DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-10 are pending.
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 .
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are (citations are in reference to the published application (US 2025/0144577):
The specification states “an oligo-layer graphene with a solid weight ratio of 1-30 wt%...relative to the thermal conductive and breathable membrane…” (see para. 0006) and “dispersing the slurry…an oligo-layer graphene with a solid weight ratio or 1-30 wt%...” It is not clear what the “solid weight ratio” is referring to. For example it is the weight of graphene (solid) to the total weight of the finished membrane, the weight of graphene to the weight of the graphene slurry, the weight of all solids in the slurry to the total weight of the slurry, or something else.
The specification states “polyrotaxane with a solid weight content of 0.05 to 10 wt% relative to the thermal conductive and breathable membrane” (para. 0006) and “polyrotaxane with a solid weight content of 0.05-10 wt%...are added in batches…” (para. 0015) It is not clear if “solid weight content” is the weight percentage of polyrotaxane in the finished membrane, the weight percentage of polyrotaxane in the mixture of polyrotaxane and silica powder added to the graphene slurry, the weight percentage of polyrotaxane after being added to the slurry, or something else. It is further not clear if “solid weigh content” (used in reference to polyrotaxane or polyurethane) and “solid weight ratio” (used in reference to oligo-layer graphene and silica) are different types of values.
The specification states “wherein, high-concentration oligo-layer graphene dispersion slurry/SA2405P-20/OK-412 is mixed at a ratio of 10/1.33/2, the effective addition amount of graphene is 20%” (para. 0020). It is not clear if the ratio is given based on weight, volume, or something else or if the percentage of graphene is based on weight or volume or something else.
The specification states “the solid weight content of the polyurethane resin is between 15-20%” (see para. 0021). It is not clear if the “solid weight content” is referring to the total solids content of the resin before mixing with the composite fluid, after mixing, the weight of polyurethan in the resin or something else.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim refuser to “the preferred solid weight ratio of the polyrotaxane”, however claim 1 refers to a “solid weight content” of polyrotaxane. The terms should be consistent within the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
The claim states “which adds an oligo-layer graphene with a solid weight ratio of 1~30 wt% and a polyrotaxane with a solid weight content of 0.05 to 10wt% relative to the thermal conductive and breathable membrane to a polyurethane resin”. It is not clear if this is a product by process limitation of a step adding an oligo-layer graphene and polyrotaxane to polyurethane resin to form a membrane or limiting the composition of the membrane to 1 to about 30 wt% oligo-layer graphene and 0.05 to 10wt % polyrotaxane. Further it is not clear if the ”solid weight ratio” of the oligo-layer graphene is the weight ratio of the graphene or all solids in the oligo-layer graphene material added to the polyurethane resin. It is also not clear if the ”solid weight content” is the weight percentage of the polyrotaxane added to the polyurethan resin or all solids added with the polyrotaxane. A review of the specification does not make this limitation clear.
The claim states “in addition to the moisture permeability and waterproofness of polyurethane resin, the oligo-layer graphene also increase the thermal conductivity, and the dispersibility of oligo-layer graphene is improved by adding polyrotaxane and the extensibility of polyurethane resin is improved, making the formed thermal conductive and breathable membrane enable to maintain extensibility without increasing the membrane thickness”. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The claim refers to “the formed thermal conductive and breathable membrane”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claim.
Regarding Claim 2:
The claim states “the formed thermal conductive and breathable membrane has characteristics listed below…”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the claim is requiring all of the characteristic or some of the characteristics listed. It is further noted that each characteristic is preceded by “the”. Although there is inherent antececnt basis for all the limitations “a” and “an” would appear to be more appropriate.
Regarding Claim 3:
The claim states “wherein is also added with…” It is not clear what the silica is being added to or with. It is further not clear if the “solid weight ratio” is the ratio of silica in the material being added or the membrane.
The claim states “and a crosslinking agent is added”. It is not clear what the crosslinking agent is being added to.
Regarding Claim 5:
The claim sates “is at least less than 0.1%”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the oxygen content is being limited to at least 0.1% or less than 0.1%.
Regarding Claim 6:
The claim refers to “the linear chain polymers”, “the cyclic molecules” and “the reactive groups in the polyurethane resin”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation within the claims.
Regarding Claim 7:
The claim refers to “the main chain polymer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claim.
Regarding Claim 8:
The claim refers to “a reactive groups”. It is not clear if multiple reactive groups or a reactive group.
The claim refers to “the substitution structure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
Regarding Claim 10:
The list of alternative reactive groups ends in “etc.” This renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what other reactive groups the applicant would consider to be included by the term.
The claim sates “the content of the isocyanate reactive groups ranges from 5 to 25%”. The term “content” renders the limitation indefinite because it is not clear what “content” is limited to. For example it is not clear if “content” is referring to the weight percent of isocyanate in the crosslinking agent, in the membrane, or something else.
The remaining claims are indefinite because they depend from an indefinite claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: After a thorough review of the prior art it is the examiner’s opinion that the claims contain limitations that are not disclosed and would not have been obvious in view of the prior art. Rizzi et al (US 2020/0062914) teaches a thermal conductive and breathable membrane (see Rizzi para. 0084) comprising 1 to 30 wt% graphene added to a polyurethane resin (see Rizzi para. 0017-0020). Rizzi does not teach that the graphene is oligo-layer graphene or adding 0.05 to 10 wt% polyrotaxane to the membrane.
Wu et al (TW 202111078A, English machine translation provided) teaches a thermally conductive sheet comprising polyurethane resin (see Wu Abstract). Wu further teaches that the thermally conductive material added to the resin can be selected from graphene and oligo-layer graphene (see Wu pg. 3, 4th paragraph).
Ito et al (JP 2012086147, English machine translation provided) teaches the addition of polyrotaxane to a polymer (see Abstract) wherein the polymer includes polyurethane resin (see pg. 5, 1st paragraph). Ito further teaches that the polyrotaxane is added in a weight ratio with the polymer of 1:1000 or more.
Although the individual elements of the claims are known in the prior art there is no indication that it would have been obvious to add the polyrotaxane of Ito with a solid weigh content of 0.05 to 10 wt% to the thermal conductive breathable membrane of Wu. Ito teaches that the addition of a polyrotaxane improves the resistance of the polymers to cracks and scratches (see Ito pg. 1, Background Art), however Wu does not indicate any desire to improve the strength or resistance to cracking of the breathable membrane. Therefore one skilled in the art would not have been motivated to modify Wu with Ito.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Salce et al (US 2016/0332428) which teaches a nonwoven composite material comprising graphene and a polymer (see Abstract). Salce further teaches that the rigidity added by the graphene is a desirable quality (see para. 0018, 0030). Yuan (CN 114634761, English machine translation provided), which teaches a textile glue comprising polyrotaxane (see Abstract). Sue et al (US 2023/0159753) which is directed to a polyrotaxane additive for rigid polymers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 1/23/2026