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 without traverse of claim 1-18 and 31-40 in the reply filed on 12/31/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-30 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2: “one or more shape” should be “one or more shapes”.
Claim 10: “and or a releasable ingredient” should be “and/or a releasable ingredient”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the RF and/or MW radiation" in claim 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10 and 12-18 and 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stark (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2004/0129924).
Regarding claim 1, Stark discloses a heating agent material including at least one of a plurality of non-conductive susceptors and at least one plurality of conductive susceptors which are capable of generating heat (i.e. thermal activation) under an alternating magnetic field (i.e. an electromagnetic). (Abstract and par. [0005]-[0007]). The susceptors disclosed therefore meet the limitations of element (ii) in claim 1.
The susceptors are further dispersed in a matrix material, equivalent to element (i) in claim 1, which includes polymeric materials, including thermoplastics, which would capable of altering their physical characteristics in response to heat, stress or addition of other fillers therein. (par. [0010]-[0011], [0059] and [0063]). The susceptors and matrix may be shaped in the form of a pellet (par. [0063]) thereby forming a matrix particle. Additional materials, equivalent to element (iii) in claim 1, may be included with the susceptor and matrix such as ceramic materials which would meet the limitation of a releasable or activatable material which have compounds that would be capable of impacting a chemical reaction. (par. [0064]). Additionally, the disclosure in Stark of including a mixture of non-conductive susceptors and conductive susceptors would result in a structure wherein either of the susceptor materials would meet the limitations of (ii) while the other would meet the limitations of (iii) because the susceptors are in the form of particles (par. [0047]) and would therefore be activatable/releasable and given their magnetic or conductive nature, capable of impacting a chemical reaction as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Stark discloses that the susceptor particles can be positioned either on the surface of the matrix material or embedded therein. (par. [0018] and [0021]). The matrix pellet would therefore have a structure wherein the matrix would have the shape of a pellet containing a discrete zone having the matrix material and a zone containing a layer/coating of susceptors and wherein the matrix may further include the ceramic materials in par. [0064]).
Regarding claim 3, the matrix material includes polymeric materials, including thermoplastics, which would capable of altering their physical characteristics in response to heat, stress or addition of other fillers therein. (par. [0010]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 4, the susceptor materials include carbon powder, ferrous metals and oxides, non-ferrous metals and oxides, transition metals and oxide. (par. [0047]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 5, the susceptors are disclosed to lie in the range of 5-100 microns (par. [0050]) which lies within the presently claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, the susceptors includes non-functionalized susceptors. (par. [0047]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 8, the susceptors may be present as an outer layer on the matrix and would therefore be in direct or indirect contact with other susceptors/ceramic particles in the matrix. (par. [0018] and [0021]).
Regarding claims 9-10, the coating of the matrix material with susceptors as disclosed in par. [0018] and [0021] would result in a partial or full layer of a deformable material since the metals disclosed for the susceptors (par. [0050] would meet the limitation of a “deformable material” as claimed.
Regarding claim 12-13, the ceramic particles or susceptor materials meet the limitation of a single/combination of chemicals and include organic chemicals in the form of ICPs (par. [0051]) or inorganic chemicals (par. [0050] and [0064]). These materials would also meet the limitation of a “co-reactant”, oxidizer, accelerator, reaction inhibiting compounds, fuels and catalysts.
Regarding claim 14, given that the materials are in the form of particles or compounded into the matrix, they would be releasable when the matrix becomes non-solid or ruptures including by deformation, dissolution, melting, expansion, contraction, solvated, plasticized or damaged by light.
Regarding claim 16, the surface of the matrix material can be surface modified with the susceptors as disclosed in par. [0018] and [0021]. While the reference does not specifically disclose that the surface modification is “via one or more chemical reactions”, the method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 17, the presence of susceptors on the surface of the matrix as disclosed in par. [0018] and [0021] would impart a chemical functionality to the surface of the matrix.
Regarding claim 18, the claim further limits an optional limitation in claim 1 and is therefore considered optional.
Regarding claim 31, the mixture of the pellets disclosed in par. [0063] would meet the limitation of a “bulk reaction mixture”.
Regarding claim 32, the matrix materials including polymeric thermoplastics would meet the limitation of components not impacted by RF/MW radiation.
Regarding claim 33, the matrix material may include polystyrene and polymethylmethacrylate. (par. [0059]).
Regarding claims 34-35, the claim further limits an optional limitation in claim 1 and is therefore considered optional.
Regarding claim 37, Stark discloses using the heating agent uses a polymer matrix wherein each polymer would be a polymerizable composition (par. [0059]) to form a laminated article. (par. [0063]).
Regarding claim 38, the heating agent can be used as an adhesive, coating molded plastic material or other polymer forming composition. (Abstract, par. [0011], [0063] and [0071]-[0075]).
Regarding claim 39, the ceramic and susceptors include catalyst materials including transition metals (such as zinc, titanium or nickel). (par. [0060] and [0064]).
Regarding claim 40, the pellets formed according to [0063]) would result in a mixture of pellets formed in one or more layers.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2004/0129924).
Regarding claim 7, Stark does not explicitly disclose that the susceptors are in the geometric center of the matrix. However, the susceptors may be mixed “randomly dispersed” within matrix material with a controllable loading amount (par. [0022], [0033]-[0034] and [0065]). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include susceptors in the geometric center of the matrix pellets in order to effect heat generation in the center of the matrix material.
Regarding claim 11, Stark does not explicitly disclose that the matrix contains no susceptors. However, Stark discloses the susceptors may be present as an outer layer on the matrix and would therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a structure wherein the susceptors are only present on the surface of the matrix and therefore the matrix material does not include any susceptors or releasable ingredient, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 03/04/2026