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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I with claims 19-29 in the reply filed on
11/4/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 30-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/4/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 19-25, 28-29, are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause (US20110147675, herein Krause), in the view of Rudolfovich (RU2705066, herein Rudolfovich, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regarding Claims 19, 20, 28, Krause teaches conductive polyurethane formation process [0010] via reaction of organic polyisocyanates (A) with compounds (B) containing NCO-reactive groups [0010], wherein, the carbon nanotubes are mixed into the compounds (B) containing NCO-reactive groups and/or the polyisocyanates (A) [0011] and optionally using catalysts [0010]; Krause teaches dispersion was carried out at a rotational speed of from 1750 to 2350 revolutions per minute [0072], which encompasses the rotation speed of 4 m/sec (2100 rpm); mixture was stirred at impeller rotation speed 4 m/sec (2000 rpm) [Instant App. US20230257548; 0070], hence, although Krause does not explicitly teach the claimed energy and the linear speed of an impeller outer edge of the mixing process, the specific rotational speed range of Krause can match the effective outcome of the claimed energy and the linear speed of an impeller outer edge apply in mixing process, wherein, the rotational speed is a result effective variable and can be optimized to produce the desired degree of mixing energy and speed upon the specific rpm selection. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Krause teaches d) the polyurethane is cured [0014] upon the mixing step b) [0012]. Krause does not explicitly teach the carbon nanotubes in the carbon nanotube concentrate is less than 0.1 wt. % of a total mass of (A) and (B), however, Rudolfovich teaches superconcentrate containing TUBALL™ SWNTs [0032], which reads on the carbon nanotube concentrate; and the composition of curable polyurethane resin and filler in the form of single-wall carbon nanotubes with a content of the latter of 0.001-0.1 mass.%. [0020], wherein, the component (A), (B) form the curable polyurethane resin, hence, the range of single-wall carbon nanotubes lies in the claimed range. Krause and Rudolfovich are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of functional polyurethane-carbon nanotube hybrid composites formation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the superconcentrate containing TUBALL™ SWNTs [0032]; and the composition of curable polyurethane resin and filler in the form of single-wall carbon nanotubes with a content of the latter of 0.001-0.1 mass.% [0020], into the composite formulation. Doing so would further achieve the desired property as of creating floor coverings with antistatic properties and good homogeneity [0019].
Regarding Claim 21, Krause and Rudolfovich teach the method of producing a conductive polyurethane composite as set forth above in claim 19. Krause does not teach the specific steps of the carbon nanotube concentrate is pre-mixed with one or several auxiliary components, however, Krause teaches all ingredients of the process for preparing the conductive polyurethane composite as claimed in claim 1, including: organic polyisocyanates (A) with compounds (B) containing NCO-reactive groups [0010], the carbon nanotubes [0011] and catalysts [0010], therefore, it will lead to the claimed product via the order of mixing. The selection of mixing order is prima facie obvious. [MPEP 2144.4C].
Regarding Claims 22, 23, 24, 25, Krause and Rudolfovich teach the method of producing a conductive polyurethane composite as set forth above in claim 19. Krause teaches carbon nanotubes [0010], but does not teach the specific carbon nanotubes and wherein the carbon nanotube concentrate comprises 1 to 80 wt. % carbon nanotubes. However, Rudolfovich teaches superconcentrate containing 10% TUBALL™ SWNTs [0032], lies in the claimed range and reads on the specific carbon nanotube as the solo carbon nanotube used in the concentrate, lead to the specific features of the ratio of intensities of G and D bands in a Raman spectrum for light wavelength 532 nm from the carbon nanotube concentrate is more than 50, owing to the specificity of the TUBALL™ SWNTs selection from the instant application. Krause and Rudolfovich are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of functional polyurethane-carbon nanotube hybrid composites formation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the superconcentrate containing 10% TUBALL™ SWNTs [0032], into the composite formulation. Doing so would further achieve the desired property as of creating floor coverings with antistatic properties and good homogeneity [0019].
Regarding Claim 29, Krause teaches rotor-stator system (laboratory high-speed mixer) [0072].
Claims 26-27 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause (US20110147675, herein Krause), and Rudolfovich (RU2705066, herein Rudolfovich, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) as applied in claim 19 above, in the view of Tse (US20190085222, herein Tse).
Regarding Claims 26, 27, Krause and Rudolfovich teach the method of producing a conductive polyurethane composite as set forth above in claim 19. Krause does not teach wherein the carbon nanotube concentrate comprises 20 to 99 wt. % of one or several esters of aliphatic alcohols with phthalic acid, or sebacic acid, or adipic acid, or 1,2-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid; wherein the carbon nanotube concentrate comprises 20 to 99 wt. % of one or several alcohols with a general formula CnH2n-x(OH)x, where n and x are integers greater than 1. However, Tse teaches plasticizers including: 1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid diisononyl ester [0083]; poly(ethylene glycol) [0083], with the formula H(OCH2CH2)nOH, reads on the claimed alcohol, in the range of up to 45 weight percent [0086] overlap the claimed ranges; inorganic particle, in the range of up to 45 weight percent [0085-86]. Krause and Tse are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of functional polymer-inorganic particles hybrid composites formation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the plasticizers including: 1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid diisononyl ester [0083]; poly(ethylene glycol) [0083], with the formula H(OCH2CH2)nOH, reads on the claimed alcohol, in the range of up to 45 weight percent [0086] overlap the claimed ranges; inorganic particle, in the range of up to 45 weight percent [0085-86], and form the inorganic particle concentrate with the plasticizer within the claimed concentration range, and further apply into the functional hybrid composite formulation. Doing so would further achieve the desired homogeneity of the mixing components including inorganic particles into the polymeric composites, upon the assistance of the liquid plasticizers.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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.
/Z.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767