thus, the planetary mixer as taught by Fujimori is a planetary centrifugal mixer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix the graphite, graphene and epoxy resin as taught by Abramson in a planetary centrifugal mixer with zirconia beads as a dispersion medium as taught by Fujimori, in order to mix the materials uniformly and improve the dispersion of graphite and graphene within epoxy resin with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Thus, whether Fujimoro is directed to manufacturing thermally conducting composite materials or not, it will not affect the reasoning stated above.
4. Applicant argues (p. 12, 2nd para) that with respect to dependent claim 5, Abramson teaches:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant also argues that contrary to the teaching of Abramson, the description of the present invention indicates that air voids are removed using vacuum conditions after addition of a hardening material (p. 12, 3rd para); thus, Abramson in view of Lian fail to teach the currently amended claim 5 and new claim 31 (p. 13).
In response, firstly, Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior rejection of claim 5 have been considered but are moot, because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection of claim 5. The current rejection utilizes a new reference, Liu (CN 108102300 A), in addition to the previous references Abramson (US 2016/0376487 A1) and Lian (CN 107686635 A) under a new ground(s) of rejection which renders obvious the instant claims 5 and 31.
As stated above, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson in view of Lian as applied to claims 1, 8, 9, 14, and 26 above, and further in view of Liu.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson in view of Lian and Liu.
Secondly, Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2123.
Abramson teaches “In some embodiments an intermediate step is performed involving degassing and cooling prior to adding a curing agent or hardener to the composition in order to cure the epoxy resin” ([0054]), which does not constitute a teaching away from degassing after adding a curing agent or hardener.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIAJIA JANIE CAI whose telephone number is 571-270-0951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/JIAJIA JANIE CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761