DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 8/18/2026. In particular, claim 20 has been amended to recite the particles are homogeneously dispersed and stable in a basic aqueous medium. This presents the claims in a manner with a scope not previously examined. Thus, the following action is properly made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2016, 3, 216-221 in view of Bouchemal, International Journal of Pharmaceutics 269 (2004) 89-100.
Kim teaches forming polyurethane microcapsules which are then coated with polydopamine (pg. 217). Polydopamine provides photothermal properties. See instant specification, pg. 1. Kim teaches the microcapsules are suspended in a pH 8.5 buffer solution (pg. 217, left column). A buffer solution is an aqueous solution. A pH of 8.5 is basic. A suspension is a homogenous dispersion.
Kim does not expressly recite the particles are in the sub-micron scale.
However, Bouchemal teaches polyurethane nanocapsules having particle sizes of 150-500 nm (abstract). It would have been obvious to use the particle sizes of Bouchemal because less mechanical energy is needed to obtain capsules and because there is a lower risk of diffusion from the capsule (pg. 98).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2016, 3, 216-221 in view of Bouchemal, International Journal of Pharmaceutics 269 (2004) 89-100 and Xia (CN 107057326).
The discussion with respect to Kim and Bouchemal above is incorporated by reference.
Kim does not explicitly recite a phase change material.
However, it is noted polyurethane is a polymeric material and a phase change material (see ¶ 11 of Xia) and therefore meets the limitations of claims 21-22.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-26, 35-36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 23 recites the phase change material is polyethylene glycol. Claims 24-26, 35-36 recite the ratio of particles to phase change material.
Relative prior art includes Chen, Progress in Organic Coatings 137 (2019) 105288, pg. 1-7, Huang (CN 108148354), Xia (CN 107057326), Kim, Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett., 2016, 3, 216-221, Lin, J. Appl. Polym Sci. 2020: 137e49252 pg. 1-12, Schoth, Langmuir 2015, 31, 3784-3788, and Yang, ChemPysChem 2018, 19, 2052-2057.
Chen teaches polydopamine as a reinforcement in the coating of nano-silver on polyurethane surfaces (abstract). Chen falls outside the scope of the instant claims because the polydopamine is coated on nano-silver while the claims require a particle of polyurethane.
Huang teaches a hybrid particle modified polymer composite material (¶ 2) having polydopamine coated nanoparticles (¶ 9). Huang teaches a polymer include polyurethane resin (¶ 21). However, Huang fails to teach the nanoparticles are polyurethane. Rather, Huang teaches the nanoparticles are zirconium oxide, silicon oxide, or titanium oxide (¶ 22) which is outside the scope of the claims.
Xia teaches shape memory self healing composite materials (¶ 2) of a polydopamine polymer composite material (¶6). Xia fails to teach a polyurethane particle is present, but instead teaches polydopamine particles which fall outside the scope of the claims.
Kim teaches forming polyurethane microcapsules which are then coated with polydopamine (pg. 217). Kim fails to teach the phase change materials recited in claim 23 or the ratio of polydopamine and particles or polydopamine to phase change materials claimed.
Lin teaches a thermoplastic polyurethane material (pg. 1) which is formed into nanofibers and then coated with polydopamine (Figure 1). The nanofibers of Lin are longer than 2 microns (Figure 2) and thus are not in the sub-micron scale as required by the claims.
Schoth teaches submicrometer capsules having polyurethane shells (abstract) where the capsules can contain an inorganic salt phase change material (abstract). Schoth fails to teach a polydopamine coating and Schoth fails to teach the specific claimed phase change materials recited.
Yang teaches nanometer scale polydopamine particles (Fig. 1) which are introduced into a shape memory polyurethane (abstract). Yang fails to teach polydopamine coats polyurethane particles as required by the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because Kim teaches the microcapsules are suspended in a pH 8.5 buffer solution (pg. 217, left column). A buffer solution is an aqueous solution. A pH of 8.5 is basic. A suspension is a homogenous dispersion.
The rejection over Miteva is withdrawn as Miteva does not explicitly recite an aqueous basic solution.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROBERT C BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10am-4pm.
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 at (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.
/ROBERT C BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights