DETAILED ACTION
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
1. The rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103, of record in the previous Action, is withdrawn.
NEW REJECTIONS
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 9, 11 – 12, 17 – 18, 20 – 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0269977 A1) in view of Nishida et al (JP 2015 – 105359 A).
With regard to Claim 1, Luo et al disclose a composition comprising a polyarylene sulfide, a siloxane polymer, an impact modifier (paragraph 0005) and a filler comprising fibers (paragraph 0078) that are inorganic fibers that are glass fibers (paragraph 0079). The impact modifier is an epoxy – functionalized olefin copolymer that is an ethylene – glycidyl methacrylate copolymer (paragraph 0063) and the molecular weight of the siloxane polymer is greater than 5000 (paragraph 0055). A weight average molecular weight of greater than 5000 is therefore disclosed. A Charpy impact strength of 4.5 kJ/mole is disclosed in an example (paragraph 0136) and a tensile modulus of 3650 MPa is disclosed in an example (paragraph 0133). Although the disclosed range of molecular weight is not identical to the claimed range, the disclosed range overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for any amount within the disclosed range, including those amounts that overlap the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05. Although the claimed range of Charpy impact strength is not identical to the claimed range, and does not overlap the claimed range, the disclosed range would be sufficiently close to the claimed range that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the same properties. There is a prima facie case of obviousness because the disclosed range would be sufficiently close to the claimed range that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the same properties. MPEP 2144.05. Although the claimed range of tensile modulus is not identical to the claimed range, and does not overlap the claimed range, the disclosed range would be sufficiently close to the claimed range that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the same properties. There is a prima facie case of obviousness because the disclosed range would be sufficiently close to the claimed range that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the same properties. MPEP 2144.05. Luo et al fail to disclose the claimed organosilane.
Nishida et al teach a composition (paragraph 0007) comprising polyarylene sulfide
(paragraph 0001) that also comprises an organosilane that is mercaptopropyltrimethoxysilane for
the purpose of obtaining coupling (paragraph 0082). Nishida et al is in the same field of endeavor, which is polyarylene sulfide as evidenced by paragraph 0053.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the composition taught by Neissner et al to comprise mercaptopropyltrimethoxysilane in order to obtain coupling as taught by Nishida et al. The claimed organosilane would therefore be obtained.
With regard to Claim 2, the amount of siloxane polymer disclosed by Luo et al is 1 to 2% by weight (paragraph 0060).
With regard to Claim 3, the amount of polyarylene sulfide disclosed by Luo et al is 20 wt% to 90 wt% (paragraph 0044). Although the disclosed range of amount is not identical to the claimed range, the disclosed range overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for any amount within the disclosed range, including those amounts that overlap the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05.
With regard to Claims 4 and 11 – 12, it is not disclosed by Luo et al that branching is required. A polyarylene sulfide that is linear is therefore disclosed.
With regard to Claims 6 – 9, the glycidyl methacrylate disclosed by Luo et al is 6% to 10% by weight of the copolymer (paragraph 0063).
With regard to Claim 17, the claimed melt viscosity is disclosed by Luo et al (paragraph 0045).
With regard to Claim 18, a molded part is disclosed by Luo et al (paragraph 0099).
With regard to Claim 20, a film disclosed by Luo et al is prepared by any known technique (paragraph 0108) and it is disclosed that melt extrusion is a known technique (paragraph 0106).
With regard to Claim 21, a food tray is disclosed by Luo et al (paragraph 0108).
With regard to Claim 23, an overmolded structure is disclosed by Luo et al, because a combination of fibers is disclosed, including metal fibers (paragraph 0078) and injection molding is disclosed (paragraph 0110).
4. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Luo et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0269977 A1) Luo et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0269977 A1) in view of Nishida et al (JP 2015 – 105359 A) and further in view of Hasegawa et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,859,693 B2).
Luo et al and Nishida et al disclose a composition as discussed above. Luo et al and Nishida et al fail to disclose the claimed units.
Hasegawa et al teach a siloxane polymer having the claimed units (column 9, line 35 —
39) for the purpose of obtaining a hydrogen content of 0.97% by mass (column
9, lines 35 — 39). Hasegawa et al is in the same field of endeavor, which is siloxane polymer as evidenced by column 9, lines 35 – 39.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the siloxane polymer comprised by Luo et al to have the claimed units in order to obtain hydrogen content of 0.97% by mass as taught by Hasegawa et al.
5. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0269977 A1) in view of Nishida et al (JP 2015 – 105359 A) and further in view of Winter et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,081,322).
Luo et al and Nishida et al disclose a composition as discussed above. Wax is disclosed (paragraph 0083). Luo et al and Nishida et al fail to disclose an ethylene – olefin copolymer.
Winter et al teach a wax that is an ethylene – propylene copolymer (propylene / ethylene; column 3, lines 56 – 58) for the purpose of obtaining a wax that can be handled in an optimum manner (column 8, lines 59 – 61). Winter et al is in the same field of endeavor, which is wax as evidenced by column 8, lines 59 – 61.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for ethylene – propylene copolymer to be comprised in the wax in Luo et al in order to obtain a wax that can be handled in an optimum manner as taught by Winter et al.
6. Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0269977 A1) in view of Nishida et al (JP 2015 – 105359 A) and further in view of Nakamichi (U.S. Patent No. 5,028,461 B2).
Luo et al and Nishida et al disclose a composition as discussed above. Luo et al and Nishida et al fail to disclose the claimed food tray.
Nakamichi teaches polyphenylene sulfide (column 2, lines 44 — 49) and that a box shape and a tray are interchangeable for the purpose of making by injection molding (shape of food container may have shape of tray, cup, tank, box and other shapes; column 5, lines 10 — 15). Nakamichi et al is in the same field of endeavor, which is polyphenylene sulfide as evidenced by column 2, lines 44 – 49.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the food tray disclosed by Luo et al to comprise the claimed sidewall and lower wall in order to make by injection molding as taught by Nakamichi et al.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
7. Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103, of record in the previous Action, have been carefully considered and have been found to be persuasive. The rejection is therefore withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments are moot because of the new rejections above.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC A PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1497. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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).
/MARC A PATTERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782