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 .
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendment filed 11/12/25 have been fully considered and entered. Claim 21 has been added as requested. Applicant’s arguments are not found sufficient to overcome the prior art of record for reasons previously set forth. Applicants have not provided any substantially new arguments for which to consider, but rather reasserts the previous arguments made during prosecution. In response, the Examiner maintains the obviousness type rejections made over EP 0265946 in view of Guo et al. EP 3640301 A1 (Guo) and further in view of Kiriyama et al., US 4,414,276 as set forth in previous Office Actions and below. With specific regard to new claim 21, claim 21 is also rejected over the combination of EP 0265946 in view of Guo et al. EP 3640301 A1 (Guo) and further in view of Kiriyama et al., US 4,414,276 for reasons set forth herein below.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicants argue a lack of motivation to combine references on the grounds that the cited prior art references are not analogous, fail to teach the claimed amount/ratio of polypropylene to polycarbonate and that the combination of cited prior art would not result in a continuous filament having the claimed tensile strength or modulus. These arguments are not found persuasive.
With regard to the cited primary reference of EP 0265946, the published EP reference was relied upon to teach that it is known in the art to form thermoplastic resins from the claimed amounts of polypropylene, polycarbonate and compatabilizing agent. The published EP application teach formulating a thermoplastic resin composite comprising polypropylene (crystalline resin) and polycarbonate (non-crystalline resin) and at least .5 wt. % part of a compatibilizing agent such as maleic anhydride (abstract, page 3, 20-55, table 1 and example 8). The Examiner considers .5 part of a compatibilizing agent sufficient to meet the limitation of a compatibilizing agent. The weight ratio of the polypropylene (crystalline) to polycarbonate (non-crystalline) ranges from 30-95 to 5-70 (claim 4). Said thermoplastic resins are mixed and kneaded to form a composite thermoplastic resin that exhibits excellent modulus of elasticity at high temperatures and resistance to chemicals (page 2, 5). With specific regard to the claimed amount of compatibilizing agent, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. The published EP document discloses an amount of compatibilizing agent (.05 wt. %); the Examiner is of the position that this amount is considered close enough to the claimed amount (1 wt. %) and one of skilled in the art would expect them to have the same properties. As such, the Examiner is of the position that since there is no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range (.05-1 wt. %), the Examiner maintains that the published EP application meets all of the chemical limitations of the claimed continuous filaments.
The Examiner maintains that the secondary reference of Guo et al., was relied upon to teach that it is known to add the specific amount and type of the claimed compatibilizer to the thermoplastic resin compositions for the purpose of improve the miscibility between the polycarbonate base resin and the polypropylene polymer. The published EP application issued to Guo et al., teach a composition comprising from about 20 wt. % to about 80 wt. % of a polycarbonate, from about 10 wt. % to about 50 wt. % % of a polypropylene, from about 1 wt. % to about 30 wt. % of a compatibilizer; and from about 0.01 wt. % to about 0.5 wt. % of a salt of a long chain aliphatic carboxylic acid [Abstract]. Guo et al., teach a compatibilizer, which may comprise a maleic anhydride (MAH) grafted polymer, including but not limited to MAH polypropylene (MAH PP). The Examiner is of the position that such a broad range of compatiblizer (1-30 wt. %) evidences that low amounts (e.g., 1-5 wt. %) can be used with the polycarbonate and polypropylene blend. Since Guo et al., teach using the compatibilizing agent to improve the miscibility between the polycarbonate base resin and the polypropylene polymer the Examiner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the amount of compatibilizing agent can be varied as a function of desired miscibility between the polycarbonate and polypropylene polymer. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA). Since the cited Guo et al.., reference also employs the claimed blends of polycarbonate and polypropylene and compatibilizer, the Examiner considers this reference also analogous prior art with the other cited prior art references.
The published EP reference does not expressly teach forming filaments.
With regard to the secondary reference of Kiriyama et al., US 4,414,276, Kiriyama et al., was relied upon to teach that it is known in the art to extrude thermoplastic resins that have been melt kneaded in order to form fibers and yarns (see Kiriyama et al., US 4,414,276 @ Example 1). The patent issued to Kiriyama et al., teach forming composite polymer fibers and yarns using an extrusion apparatus that includes a supply molten resin, extruders, spinnerets, a cooling fluid and a drawing device (abstract, column 14,25-55 and column 22, 10-30). Said fibers can further be drawn to a ratio of 1.1 to 10 (column 21, 35-45). Said fibers can be made to have a denier ranging from .01 to 1000 (column 26, 25-30). Such a denier range meets the dtex limitation of claim 6. Said fibers have lengths of not more than 200mm (column 31, 1-20). Said fibers can be used to form a variety of knitted, woven and/or non-woven fabrics (column 31, 40-50). The secondary reference of Kiriyama et al., US 4,414,276 was not relied upon to teach the claimed resin composition, resin compositional components and or the amounts of each component. Rather, Kiriyama et al., was relied upon to evidence that is known in the art to extrude thermoplastic resins to form filaments and other structures. It is noted that the "test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art", In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871,881 (CCPA 1981) and that "combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures", In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USP 224, 226 (CCPA). The Examiner is of the position that the since both prior art references teach forming thermoplastic resins the Examiner is of the position that the references are analogous that motivation exists to identify prior art which makes use of such thermoplastic resin compositions. The Examiner is of the position that is not particularly novel to form a melt kneaded extrudate and extruding said extrudate to form fibers, rods, films, sheets etc. As such, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the resin composite composition of the published EP application in combination with the apparatus and methods of taught by Kiriyama to form thermoplastic extruded and drawn fibers. Motivation to extrude the thermoplastic resin composite of the published EP application is found in the desire to expand the number of uses for the thermoplastic resin such as producing fibers and yarns that exhibit excellent modulus of elasticity at high temperatures and resistance to chemicals.
With regard to Applicant’s arguments directed to the claimed tensile strength or modulus and the creep values of claim 21, absent unexpected results, comparative data or any other showing that would sufficiently evidence that the fibers produced by the combination of the cited prior art, would not exhibit the claimed tensile strength or modulus and creep, the Examiner maintains that once the fiber is produced by the combination of cited prior art, the final finished fiber would exhibit the claimed tensile strength or modulus and creep. Support for said position is found in the use of the same polymer components in the same proportions. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the combination of cited prior art renders the rejected claims obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
5. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5-12, 16-18, 19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0265946 in view of Guo et al. EP 3640301 A1 (Guo) and further in view of Kiriyama et al., US 4,414,276.
The published EP application ‘946 teach formulating a thermoplastic resin composite comprising polypropylene (crystalline resin) and polycarbonate (non-crystalline resin) and .5 part of a compatibilizing agent such as maleic anhydride (abstract, page 3, 20-55 and example 8). The Examiner considers .5 part of a compatibilizing agent sufficient to meet the limitation of a compatibilizing agent. The weight ratio of the polypropylene (crystalline) to polycarbonate (non-crystalline) ranges from 30-95 to 5-70 (claim 4). Said thermoplastic resins are mixed and kneaded to form a composite thermoplastic resin that exhibits excellent modulus of elasticity at high temperatures and resistance to chemicals (page 2, 5).
The combination of published EP application ‘946 (primary reference) does not teach the claimed amount of compatibilizing agent.
The published EP application issued to Guo et al., teach a composition comprising from about 20 wt. % to about 80 wt. % of a polycarbonate, from about 10 wt. % to about 50 wt. % % of a polypropylene, from about 1 wt. % to about 30 wt. % of a compatibilizer; and from about 0.01 wt. % to about 0.5 wt. % of a salt of a long chain aliphatic carboxylic acid [Abstract]. Guo et al., teach a compatibilizer, which may comprise a maleic anhydride (MAH) grafted polymer, including but not limited to MAH polypropylene (MAH PP). As a further example, and not to be limiting, the maleated polyolefin may include a maleic anhydride-grafted polyethylene copolymer (MAH EP). Further, Guo teaches that the compatibilizer is added to improve the miscibility between the polycarbonate base resin and the polypropylene polymer. The interaction may be chemical (e.g., grafting) and/or physical (e.g., affecting the surface characteristics of the dispersed resin phases). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to use the maleate compatibilizer of Guo et al., in the claimed amounts in the thermoplastic composition taught by the primary reference of published EP application ‘946.
The published EP document ‘946 (primary reference) does not teach forming extruded filaments.
The patent issued to Kiriyama et al., teach a forming composite polymer fibers and yarns using an extrusion apparatus that includes a supply molten resin, extruders, spinnerets, a cooling fluid and a drawing device (abstract, column 14,25-55 and column 22, 10-30). Said fibers can further be drawn to a ratio of 1.1 to 10 (column 21, 35-45). Said fibers can be made to have a denier ranging from .01 to 1000 (column 26, 25-30). Such a denier range meets the dtex limitation of claim 6. Said fibers have lengths of not more than 200mm (column 31, 1-20). Said fibers can be used to form a variety of knitted, woven and/or non-woven fabrics (column 31, 40-50).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the resin composite composition of the published EP application ‘946 modified by Guo et al., to form the extruded and drawn fibers taught by Kiriyama et al. Motivation to use the thermoplastic resin composite of modified published EP application ‘946 is found in the desire to produce fibers and yarns that exhibit excellent modulus of elasticity at high temperatures and resistance to chemicals.
The combination of cited prior art does not specifically recognize the claimed pensile strength or modulus and creep (claim 21); however, said properties are expected to be present to the fibers taught by the combination of the published EP application ‘946, Guo et al., and Kiriyama et al. Support for said position is found in the use of the same polymer components in the same proportions. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to claims 7, 10, 11, 18 and 19, the Examiner is of the position that thermoplastic resin composite can be extruded and/or formed into a variety of products such as the claimed tape, rope and multi-filament yarns. Applicants have not set forth any further distinguishing limitations and thus said products are considered obvious variants to the claimed fibers and fabrics.
6. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable EP 0265946 in view of Kiriyama et al., US 4,414,276 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 3318655.
The combination of the published EP application and Kiriyama et al., do not expressly teach the claimed isotactic polypropylene.
Patent ‘655 teach a polypropylene-polycarbonate resin fiber wherein the polypropylene is the claimed isotactic (title, abstract and column 2, 35-45). Patent ‘655 teach that the fibers produced with isotactic polypropylene exhibit superior mechanical strength and resilience (column 1, 15-25). Therefore, motivated by the desire to produce fibers having superior mechanical strength and resilience it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the fibers taught by the combination of published EP application ‘946 modified by Guo et al., and Kiriyama et al., with an isotactic polypropylene as disclosed in patent ‘655.
Conclusion
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789