DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the RCE filed September 17, 2026.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over FUKUDA et al (2018/0174698) and as evidence by UZAWA et al (JP-2002-226721A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over MAKIGAWA et al (WO-2019/146715 A1)
The claimed invention recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
472
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MAKIGAWA et al report a conductive resin composition and a water-soluble polymer that anticipates the claimed conductive composite of claim 1, see Production Example 2, page 46, para. [0148] wherein the water-soluble polymer is polymerized comprising vinylpyrrolidone with 3 grams of dilauroyl peroxide as a polymerization initiator. This synthetic process is the same as disclosed in the current application (Production Example 3, page 16), which would generate a surfactant that has a critical micelle concentration in an aqueous solvent of less than 0.1% by mass
The formulation with a conductive polymer as in Example 1 on page 48, para. [0156] would anticipate the claimed conductive composite.
Claims 2 recites the content of the surfactant is 10 parts by mass to 100 parts by mass of the conductive polymer and is met in Example 1 in Table 1 on page 51 wherein the content of the water-soluble polymer to the conductive polymer is 0.2: 1.8.
Claims 5 and 13 are reported above for the hydrophobic terminal group with a nitrogen-containing unit making it a cationic surfactant.
Claims 6 and 7 are reported on page 22, para. [0389] wherein the acid dissociation constant, the molecular weight and the content is inherent based on the same or similar basic compounds disclosed in above Table 1, Production Example 2.
Claim 8 to the conductive polymer having an acid group is found in page, 45, para. [0146] above.
Claim 9 recites a surface resistivity which is less than 1 x 1010 Ω/□ which is disclosed in Example 1 in Table 1 on page 51, see below:
PNG
media_image2.png
584
828
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 10 and 11 are disclosed in Table 1 wherein the Examples form a coating material.
Claim 12 to the method is found in para. [[0143] to [0144] on pages 43 and 44
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of conductive composition to duplicate the conductive film of MAKIGAWA et al with the reasonable expectation of same or similar results for excellent antistatic performance and excellent application properties, does not adversely affect a resist and is suitable for electron beam lithography.
The critical micelle concentration is not explicitly disclosed as a property, however the water-soluble polymer of the MAKIGAWA et al is synthesized in the same manner as Production Example 3 of the current application that the critical micelle concentration of same or similar compounds would yield same or similar results.
Claims 3, and 13-20 are seen as allowed.
None of the prior art references of record disclose the water-soluble polymer in a content of 110 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of a conductive polymer wherein the water-soluble polymer has a critical micelle concentration of 0.1% by mass or more (as seen in FUKUDA et al Production Example 3A found in para. [0581].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S. CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-1329. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, IFP-Flex.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/John S. Chu/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
J. Chu
September 26, 2026
