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 Group I. in the reply filed on 7/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected grouping of invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/13/2026.
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.
Claims 1-9 are 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.
Claims are confusing as to intent because it can not be definitively ascertained what order of process operations are intended and/or how the various operations are intended to correlate with each other. It can not be determined when in relation to other process operations of the claims the various combinational, heating, and other operations of the claims are intended to occur in order to ascertain the intended metes and bounds of the claims as they currently stand set forth.
Appropriate correction is required.
Step (4) of the claims is confusing as to intent because it can not be determined what operations, if any, are intended to be defined by the recitation to “remove and treat the chlorinated polyethylene” or if the treatment is intended to be the heating operation that follows in the steps operations.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the chlorinated polyethylene" in lines 3, 6 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims are confusing as to intent because it can not be determined what aspect of the process of the claims is being further defined by these recitations in that the claim does not previously set forth or account for the inclusion of a chlorinated polyethylene within the process that is set forth by the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the reactor" and “the reactor cover” in lines 3, 4 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims are confusing as to intent because it can not be determined what aspect of the process of the claims is being further defined by these recitations in that the claim does not previously set forth or account for the inclusion of a reactor or its cover within the process that is set forth by the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al.(2010/0119812).
To the degree that the limitations of the claims can be definitively ascertained {see rejections above under 35USC112}, Fujii et al. discloses methods for preparing chlorinated polyethylene foam materials by introducing and contacting chlorinated polyethylene, water, foaming/nucleating agent as claimed, and supercritical carbon dioxide with combination being performed in containers that are pressurized and heated {see abstract, paras [0018], [0026]-[0029] & [0040]-[0047], Examples and Claims}.
Fujii et al. differs from applicants’ claims in that it does not particularly recite the pressure, heating conditions and timing as recited by the claims to the degree that these operations can be ascertained {see, again, rejection(s) above under 35USC112}. However, heating and pressurization operations falling in overlap with those of applicants’ claims are set forth {see paras[0045]-[0047], Examples and Claims}. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have utilized any pressures and temperatures provided for by Fujii et al. and applied them for any amount of time in the processes of Fujii et al. as motivated by the purpose of effectively impregnating and expanding articles formed in the processes of Fufii et al. in order to arrive at the processes of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results.
Regarding any difference that may be evident regarding timing of the introduction of water in the processes of the instant concern {see, again, rejection(s) above under 35USC112}. Fujii et al. provides for its inclusion for its cooling capability {see paras [0042], [0043] and [0079]}. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have utilized water, in any amount [note: claim 6], as provided for by Fujii et al. at any time in the processes of Fujii et al. for the purpose of effectively providing its recognized cooling/heat sinking effects in order to arrive at the processes of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al.(2010/0119812) as applied to claims 1-8 above, and further in view of CN 113402876.
Fujii et al. differs from applicants’ claims in that it does not particularly require inclusion of graphene in its processes. However, it does recognize allowance for inclusion of reinforcing agents in its processes {para [0035]} and CN 113402876 discloses utilization of graphene in closely related thermoplastic polymer material preparations for the purpose of imparting its recognized mechanical reinforcing effects {see page 2 of translation}. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have utilized the graphene of CN 113402876 as a reinforcing agent in the processes of Fujii et al. for the purpose of effectively imparting good reinforcing effects in order to arrive at the processes of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 107383567 is cited for its relevant disclosures regarding utilization of graphene in thermoplastic preparational processes of the instant concern.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Cooney whose telephone number is 571-272-1070. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached on 571-270-1831. 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.
/JOHN M COONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights