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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/29/2025 has been entered.
This action is responsive to Applicant's amendments/remarks filed 09/29/2025.
Claims 1-7, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, and 20-25 are currently pending, of which claims 11, 13-15, 17, and 20-25 are withdrawn. Claims 1-7 and 10 are currently under examination.
The rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kompalik (US 2015/0001440 A1, hereinafter Kompalik) in view of “Sodium Silicate CAMEO Chemicals” (“Sodium Silicate Information from CAMEO Chemicals”, 2016, hereinafter “Sodium Silicate CAMEO Chemicals”) and “Sodium Silicate Solution SDS” (“Sodium Silicate Solution Safety Data Sheet”, 2013, hereinafter “Sodium Silicate Solution SDS”), as evidenced by “Graphite Information” (“Graphite (C) - Classifications, Properties & Applications”, 2002, hereinafter “Graphite Information”) is withdrawn in view of the above remarks.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kompalik (US 2015/0001440 A1, hereinafter Kompalik) in view of “Sodium Silicate CAMEO Chemicals” (“Sodium Silicate Information from CAMEO Chemicals”, 2016, hereinafter “Sodium Silicate CAMEO Chemicals”) and “Sodium Silicate Solution SDS” (“Sodium Silicate Solution Safety Data Sheet”, 2013, hereinafter “Sodium Silicate Solution SDS”), as evidenced by “Graphite Information” (“Graphite (C) - Classifications, Properties & Applications”, 2002, hereinafter “Graphite Information”), and further in view of Hartmann (US 2010/0264353 A1, hereinafter Hartmann) is withdrawn in view of the above remarks.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kompalik (US 2015/0001440 A1, hereinafter Kompalik) in view of “Polyvinylpyrrolidone” (“Polymer Synthesis and Processing 1.4.11 Polyvinylpyrrolidone”, Kariduraganavar et al., Elsevier Inc., 2014, hereinafter “Polyvinylpyrrolidone”), and Kelly (US 2016/0223269 A1, hereinafter Kelly), as evidenced by “Graphite Information” (“Graphite (C) - Classifications, Properties & Applications”, 2002, hereinafter “Graphite Information”).
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “thermal management” and “for treating a fiber, textile, or foam” are intended use/result and do not add structural difference, thus the intended use/result is extended little patentable weight. See MPEP § 2112.02.
Kompalik teaches a moldable mass is used for cooling elements and temperature control elements (abstract); the moldable mass comprises 5 to 30 wt. % graphite, 60 to 90 wt. % microcapsulated phase change material, and 5 to 10 wt. % binder (para [0012]). Thus, the weight ratio of microcapsulated phase change material to graphite as taught by Kompalik is in a range of 2:1 to 18:1, which overlaps with the claimed range of “from about 1.5:1 to about 14:1”.
“Graphite Information” as an evidentiary reference shows that graphite has a thermal conductivity of 25-470 W/m·K (p. 3, § Key Properties), which falls within the claimed range of “greater than 10 W/ m·K”.
Kompalik teaches that the moldable mass further comprises a dispersant, wherein the dispersant is added to increase the dispersibility of the mass, and the dispersant can be polyvinylpyrrolidone ([0023]; claim 7). Kompalik also teaches that the microcapsulated phase change material is stirred in a dispersant, and the resulting dispersion is mixed with the graphite wet ([0033]).
Kompalik does not explicitly teach that the moldable mass comprises water.
However, “Polyvinylpyrrolidone” teaches that polyvinylpyrrolidone is a powder and dissolved in water; and in the water solution, polyvinylpyrrolidone exhibits excellent wetting properties (p. 13, § 1.4.11 Polyvinylpyrrolidone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dissolve the polyvinylpyrrolidone used as a dispersant as taught by Kompalik in water as taught by “Polyvinylpyrrolidone” to form a solution, in order to wet the graphite and increase the dispersibility of the mass with a reasonable expectation of success, because polyvinylpyrrolidone is a solid powder and dissolved in water, and in the water solution polyvinylpyrrolidone exhibits excellent wetting properties as recognized by “Polyvinylpyrrolidone”.
Thus, the mass as taught by the combination of Kompalik and “Polyvinylpyrrolidone” would comprise water, which reads on the claimed formulation being a dispersion of the mPCM and the TCA in the water.
Kompalik does not teach that the binder comprises styrene, acrylic, styrene-acrylic, or urethane.
However, Kelly teaches a thermal management film comprising a phase change material (PCM), and an additive ([0007]), wherein the PCM includes microencapsulated PCM (mPCM) ([0101]), and the additive includes a thermally conductive additive such as graphite ([0260]).
Kelly teaches that the thermal management film further comprises a binder, wherein the binder offers a degree of protection to the mPCM against abrasion or wear during use, and the binder is adhesive ([0159]). Kelly also teaches that the binder can be a polymer that includes a set of amino groups ([0161]), and the binder can be polyurethane ([0078]), which reads on the claimed binder comprising urethane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the polyurethane as taught by Kelly as the binder in Kompalik, in order to bind the microcapsulated phase change material and graphite to form the moldable mass for cooling elements with a reasonable expectation of success, because polyurethane is used as a binder to bind mPCM and an additive such as graphite to form a thermal management film as recognized by Kelly. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Kompalik teaches a moldable mass comprising 60 to 90 wt. % microcapsulated phase change material (para [0012]), which falls within the claimed range of at least about 10 % by weight.
Regarding claim 3, Kompalik teaches a moldable mass comprising 5 to 30 wt. % graphite (para [0012]), which falls within the claimed range of at least about 1 % by weight.
Regarding claim 4, Kompalik teaches a moldable mass comprising microcapsulated phase change material (para [0012]), and the phase change material in the microcapsule can be a paraffin, a salt hydrate, or a fatty acid (para [0021]).
Regarding claim 5, Kompalik teaches a moldable mass comprising microcapsulated phase change material (para [0012]), and the phase change material in the microcapsule can be a saturated hydrocarbon of general molecular formula CnH2n+2, wherein the number n is between 18 and 32 (para [0021]), which reads on the claimed octadecane.
Regarding claim 6, Kompalik teaches a moldable mass comprising graphite (para [0012]).
Regarding claim 7, Kompalik teaches a moldable mass comprising graphite (para [0012]), the graphite can be comminuted graphite film (para [0013]), the comminuted graphite film has a particle size of between 5 and 1200 μm (para [0015]), and the particle size means the average particle size (para [0016]). Thus, the comminuted graphite film as taught by Kompalik has an average particle size of between 5 and 1200 μm, equaling to 0.005 mm to 1.2 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range of “an average particle size from 0.001 mm to 0.010 mm”.
Regarding claim 10, Kompalik teaches a moldable mass is used for cooling elements and temperature control elements (abstract); the moldable mass comprises graphite, microcapsulated phase change material, and binder (para [0012]). Kompalik teaches that the mass further comprises at least one additive which improves the properties of the mass (para [0022]).
Kompalik does not teach a flame retardant.
However, Kelly teaches a thermal management film comprising a phase change material (PCM), and an additive ([0007]), wherein the PCM includes microencapsulated PCM (mPCM) ([0101]), and the additive includes a fire retardant ([0275]). Kelly teaches that the fire retardant is added to prevent combustion, and the fire retardant includes tri-o-cresyl phosphate ([0275]), which reads on the claimed organophosphate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the moldable mass as taught by Kompalik further comprising a flame retardant such as tri-o-cresyl phosphate as taught by Kelly, in order to improve the fire resistance property for the moldable mass with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior rejections have been considered but are moot, because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection. The current rejection utilizes two new references, “Polyvinylpyrrolidone” (“Polymer Synthesis and Processing 1.4.11 Polyvinylpyrrolidone”, Kariduraganavar et al., Elsevier Inc., 2014) and Kelly (US 2016/0223269 A1), in addition to the previous reference Kompalik (US 2015/0001440 A1) under a new ground(s) of rejection which renders obvious the instant claims.
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
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761