DETAILED ACTION
The following Office action concerns Patent Application Number 18/700,843. Claims 10 and 13-18 are pending in the application. Claims 13-18 have been withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected inventions.
The applicant’s amendment filed January 23, 2026 has been entered.
The previous grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the applicant’s amendment.
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 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2021/0380807) in view of Schulte et al (US 4,599,262) and Witucki (US 4,923,755).
Chen et al teaches an electrically conductive silicone rubber composition comprising 1.5-5.5 % by weight carbon black and 0.05-1 % by weight carbon nanotubes (abstract; par. 6-8). A solvent is not required. The composition is capable of cross-linking (par. 18). The composition comprises a linear organopolysiloxane containing carbon-carbon double bonds and Si-C bonds (par. 10-11). The composition further comprises a linear organohydrogenpolysiloxane which contains silicon-bonded hydrogen atoms (par. 18-19).
Chen et al does not teach a BET surface area of less than 300 m2/g.
However, Schulte et al teaches a conductive composition comprising conductive carbon black having a BET surface area of more than 50 m2/g (Col. 3, lines 45-50). The conductive carbon black having a surface area of more than 50 m2/g is commercially available and has high electrical conductivity (Col. 3, lines 48-51).
Chen et al teaches a carbon black having “extra” electrical conductivity (par. 46). Schulte et al teaches a carbon black which is commercially available and has high electrical conductivity (Col. 3, lines 48-51). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the carbon black BET surface area of Schulte et al with the composition of Chen et al in view of Witucki in order to obtain a commercially available carbon black having high electrical conductivity.
Chen et al does not teach that the viscosity is at most 60,000 mPa·s.
However, Witucki teaches a curable organosilicone resin composition having a viscosity of 32,000 cP (col. 8, lines 53-62). 1 cP equates to 1 mPa·s. The composition is used to make silicone coatings (col. 6, lines 59-69). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the viscosity of Witucki with the composition of Chen et al in view of Schulte et al in order to obtain composition suitable for forming a coating.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that Schulte et al is not analogous art. However, Schulte et al is concerned with a conductive polymer composition containing carbon black, which is the same field of endeavor as the invention. Therefore, Schulte et al is analogous art.
Conclusion
The 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Examiner’s Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Young whose telephone number is (571) 270-5078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached at 571-272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000./WILLIAM D YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 February 17, 2026