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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed 21 October 2024 and 27 November 2025. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (JP-2019137723-A, located in Information Disclosure Statement on 10/21/2024).
With regard to claims 1 and 12, Nomura teaches that the resin pellet comprises a thermoplastic resin composition including a thermoplastic resin (e.g. polypropylene, para [0032]), a heat storage material in which a heat storage material is enclosed in a capsule wall made of an organic material, and a dispersant (e.g., maleic anhydride-modified polyethylene, para [0043]) (para [0016]). Nomura further teaches the capsule wall may be a thermosetting resin such as polyurea and polyurethane (para [0037]). This disclosure reads on the resin pellet.
Furthermore, Nomura discloses that the specific configuration of the molded product formed from the resin pellet is not particularly limited, provided it is preferably adapted for injection molding (paras. [0066]–[0067]). Nomura further exemplifies this by providing a plate-like heat storage structure (para [0066]), as well as a working example of a heat storage plate 310 (para. [0088]) that structurally functions as a heat storage sheet.
With regard to heat storage sheet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention that the molded plate product of Nomura is a sheet. Nomura would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape to the desired product (e.g. a plate/sheet) (para [0016]). From the teachings of the reference, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the reference, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 2, Nomura teaches the dispersant is maleic anhydride-modified polyethylene (para [0043]) and the thermoplastic resin is a polyethylene resin (para [0032]), which reads on a first resin as the dispersant containing a repeating unit derived from ethylene and a second resin as the thermoplastic resin containing a repeating unit derived from ethylene.
With regard to claims 4, 13, and 19, Nomura teaches the dispersant is maleic anhydride-modified polyethylene (para [0043]), which reads on a carboxylic anhydride group.
With regard to claims 5 and 20, Nomura teaches that the partition wall thickness of the thermal storage structures is not particularly limited, but preferably ranges from 50 to 5000 μm, which reads on the claimed range of 200 μm or more. Specifically, Nomura discloses that a partition wall thickness of 50 μm or more provides sufficient structural integrity, thereby increasing the strength of the heat storage structure (paragraph [0070]). Furthermore, this minimum thickness accommodates an adequate volume of heat storage material, which enhances heat exchange efficiency.
Conversely, Nomura teaches that restricting the thickness to 5000 μm or less optimizes contact between the fluid and the heat storage structure. This enables efficient thermal transmission to the interior of the partition wall, further improving heat exchange efficiency. These disclosures read on the claim limitation, as the partition wall resides within the heat storage mold, and its thickness directly dictates the resulting heat exchange efficiency.
With regard to the heat storage sheet thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the partition wall as it is within the molded product. Specifically, in the parameters established by Nomura. The thickness of the sheet is construed to be the partition wall as it is within the molded product and is explicitly taught. Nomura would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the thickness based on the desired heat exchange efficiency and strength of the heat storage structure (para [0070]). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve superior heat storage structure and heat exchange efficiency. One of ordinary skill in the art would achieve the predictable result of a sheet thickness of 200 μm or more because the thickness is in direct correlation to the mentioned properties and within the parameters of Nomura. From the teachings of the reference, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the reference, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claims 6 and 14, Nomura teaches that the phase transition temperature (i.e., melting point) of the heat storage material is preferably −5 to 80 ° C (para [0035]), which reads on the claimed temperature range due to overlapping.
With regard to claims 7 and 15, Nomura teaches that the heat storage material is 30 to 80 wt.% (Abstract), which reads on the phase change material concentration being 15 wt.% or more based on the total mass.
With regard to claim 8, Nomura teaches discharging the thermoplastic resin composition into an extrusion molding machine to improve product strength (para [0009]). This disclosure reads on the claim limitation as the molded product is produced by an extrusion molding machine.
With regard to claims 9, 10, and 16-17, Nomura discloses a thermoplastic resin composition wherein the heat storage material comprises approximately 30 to 80 wt.% of the total composition, and the dispersant constitutes 40 wt.% or more relative to the combined weight of the thermoplastic resin and the dispersant (Abstract). This formulation yields a thermoplastic resin content of 12 to 42 wt.%, which reads on the claimed value of more than 15 wt.%. Furthermore, because the composition contains 60 wt.% thermoplastic resin and 40 wt.% dispersant under specific conditions, it establishes an overlapping range that exceeds the concentration of the first resin (i.e., the dispersant).
[For calculations purposes: The formulation comprises a base matrix where the dispersant is maintained at a minimum of 40 wt.% and the thermoplastic resin is at a maximum of 60 wt.%. Because the heat storage material constitutes 30 to 80 wt.% of the total composition, the remaining resin-dispersant matrix accounts for 20 to 70 wt.% of the total composition.
Minimum Boundary: Maximum of thermoplastic resin (60%) to minimum of total thermoplastic resin composition (20%): 0.60 x 0.20 x 100 = 12 wt.%
Maximum Boundary: Maximum of thermoplastic resin (60%) to maximum of total thermoplastic resin composition (70%): 0.60 x 0.70 x 100 = 42 wt.% ]
With regard to claim 18, Nomura teaches that the molded article formed by molding a thermoplastic resin composition including a thermoplastic resin (e.g. polypropylene, para [0032]), a heat storage material in which a heat storage material is enclosed in a capsule wall made of an organic material, and a dispersant (e.g., maleic anhydride-modified polyethylene, para [0043]) (para [0023]). Nomura further teaches the capsule wall may be a thermosetting resin such as polyurea and polyurethane (para [0037]). This disclosure read on the molded product.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (JP-2019137723-A, located in Information Disclosure Statement on 10/21/2024) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-20 above, and further in view of Sanyo Chemical et al.“UMEX 1001”.
With regard to claim 3, Nomura does not explicitly disclose a polypropylene dispersant. However, Nomura teaches that the dispersant is preferably an acrylic acid or carboxylic anhydride polymer that is nonreactive with a thermoplastic resin (para. [0043]). Given that Nomura’s thermoplastic resin is a polypropylene resin containing a propylene-derived repeating unit (para. [0032]), this disclosure meets the limitations of the second resin.
In the same field of endeavor, Sanyo Chemical et al. teaches a highly acid modified polyolefin of the following structure (Outline):
PNG
media_image1.png
280
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This structure contains the propylene and carboxylic acid anhydride group, to read on the claimed first resin limitations of repeating unit derived from the olefin and has a hydrophilic group.
Furthermore, Sanyo Chemical et al. teaches the component as a resin modifier, pigment, and filler dispersant (Outline). Advantageous in adhesion, dispersibility, and softening point improving agent to the polyolefin resins and other materials (Features). It is applicable to synthetic resins, rubbers, paints, and civil engineering (Application).
With regard to the propylene-based resin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the dispersant of Nomura. Specifically, to a maleic acid-modified polypropylene as taught by Sanyo Chemical et al. Sanyo Chemical et al. would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the maleic acid-modified polypropylene for its advances in dispersibility, adhesion, and compatibility to other components and resins (Features and Application). Nomura would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the dispersant to another that is capable of dispersibility and nonreactive to the thermoplastic resin (para [0043]). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve the recognized properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would achieve the predictable result of a maleic acid-modified polypropylene because it follows the teachings of Nomura. From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (JP-2019137723-A, located in Information Disclosure Statement on 10/21/2024) and Sanyo Chemical et al.“UMEX 1001” as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Tosoh Corp. et al “Millionate® MR-100”.
With regard to claim 11, Nomura does not explicitly teach the capsule wall comprises a polymethylene polyphenylene structure. However, Nomura does teach that the capsule wall is an organic material that is durable to the phase transition temperature of a thermal storage substance for the material wall such as polyurethane and polyurea (para [0037]).
In the same field of endeavor, Tosoh Corp teaches Millionate® MR-100, in the form of a brownish liquid, contains polymeric diphenylmethane diisocyanate (polymerized-MDI and pure-MDI), which is a different name for polymethylene polyphenylene isocyanate and contains a polymethylene polyphenylene structure.
Furthermore, Tosoh Corp teaches it is applicable in elastomers, adhesives, and coatings and is largely used in spray foam applications, more preferably elastomer coatings.
With regard to the polymethylene polyphenylene structure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the capsule wall comprising polyurethane or polyurea of Nomura. Specifically, to a polymeric diphenylmethane diisocyanate as taught by Tosoh Corp et al. Tosoh Corp et al. would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the polymeric diphenylmethane diisocyanate for coating, adhesive, and elastomer applications. Nomura would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the capsule wall to an organic material such as a thermosetting resin that is capable of preventing the destruction of the capsule wall during heat exchange (para [0037]). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve superior coating properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would achieve the predictable result of a polymeric diphenylmethane diisocyanate because it is made of polyurethanes and polyurea. From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aja A Walker whose telephone number is (571)272-0037. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-5.
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, 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 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.
/A.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 September 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights