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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duan (Materials Advances, 4, pp 5573-5584, 2023).
Duan is directed to conducting polymers of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) and kappa- and/or lambda-carrageenan (abstract). The poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) carrageenan complex is processed through a dispersion (2nd column on page 5573). The structures of the carrageenans read on those recited in claim 4 (Figure 1 on page 5574). The dispersion is cast onto a glass slide to form a film (1st column on page 5575).
Regarding claim 11, when using a mixture of kappa-carrageenan and lambda-carrageenan, one reads on the amorphous sulfated polysaccharide and the other reads on the at least one resin.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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.
Claims 5, 6, 8-10, and 13 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 Duan (Materials Advances, 4, pp 5573-5584, 2023).
Duan teaches all the limitations of claims 5, 6, 8-10, and 13, as outlined above, except the reference is silent on the properties recited in the claims.
Since the amorphous sulfated polysaccharides used by Duan (i.e., kappa-carrageenan and lambda-carrageenan) appear to be the same as those used in Examples 1-3 of the instant invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to exhibit the same properties. Table 1 on page 20 of the specification illustrates that commercially available kappa-carrageenan and lambda-carrageenan are amorphous and satisfy the limitations of claims 5, 6, and 10.
Regarding claims 8 and 13, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the absorbance of a material to be dependent on the bonds present in the material. Since the kappa-carrageenan and lambda-carrageenan of Duan have the same structure as the amorphous sulfated polysaccharides of the invention (compare Figure 1 of Duan to claim 4), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to satisfy the limitations of claims 8 and 13.
Regarding claim 9, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect viscosity of a dispersion to be a function of the materials present in the dispersion. Since the materials are the same (i.e., poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) and kappa-carrageenan or lambda-carrageenan), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the limitations of claim 9 to be satisfied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyanishi (US 2013/0308180) in view of Duan (Materials Advances, 4, pp 5573-5584, 2023).
Miyanishi is directed to a coating agent containing a p-conjugated system conductive polymer and binder (paragraph 0014). The conductive polymer is preferably a complex of a cationic polythiophene and a polyanion dopant (paragraphs 0034-0036). The coating agent may be water-based (paragraph 0046), i.e., in the form of an aqueous dispersion. A preferred binder is polyester (paragraph 0051), such as a dispersible polyester (paragraph 0088). The coating agent may be applied onto a resin film to form an infrared reflective transparent film that may be attached to the surface of a glass window (paragraph 0079).
Miyahishi does not teach the presence of an amorphous sulfated polysaccharide. However, the preferred polyanion dopant of the coating agent is polystyrenesulfonic acid (paragraph 0038).
Duan demonstrates that carrageenans may be used as a sustainable replacement for polystyrene sulfonate in conducting materials, such as PEDOT:PSS (2nd column on page 5573). The carrageenan may be kappa- or lambda-carrageenan having structures that correspond to general formulae (1) and (2) of claim 4 (Figure 1 on page 5574).
It would have been obvious to use a carrageenan in place of the synthetic resin of Miyanishi as the polyanion dopant because it is a sustainable material that is shown to be suitable for use as the counterion for poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) in a conducting material.
Since the amorphous sulfated polysaccharides used by Duan (i.e., kappa-carrageenan and lambda-carrageenan) appear to be the same as those used in Examples 1-3 of the instant invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to exhibit the same properties. Table 1 on page 20 of the specification illustrates that commercially available kappa-carrageenan and lambda-carrageenan are amorphous and satisfy the limitations of claims 5, 6, and 10.
Regarding claims 8 and 13, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the absorbance of a material to be dependent on the bonds present in the material. Since the kappa-carrageenan and lambda-carrageenan of Duan have the same structure as the amorphous sulfated polysaccharides of the invention (compare Figure 1 of Duan to claim 4), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to satisfy the limitations of claims 8 and 13.
Regarding claim 9, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect viscosity of a dispersion to be a function of the materials present in the dispersion. Since the materials are the same (i.e., poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) and kappa-carrageenan or lambda-carrageenan), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the limitations of claim 9 to be satisfied.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyanishi (US 2013/0308180) in view of Duan (Materials Advances, 4, pp 5573-5584, 2023), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nurazizah (Polymers, 15, 2725, 2023).
Miyanishi taken in view of Duan suggest all the limitations of claim 7, as outlined above, except for the use of iota-carregeenan as the carrageenan. Duan does teach the use of kappa- and lambda-carregeenan.
Nurazizah discloses an electrically conductive composition comprising poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) and carrageenan, where the carrageenan is kappa-carrageenan, iota-carrageenan, or lambda-carrageenan (Figure 7).
Nurazizah shows that kappa-carrageenan, iota-carrageenan, and lambda-carrageenan are known in the art as functionally equivalent carrageenan counter ions for poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) containing conductive formulations. Therefore, because these carrageenans were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute iota-carrageenan for the kappa-carrageenan or lambda-carrageenan of Duan.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyanishi (US 2013/0308180) in view of Duan (Materials Advances, 4, pp 5573-5584, 2023), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Soon (US 2016/0202402).
Miyanishi taken in view of Duan suggest all the limitations of claim 14, as outlined above, except for the use of an adhesive layer to attach the infrared reflective transparent film to the window and the presence of a release layer on the adhesive layer.
Soon is directed to a solar control film (paragraph 0002). Soon teaches that the film may employ an adhesive layer to bond the film to a glass window (paragraph 0060). A release liner may be applied over the adhesive layer to protect it during shipping and handling of the film (paragraph 0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an adhesive layer as the means for attaching the film of Miyanishi to a glass window since the courts have held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Moreover, it would have been obvious to apply a release liner over the adhesive layer to protect the adhesive layer during shipping and/or handling of the film.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday mornings, Eastern time.
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, Callie Shosho, can be reached on 571 272-1123. 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.
/RAMSEY ZACHARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights