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 .
This action is responsive to Applicant’s response to election/restriction and amendment/remarks filed 04/27/2026.
Claims 2-11 and 14-20 are currently pending.
The Drawings filed 10/21/2024 are approved by the examiner.
The IDS statements filed 04/30/2025 have been considered. Initialed copies accompany this action.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III, claims 15-20, in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged. It is additionally acknowledged Applicant’s present claim amendment changes the scope of claims 2-11 and 14 to depend on claim 15 and fall within the scope of the elected Group III. The Office notes that the restriction requirement is maintained and claims 2-11 and 14-20 read on the elected Group III.
Requirement for Information
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
NPL Cite No. 37 to “Lv, et al., Engineering Mechanocaloric Effects in Elastic Polyolefin Fibers for Solid-State Thermal Management” of Applicant’s IDS discloses thermoplastic polymers, including block co-polymers, useful for and/or with mechanocaloric, elastocaloric, and/or twistocaloric effects/properties and has several co-authors that are inventors of the present application. This reference appears very pertinent to the instant claims. However, the Examiner is unable to determine if the reference qualifies as prior art because a publication date and/or public availability date is not stated on the reference or IDS. The Examiner additionally tried to search for a publication date of the reference on the internet but was unsuccessful in determining the publication date of the reference.
In response to this requirement, please provide the publication date and/or public availability date of the Lv et al. NPL reference.
The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained may be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for that item.
This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office action. A complete reply to the enclosed Office action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite several limitations describing how the composite or its components are made (e.g., that the thermoplastic block co-polymer has melt-spun materials, that the materials are cross-linked by certain types of irradiation, that the composite is formed with a certain activation energy relative to another composite, etc.) are product-by-process limitations. Product-by-process limitations are not recited to the recited steps except to the extent they suggest structure of the composition. Here, the claims merely require the structure implied by the process steps but not the recited process steps themselves (e.g., the recited chemical structure of a thermoplastic block-copolymer with elastocaloric/twistocaloric properties regardless of whether made by melt spinning or some other process, that the material is cross-linked regardless of whether made by a certain irradiating process or some other process, the material itself regardless of some relative activation energy during formation, etc.). The product-by-process limitations are extended little patentable weight. See MPEP 2113.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 2, 6-8, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1,2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu et al. (US 2021/0116152 A1).
As to independent claim 15, Liu et al. teaches a composite (fibers, yarns, textiles, etc.) comprising twisted, coiled, or supercoiled fibers or yarns capable of cooling/refrigeration when twisted-untwisted (abstract). This describes an elastocaloric and/or twistocaloric material and a reversible shift in temperature by twisting/stretching deformation, as claimed. If this were not enough, the material may be elastocaloric (para. 0026). See para. 0123-0124 and Table 1 on p.8 that demonstrates working examples of suitable twisted fibers composed of styrene-ethylene-butadiene-styrene (SEBS) copolymer and ethylene-propylene-diene monomer (EPDM) rubber demonstrated to have reversible temperature shifts stored therein, which are thermoplastic block co-polymers as claimed.
In the event Liu et al.’s exemplary elasto-/twistocaloric polymeric fibers do not meet the claimed product-by-process limitation under the meaning of anticipation, even if Liu et al.’s fibers are made by a different process than that instantly claimed, Liu et al.’s obtained product is either identical with the claimed product or only slightly different than the claimed product due to the final product ultimately being a composite comprising an elasto-/twistocaloric thermoplastic block copolymer that the skilled artisan would reasonably expect and understand is substantially the same final product as claimed.
As to claim 2, the disclosed SEBS and EPDM (Id.) are olefin block copolymers.
As to claims 6, 16 and 17, Liu et al. is silent to the cited SEBS and EPDM materials being crosslinked or crystalline, which meets the claimed limitations the material is substantially devoid of crosslinks and that the material is amorphous.
As to claim 7, this claim is a product-by-process limitation (Id.). The structure of Liu et al.’s material meets the claimed product-by-process limitation for the reasons of record.
As to claims 8 and 18, regarding the claimed limitations the Young’s Modulus depends on a temperature of the disposal of the thermoplastic block-co-polymer, this property is presumed inherent of Liu et al.’s material as Liu et al.’s material broadly has the same structure and composition as that instantly claimed. In any event, if not inherent, this property would otherwise flow naturally from the disclosed structure of the reference. Similarly regarding claim 8, regarding the claimed limitations there is a property that is configured to be adjusted, this property is presumed inherent of Liu et al.’s material as Liu et al.’s material broadly has the same structure and composition as that instantly claimed. Note that Liu et al. teach twist utilization can increase cooling and cooling efficiencies (abstract). In any event, if not inherent, this property would otherwise flow naturally from the disclosed structure of the reference.
As to claim 19, Liu et al. teach the max temperature change during twist deformation is about 15.2°C for the EPDM fiber and 5.1°C for the SEBS fiber and 2.3°C for the EPDM fiber during stretch deformation (Table 1), which are within the claimed range of about 1.5 to 30°C. If in the event Liu et al.’s material is not fully relaxed and/or fully deformed during the exemplary use/testing, the reference’s temperature changes nevertheless overlaps that claimed. Also note the reference teaches/suggest tailoring properties of the fiber (size, twist, etc.) in order to adjust the cooling temperature and other performance results of the material that further meet and render obvious that claimed.
Claims 3, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2021/0116152 A1).
The disclosure of Liu et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
As to claim 3, while the exemplary materials of Liu et al. cited above do not appear to be inherently cross-liked as claimed under the meaning of anticipation, Liu et al. further teach coil nucleation may be provided on a desired end of the material by preferentially cross-linking by radiation or chemical cross-linking (para. 0199). In other words, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide cross-linking (including via the claimed product-by-process irradiation method(s)) in order to adjust coil nucleation on a desired end and practice other embodiments of the reference with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claims 9 and 10, while the exemplary materials of Liu et al. cited above do not appear to inherently comprise a dopant such as a magnetocaloric material as claimed under the meaning of anticipation, Liu et al. further teach the fibers may additionally comprise a magnetocaloric material (para. 0026), which obviously suggests the additional provision of one as claimed.
Claims 4, 5, 9, 11, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2021/0116152 A1) as applied to claims 2, 3, 6-10, and 15-19 above, and further in view of Magill et al. (US 2005/0208300 A1).
The disclosure of Liu et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Liu et al. teach fibers and yarns comprising elasto-/twistocaloric thermoplastic block copolymers (i.e., a polymeric composite with reversible heat storage/transfer properties). While Liu et al. teach the addition of other materials in the fibers (e.g., ) that broadly read on a generic dopant, Liu et al. fail to teach the additional presence of phase change materials and nano-scale and/or micro-scale phase-separated inclusions as instantly claimed.
However, Magill et al. is similarly drawn to multi-component fibers with enhanced reversible thermal properties comprising an elongated member with a temperature regulating material in order to obtain thermal regulating properties (abstract). The elongated member is formed from a polymeric material (para. 0082+) and serves as a carrier for the temperature regulating material (para. 0089). The temperature regulating material includes a phase change material (para. 0028) that may be present as microcapsules (para. 0041, 0058, 0079, etc.) and are thus a dopant coupled to and/or in a matrix as recited in claims 4, 5, and 11 as well as a micro-scale phase-separated inclusion present in a matrix (the dispersing polymeric material) as recited in claims 11 and 20. Alternatively regarding the nano-scale and/or micro-scale phase-separated inclusions, Magill et al. further teach providing additives such as reinforcing-fibers, ceramic particles, conductive fibers or particles, anti-blocking additives, etc. depending on the desirability of further processing, effects, or application of the composite (para. 0032). Note the teachings of Magill et al. also meet the limitations of claim 9 alternative to the cited teachings of Liu et al.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a phase change material and/or additives as dopants or nano-/micro-scale materials as taught by Magill et al. in Liu et al. in order to obtain a polymeric fiber composite material with enhanced reversible thermal properties with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 2, 6-8, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang et al. (“Solid-state cooling by elastocaloric polymer with uniform chain-lengths”, Nature Communications, 2022, 13:9).
As to independent claim 15, Zhang et al. teaches a composite comprising a thermoplastic block copolymer with elastocaloric properties, e.g., poly(styrene-b-ethylene-co-butylene-b-styrene) (SEBS). The material reversibly shifts temperature by twisting/stretching deformation, as claimed. See the abstract, the Methods section on p.6 clarifying the material’s composition, and Fig. 1 to 3.
In the event Zhang et al.’s composite does not meet the claimed product-by-process limitation under the meaning of anticipation, even if Zhang et al.’s elastocaloric composite is made by a different process than that instantly claimed, Zhang et al.’s obtained product is either identical with the claimed product or only slightly different than the claimed product due to the final product ultimately being a composite comprising an elastocaloric thermoplastic block copolymer that the skilled artisan would reasonably expect and understand is substantially the same final product as claimed.
As to claim 2, the disclosed SEBS (Id.) is an olefin block copolymer.
As to claims 6, 16 and 17, Zhang et al. is silent to their material being crosslinked or crystalline, which meets the claimed limitations the material is substantially devoid of crosslinks and that the material is amorphous.
As to claim 7, this claim is a product-by-process limitation (Id.). The structure of Zhang et al.’s material meets the claimed product-by-process limitation for the reasons of record.
As to claims 8 and 18, regarding the claimed limitations the Young’s Modulus depends on a temperature of the disposal of the thermoplastic block-co-polymer, this property is presumed inherent of Zhang et al.’s material as Zhang et al.’s material broadly has the same structure and composition as that instantly claimed. In any event, if not inherent, this property would otherwise flow naturally from the disclosed structure of the reference. Similarly regarding claim 8, regarding the claimed limitations there is a property that is configured to be adjusted, this property is presumed inherent of Zhang et al.’s material as Zhang et al.’s material broadly has the same structure and composition as that instantly claimed. In any event, if not inherent, this property would otherwise flow naturally from the disclosed structure of the reference.
As to claim 19, Zhang et al. teach the temperature change during deformation is about 15°C (abstract, etc.), which is within the claimed range of about 1.5 to 30°C. If in the event Zhang et al.’s material is not fully relaxed and/or fully deformed during the exemplary use/testing, the reference’s temperature change nevertheless overlaps that claimed.
Claims 4, 5, 9, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Solid-state cooling by elastocaloric polymer with uniform chain-lengths”, Nature Communications, 2022, 13:9) as applied to claims 2, 6-8, and 15-19 above, and further in view of Hartmann et al. (US 2005/0208286 A1).
The disclosure of Zhang et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Zhang et al. teach a composite comprising an elastocaloric thermoplastic block copolymer (i.e., a polymeric composite with reversible heat storage/transfer properties) but fails to teach the additional presence of phase change materials and/or dopants as instantly claimed.
However, Hartmann et al. is similarly drawn to polymeric composites with enhanced reversible thermal properties comprising a phase change material mixed with a dispersing polymeric material in order to obtain thermal regulating properties (abstract). The phase change material is present as microcapsules (abstract, para. 0041, etc.) and are thus a dopant coupled to and/or in a matrix as recited in claims 4, 5, and 9 as well as a micro-scale phase-separated inclusion present in a matrix (the dispersing polymeric material) as recited in claims 11 and 20. Alternatively regarding the nano-scale and/or micro-scale phase-separated inclusions, Hartmann et al. further teach providing additives such as reinforcing-fibers, ceramic particles, conductive fibers or particles, anti-blocking additives, etc. depending on the desirability of further processing, effects, or application of the composite (para. 0022).
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a phase change material and/or additives as dopants or nano-/micro-scale materials as taught by Hartmann et al. in Zhang et al. in order to obtain a polymeric composite material with enhanced reversible thermal properties with a reasonable expectation of success.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Feng et al. (“High cycle-life twistocaloric cooling of poly-p-phenylene benzodioxole fibers”, Macromol. Rapid Commun., 2023, 44, 2300318) teach a fiber material with elasto- and twistocaloric properties comprising poly-p-phenylene benzodioxole (PBO) (abstract). While similar or close, Feng et al. fails to meet, teach, or suggest the claimed limitation that the composite comprises a thermoplastic block co-polymer as the disclosed PBO is merely an alternating copolymer (e.g., -A-B-A-B-A-B-…) rather than a block copolymer (…-A-A-A-A-B-B-B-B-…) as instantly claimed. See Fig. 1 showing the molecular structure of the PBO fiber alternates between benzodioxole units and phenylene units rather than having block(s) of benzodioxole units and block(s) of phenylene units as required by the term “block” of “block co-polymer” of the instantly claims.
The remaining references listed on Forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon or discussed above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R DIAZ whose telephone number is 571-270-0324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 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.
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/M.R.D./
July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights