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 Group I, claims 20-26, 35-36 in the reply filed on 4/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 27-24, 37-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 4/21/2026.
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.
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 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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miteva (US 2019/0085237).
Miteva teaches nanoparticles of a polymeric organic matrix (abstract) where the nanoparticle has a diameter of 10-1000 nm (¶ 77), the polymeric organic matrix includes polyurethane (¶ 76) and the nanoparticle can be coated with polydopamine (¶ 320). Polydopamine provides photothermal properties. See instant specification, pg. 1.
While Miteva does not expressly recite an example having a polyurethane nanoparticle coated with polydopamine, it would have been obvious to use polyurethane and polydopamine because Miteva teaches polyurethane is a suitable polymer (¶ 76) and polydopamine is a suitable coating (¶ 320) and because “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art…” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP 2123.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miteva (US 2019/0085237) in view of Xia (CN 107057326).
The discussion with respect to Miteva above is incorporated by reference.
Miteva 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.
Conclusion
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