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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed February 13, 2026 has been entered. Claims 4 and 8 were previously canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-22 are pending in the application. Claims 13-21 are withdrawn due to a previous restriction requirement. Applicant’s amendments to Claim 1 and new Claim 22 are supported in the claims and Specification as originally filed.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 11-12, and 22 are rejected under 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Dustin et al., (US 2021/0047523; hereafter as “Dustin”).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 5 and 22, Dustin teaches a conductive composite [Abstract; Paragraphs 0011, 0017; Claims 1, 8, 9]. Dustin further teaches:
a polymer that can be a rigid polymer or an elastomeric polymer [Paragraphs 0011, 0017 and 0052] corresponding to the elastic polymer of Claim 1;
a thickening agent, such as graphite, which is substantially spherical [Paragraph 0211, 0089], wherein “substantially spherical” will be interpreted to be equivalent to an aspect ratio of about 1, thereby corresponding to ellipsoidal particles with an aspect ratio of 0.5 to 1.7 of Claim 1, and corresponding to wherein the aspect ratio is between 0.9 and 1.1 of Claim 22;
a low melting conductor [Paragraphs 0011, 0017] selected from metals and metal alloys having a metaling temperature below about 60˚C that can be made with a liquid metal such as a gallium alloy [Paragraph 0023], corresponding to the liquid metal inclusion of Claim 1, a metal having a melting point below 100 ˚C of Claim 2, and wherein the metal comprises gallium of Claim 3;
a compatibilizing agent [Paragraphs 0011, 0017] that comprises metallic nanoparticles including titanium [Paragraph 0071], corresponding to the particles, wherein the low-density phase comprises a material having density less than a density of the liquid metal inclusion of Claim 1 (density of gallium: 5.91 g/cc; density of titanium: 4.5 g/cc), and wherein the plurality of particles of the low-density phase comprises a plurality of microspheres of Claim 5; and
wherein the thickening agent, such as the graphite ellipsoid particles, is combined with the low melting conductor such as gallium, and compatibilizing agent such as the titanium are mixed into a paste and then said paste is mixed into said polymer [Paragraph 0078], and the mixing of the compatibilizing agent with the low melting conductor produces a coating of compatibilizing agent on the surface of particles or droplets of the low melting conductor [Paragraph 0066], corresponding to a plurality of ellipsoid particles dispersed in the elastic polymer, the plurality of ellipsoidal particles each comprising: a liquid metal inclusion; and a low-density phase of Claim 1.
Dustin is silent to the aspect ratio under strain. The absence of strain will be interpreted to overlap with 0% strain, corresponding with the aspect ratio under 0% strain of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Dustin teaches a polymer comprising a silicone [Figure 3; Paragraphs 0031, 0055, 0187], corresponding to wherein the elastic polymer comprises silicone.
Regarding Claim 11 , Dustin teaches compatibilizing agent is a surfactant [Paragraphs 0075 and 0185], thereby reading on the surfactants of the claimed affinity-promoting layer disposed between the low-density phase and liquid metal inclusion of Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, Dustin teaches the thickening agent may include metal oxides [Paragraph 0090], corresponding to wherein the affinity-promoting layer comprises a metal oxide of Claim 12.
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Dustin et al., (US 2021/0047523; hereafter as “Dustin”).
Regarding Claims 9-10, Dustin teaches the elements of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 9, Dustin teaches the thickening agent, corresponding to the ellipsoidal particles, comprises substantially of spherical particles having an average particle size of about 0.1-500 µm [Paragraph 0081]. Dustin further teaches the compatabilizing agent, such as titanium nanoparticles, which correspond to the particles (diameter of compatibilizing agent particles: < 100 nm) [Paragraph 0071].
Dustin does not particularly teach the diameter of the ellipsoidal particles has a diameter at least five times but no more than ten times a diameter of the particles of the low density phase.
However, Dustin teaches the ellipsoidal particles have an average particle size of about 0.1 – 500 µm and further teaches the titanium nanoparticles have a diameter less than 100 nm (which corresponds to 0.1 µm). As such, the diameter of the ellipsoidal particles to the diameter of the particles of the low density phase would be greater than 1-5,000 µm (0.1 µm / 0.1 µm = 1; and 500 µm / 0.1 µm = 5000).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the ratio of diameter of ellipsoidal particles to particles is greater than 1-5,000 which overlaps the claimed range. By choosing the overlapping portion of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicants, it has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP section 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 10, Dustin teaches a conductive composite [Paragraphs 0070, and 0100-0102], can be made by combining:
a low melting conductor, that can be a liquid metal such as a gallium alloy [Paragraph 0023], comprising 0.1 to about 50% volume percent [Paragraph 0091 and 0101], which overlaps the at least 20% and no more than 80% by volume of the liquid metal inclusion; and
a thickening agent, that can be graphite or carbon particles [Paragraph 0089], in the range from about 5 to about 50 % by volume [Paragraphs 0085-0086 and 0101], which overlaps the no more than 75% by volume of the low-density phase; and
a polymer or a mixture of polymers [Paragraph 0102].
However, Dustin is silent to the remaining balance by volume of the elastic polymer.
Nevertheless, Dustin teaches the conductive composite can be made by combining the low melting conductor, thickening agent and polymer [Paragraphs 0100-0102]. Furthermore, Dustin teaches the amounts of each of the elements of the composite will be dictated by the use of the composite [Paragraph 0091].
It should be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Dustin teaches amounts of the low melting conductor and thickening agent that overlap the claimed ranges. By choosing the overlapping portion of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicants, it has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP section 2144.05(I).
Furthermore, it should be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if the conductive composite only comprises the aforementioned three elements, if Dustin teaches fixed ranges of the low melting conductor and thickening agent, that the third and final element, the polymer, must comprise the remaining balance of the conductive composite, corresponding to the claimed remaining balance by volume of the elastic polymer. In addition, since the taught ranges of the low melting conductor and thickening agent fall within the claimed ranges, the taught range of the polymer must also fall within the claimed range of the elastic polymer.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dustin et al., (US 2021/0047523; hereafter as “Dustin”) in view of Questel et al., (US 5177124; hereafter as “Questel”).
Dustin teaches the elements of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
However, Dustin does not teach a plurality of hollow glass microspheres.
Nevertheless, Questel teaches light-weight objects made from plastic resin embedded with metal particles [Abstract]. Questel further teaches said light-weight objects may comprise hollow microspheres of glass which will prevent said metal particles from floating to the surface of the cured resin [Column 5, Lines 6-20].
Dustin and Questel are considered to be analogous art as the claimed lightweight liquid metal composition, as all are in the same field of polymer compositions wherein the polymers are embedded with metal inclusions and other materials to modify material properties of the final composition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conductive composite of Dustin by adding the hollow glass microspheres as taught by Questel. This modification would allow control of where the metal particles are embedded in the final cured resin, thereby improving the final composition and arriving at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al., (US 10,254,499 B1; hereafter as “Cohen”) in view of Dustin et al., (US 2021/0047523; hereafter as “Dustin”).
Regarding Claims 1-3 and 5, Cohen teaches a dielectric material that is an electrically conductive polymer composite [Abstract; Col. 24, Line 28 – Col. 25, Line 7 and Col. 118, Line 58 – Col. 119, Line 7], corresponding to the lightweight liquid metal composition of Claim 1. Cohen further teaches:
eutectic gallium [Col. 118, Line 58 – Col. 119, Line 7], corresponding to the liquid metal inclusion of Claim 1, a metal having a melting point below 100˚C of Claim 2, and wherein the metal comprises gallium of Claim 3;
boron nitride powder [Col. 118, Line 58 – Col. 119, Line 7], corresponding to the low-density phase comprises a material having a density less than a density of the liquid metal inclusion of Claim 1 (density of eutectic gallium: 6.25 g/cc; density of boron nitride: 2.1 g/cc); and a plurality of microspheres of Claim 5; and
a polymer composite that is an elastomer [Col. 24, Line28 – Col. 25, Line 7, and Col. 118, Line 58 – Col. 119, Line 7], corresponding to the elastic polymer of Claim 1.
However, Cohen is silent to a plurality of ellipsoidal particles dispersed in the elastic polymer, the plurality of ellipsoidal particles each comprising: a liquid metal inclusion and a low-density phase of Claim 1.
Nevertheless, Dustin teaches a conductive composite [Abstract; Paragraphs 0011, 0017; Claims 1, 8, 9]. Dustin further teaches said composite may comprise particles which are substantially spherical [Paragraph 0211]. Dustin also teaches that modifications of the particle size and geometry dictate how readily said particles homogenize and thicken compositions [Paragraph 0079]. Dustin further teaches a thickening agent, such as the graphite ellipsoid particles, is combined with the low melting conductor such as gallium, and compatibilizing agent such as the titanium are mixed into a paste and then said paste is mixed into said polymer [Paragraph 0078], and the mixing of the compatibilizing agent with the low melting conductor produces a coating of compatibilizing agent on the surface of particles or droplets of the low melting conductor [Paragraph 0066], corresponding to a plurality of ellipsoid particles dispersed in the elastic polymer, the plurality of ellipsoidal particles each comprising: a liquid metal inclusion; and a low-density phase of Claim 1. Dustin also teaches said composite is a substantially uniform blend or mixture to ensure the conductivity of the composite does not diminish over time [Paragraph 0038].
Cohen and Dustin are considered to be analogous art as the claimed lightweight liquid metal composition, as all are in the same field of polymer compositions wherein the polymers are embedded with metal inclusions and other materials to modify material properties of the final composition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the particles that are substantially spherical taught by Dustin, correspond to the claimed plurality of ellipsoidal particles. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to modify the inclusion of Cohen by adding the particles which are substantially spherical as taught by Dustin. This modification would allow tailoring of the inclusion properties such as the homogeneity and thickness, thereby improving the final composition and arriving at the claimed invention.
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the inclusion of Cohen by substantially blending or mixing the composition as taught by Dustin. This modification would ensure that the conductivity of the composite does not diminish over time, thereby improving the final composition and arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 6, Cohen teaches hollow glass microspheres [Col. 21, Lines 38-48; and Col. 24, Line28 – Col. 25, Line 7], corresponding to wherein the plurality of microspheres comprises a plurality of hollow glass microspheres.
Regarding Claim 7, Cohen teaches silicone [Col. 24, Lines 38-48 - Col. 25, Line 7; Col. 94, Lines 50-67; Fig. 106], corresponding to wherein the elastic polymer comprises silicone.
Regarding Claim 9, Cohen teaches that particle sizes need to be taken into consideration because particles that are too big may clog the printhead nozzle [Col. 101, Lines 21-46].
However, Cohen is silent to ellipsoidal particles with a diameter that is at least five times and no more than ten times a diameter of the plurality of particles of the low-density phase.
Nevertheless, Dustin teaches the thickening agent, which corresponds to the claimed plurality of ellipsoidal particles, comprises substantially of spherical particles having an average particle size of about 0.1-500 µm [Paragraph 0081] (diameter of thickening agent particles: 0.1-500 µm). Dustin also teaches the compatibilizing agent, which corresponds to the claimed plurality of particles of the low-density phase (diameter of compatibilizing agent particles: < 0.1 µm; ratio of diameter of ellipsoidal particles to particles > 1-5,000) [Paragraph 0071]. Dustin further teaches that the particle size dictates how readily the particles homogenize with other components of the composition [Paragraph 0079].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Dustin teaches the range of ratios that overlap the claimed ranges. By choosing the overlapping portion of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicants, it has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP section 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 10, Cohen is silent to wherein the composition comprises:
at least 20% and no more than 80% by volume of the liquid metal inclusion,
no more than 75% by volume of the low-density phase,
and a remaining balance by volume of the elastic polymer.
However, Dustin teaches a conductive composite [Paragraphs 0070, and 0100-0102], can be made by combining:
a low melting conductor, that can be a liquid metal such as a gallium alloy [Paragraph 0023], corresponding to the liquid metal inclusion, comprising 0.1 to about 50% volume percent [Paragraph 0091 and 0101], which overlaps the at least 20% and no more than 80% by volume of the liquid metal inclusion; and
a thickening agent, that can be graphite or carbon particles [Paragraph 0089], corresponding to the low-density phase comprising a plurality of particles, in the range from about 5 to about 50 % by volume [Paragraphs 0085-0086 and 0101], which overlaps the no more than 75% by volume of the low-density phase; and
a polymer or a mixture of polymers [Paragraph 0102].
However, Dustin is silent to the remaining balance by volume of the elastic polymer.
Nevertheless, Dustin teaches the conductive composite can be made by combining the low melting conductor, thickening agent and polymer [Paragraphs 0100-0102]. Furthermore, Dustin teaches the amounts of each of the elements of the composite will be dictated by the use of the composite [Paragraph 0091].
It should be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Cohen and Dustin teach the elements and the amounts of the low melting conductor and thickening agent that overlap the claimed ranges. By choosing the overlapping portion of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicants, it has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP section 2144.05(I).
Furthermore, it should be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if the conductive composite only comprises the aforementioned three elements, if Dustin teaches fixed ranges of the low melting conductor and thickening agent, that the third and final element, the polymer, must comprise the remaining balance of the conductive composite, corresponding to the remaining balance by volume of the elastic polymer. In addition, since the taught ranges of the low melting conductor and thickening agent fall within the claimed ranges, the taught range of the polymer must also fall within the claimed range of the elastic polymer.
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Cohen is silent to an affinity-promoting layer of Claim 11, and wherein the affinity-promoting layer comprises a metal oxide of Claim 12.
However, Dustin teaches a compatibilizing agent, such as a surfactant [Paragraphs 0075 and 0185] or metal oxides [Paragraph 0090], thereby reading on the surfactants and metal oxides, respectively, of the claimed affinity-promoting layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the composite of Cohen by adding a compatibilizing agent, such as a surfactant or metal oxide, as taught by Dustin. This modification would prevent the components from melting prior to or during the manufacture of the composite, improving the final product and thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (1) Dustin fails to teach a thickening agent having an aspect ratio of 0.5 to 1.7 under 0% strain, and (2) the cited prior art does not teach or suggest each and every element of the claims. However, attention is directed to the disclosure above wherein Dustin teaches a thickening agent, such as graphite, which is substantially spherical [Paragraph 0211, 0089], wherein “substantially spherical” will be interpreted to be equivalent to an aspect ratio of about 1, thereby corresponding to ellipsoidal particles with an aspect ratio of 0.5 to 1.7 of Claim 1. Dustin is also silent to the aspect ratio under strain which will be interpreted to overlap with 0% strain, corresponding with the aspect ratio under 0% strain of Claim 1. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (3) "Dustin's ellipsoidal particles, as described in paragraph [0080] of Dustin, have an aspect ratio greater than 2." However, attention is drawn to the disclosure of Dustin, wherein Dustin teaches the particles are substantially spherical or have an aspect ratio of greater than 2. The spherical particles of Dustin read on the claimed aspect ratio. The aspect ratio of greater than 2 is considered an alternate embodiment to the spherical particles in Dustin. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (4) the ellipsoidal particles having an aspect ratio of 0.5 to 1.7 under 0% strain comports the presence of the unexpected property of the unique combination of thermal and electrical conductivity of the composition. Applicant claims unexpected properties are disclosed in ¶ 0068 of the instant Specification. However, ¶ 0068 of the instant Specification states that “this enhancement in the direct of stretch can be attributed to the coupling between the liquid inclusion and elastomer matrix….This phenomenon can be predicted using the modified Bruggeman approach by considering the change in aspect ratio of the liquid inclusions” (emphasis added). The predictability of the results, from a known theory, nonetheless, indicates that contrary to applicant’s argument, one of ordinary skill would not consider this to be unexpected. Furthermore, the data disclosed in ¶ 0068 implies that the unique thermal and electrical properties of the claimed invention are attributable to the application of strain. The claimed range of 0% strain is equivalent to the absence of strain and thus, the claimed invention would lack the feature (the strain deformation) that gives it the purported unexpected properties. According to the instant Specification, the claimed invention with 0% strain range would completely lack these purported properties. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, ARRIE 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.
/DORIS LING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights