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
The amendment filed on 7/21/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1, 4, 11, 14 and 21-22 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 1-26 is/are pending and is/are under examination in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument filed on 7/21/2025, with respect to 103 rejection has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argued that when the composition contains zinc stearate, but does not include at least one of a i) zinc-containing reagent; and/or ii) a silicon-containing reagent (Comparative Examples 1 and 2), the unexpectedly superior properties, such as improved modulus of rupture, are not observed. Zinc stearate is known in the art as a release agent to prevent materials from sticking to moulds (i.e., mould release agent) during the manufacturing process.
In response, Slater teaches zinc stearate, which meets the claimed “an organic zinc compound comprising Zn-O functionality”. The instant claim 1 does not exclude zinc stearate from the recited “i) at least one zinc-containing agent”. Therefore, Slater’s teaching meets the claimed limitation.
Applicant argued that Slater requires the use of a functional filler comprising an inorganic particulate preferentially based on calcium, magnesium, or aluminum (paragraph [0056]), none of which are zinc and/or silicon as required by the claimed invention; such functional fillers require a surface treatment agent on a surface of the inorganic particulates; the only reference to zinc in Slater is as a metal salt of a fatty acid, as described above, and as a mould release agent at paragraph [0145]. As discussed above, the results of the working and Comparative Examples of the subject application show that when (see e.g., the tables at paragraph [0042] of the published application), when the composition contains zinc stearate, but does not include at least one of a i) zinc-containing reagent; and/or ii) a silicon- containing reagent (Comparative Examples 1 and 2), the unexpectedly superior properties, such as improved modulus of rupture, are not observed.
In response, Slater expressively teaches zinc stearate as an additional component [0145]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select zinc stearate as the additional component in Slater’s composition, as it is expressly disclosed as being useful in this capacity. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
Applicant also notes that Slater does not teach a zinc-containing compound that falls within the definition of the compounds of claims 4 and 14. The examiner agrees. This amended limitation necessitates new ground of rejection as stated in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9, 11, 13-15, 17, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slater et al. (US 2017/0275462 A1) as evidenced by Spetz et al. (Ann. Occup. Hyg., Vol. 46, No.7, pp. 637-641, 2002).
In regards to claim 1, Slater et al. disclose a coupling agent formulation [0013]: surface treatment agent serves as a coupling modifier) for cellulosic material-polymer composites [0003] comprising: at least one peroxide-containing additive such as di-cumyl peroxide [0100] and zinc stearate as an additional component [0145].
The di-cumyl peroxide reads on the claimed “a) at least one organic peroxide”.
Zinc stearate meets the claimed “b) at least one of i) at least one zinc-containing reagent” which comprises at least one of “an organic zinc compound comprising Zn-O functionality”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select di-cumyl peroxide as the peroxide-containing additive, and select zinc stearate as the additional component in Slater’s composition, as these are expressly disclosed as being useful in this capacity. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to claim 7, Slater et al. further disclose dicumyl peroxide [0100] with a half-life of 5hr @120°C as evidenced by Spetz et al. [p.640, right col., para 2].
In regards to claim 9, Slater et al. disclose the at least one organic peroxide comprises peroxyketals such as 1, 1-Di(tert-butylperoxy)-3,3,5-trimethylcyclohexane [0100].
In regards to claim 11, Slater et al. disclose a masterbatch [Abstract] for cellulosic material-polymer composites [0003-0004] comprising: a) at least one organic peroxide, di-cumyl peroxide [0100]; b) at least one of i) at least one zinc-containing reagent of zinc stearate [0145], as stated in claim 1 rejection above. Slater further teaches that the masterbatch comprises c) at least one carrier for the coupling agent masterbatch of a functional filler [0003].
In regards to claim 13, Slater et al. further disclose wherein the at least one carrier for the coupling agent masterbatch is clay [0056].
In regards to claim 15, Slater et al. further disclose dicumyl peroxide [0100] with a half-life of 5hr @120°C as evidenced by Spetz et al. [p.640, right col., para 2].
In regards to claim 17, Slater et al. further disclose the at least one organic peroxide comprises peroxyketals of 1, 1-Di(tert-butylperoxy)-3,3,5- trimethylcyclohexane [0100]..
In regards to claim 21, Slater et al. discloses a composite [0004] comprising: a) at least one organic peroxide of di-cumyl peroxide [0100], with a half-life of 5hr @120°C as evidenced by Spetz et al. (p.640, right col., para 2); b) at least one of i) at least one zinc-containing reagent of zinc stearate [0145]; d) at least one polymeric matrix comprising a thermoplastic polymer [0003, 0053]; and e) at least one filler comprising cellulose as in a cellulosic material [0003].
In regards to claim 22, Slater et al. disclose a method of producing [0001, 0101] a coupling agent [0013] wherein the surface treatment agent serves as a coupling modifier masterbatch [Abstract] for cellulosic material-polymer composites [0003-0004], the method comprising: A) combining [0101] a) at least one organic peroxide such as di-cumyl peroxide [0100]; b) at least one of i) at least one zinc-containing reagent such as zinc stearate [0145] to form a coupling agent formulation for cellulosic material-polymer composites [0003-0004]; B) combining the coupling agent formulation for cellulosic material-polymer composites with e) at least one carrier [0003] functional filler for the coupling agent masterbatch to form the coupling agent masterbatch for cellulosic material-polymer composites [0003, 0010].
In regards to claim 23, Slater et al. disclose a cellulosic material-polymer composite and further discloses a method of producing a cellulosic material-polymer composite [Abstract; 0004], the method comprising: I) combining [0101] components comprising: A) said coupling agent [0013]; B) a polymer matrix; and C) a filler [0053], to form a component combination; and II) forming the component combination into a composite [0004].
In regards to claim 24, Slater et al. disclose a method of producing a cellulosic material-polymer composite and further disclose extruding the composition to form a composite [0006] comprising an extruder [0191], but does not disclose wherein step I) further comprises a step of feeding components A), B), and C) to an extruder and step II) comprises a step of extrusion through a die. It would have been obvious to one with skill in the art to utilize the method disclosed comprising feeding the disclosed components into an extruder and shaping the composite as desired.
In regards to claim 25, Slater et al. disclose a formulation for a coupling agent masterbatch for cellulosic material-polymer composites and further discloses a method of producing a cellulosic material-polymer composite [Abstract; 0004], wherein the method comprises: I) combining [0101] components comprising: A) said coupling agent [0013]; B) a polymer matrix; and C) a filler [0053], to form a component combination; and II) forming the component combination into a composite [0004].
In regard claim 26, Slater et al. disclose a method of producing a cellulosic material-polymer composite and further disclose extruding the composition to form a composite [0006] comprising an extruder [0191], but does not disclose wherein step I) further comprises a step of feeding components A), B), and C) to an extruder and step II) comprises a step of extrusion through a die. It would have been obvious to one with skill in the art to utilize the method disclosed comprising feeding the disclosed components into an extruder and shaping the composite as desired.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-6, 10, 12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slater et al. (US 2017/0275462 A1) as evidenced by Spetz et al. (Ann. Occup. Hyg., Vol. 46, No.7, pp. 637-641, 2002) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Bruce et al. (US 2020/0369866 A1).
The rejection of claim 1 is adequately set forth in Paragraph 4 above and is incorporated herein by reference.
In regards to claim 2, Slater et al. do not disclose further comprising: c) at least one silicon-containing reagent having structure (II): SiR5R6R7R8 (II); wherein R5, R6, R7, or R8 do not comprise an unsaturation and are hydrogen or alkyl or alkoxy groups and may be the same or different from each other and may be the same or different from the R1, R2, R3, or R4 groups that do not contain an unsaturation. However, Bruce et al. disclose polymer composites [Abstract] comprising cellulose [0025] and at least one silicon-containing reagent having structure (II): SiR5R6R7R8 (II); wherein R5, R6, R7, or RB do not comprise an unsaturation and are hydrogen or alkyl or alkoxy groups and may be the same or different from each other and may be the same or different from the R1, R2, R3, or R4 groups that do not contain an unsaturation such as hexyltrimethoxysilane [0033]. It would have been obvious to one with skill in the art to utilize the formulation disclosed by Slater et al. further comprising additional filler treating agents utilized in similar composites, as disclosed by Bruce et al., through routine experimentation.
In regards to claim 3, Slater et al. do not disclose comprising the at least one silicon-containing reagent of formula (I) and further comprising at least one of boric acid, sodium tetraborate decahydrate, sodium tetraborate pentahydrate, sodium tetraborate anhydrous, disodium octaborate tetrahydrate, disodium octaborate anhydrous, sodium metaborate, calcium borate, zinc borate, ammonium borate, or combinations thereof. However, Bruce et al. disclose polymer composites (abstract) comprising cellulose [0025]; at least one silicon-containing reagent of formula (I), vinyltrimethoxysilane [0119] and boric acid [0017]. It would have been obvious to one with skill in the art to utilize the formulation disclosed by Slater et al., further comprising additional filler treating agents and filler materials utilized in similar composites, as disclosed by Bruce et al. through routine experimentation.
In regards to claim 5, Slater et al. do not disclose wherein the at least one silicon-containing reagent having structure (I) comprises at least one of compounds listed. However, Bruce et al. disclose polymer composites [Abstract] comprising cellulose [0025] and at least one silicon-containing reagent having structure (I) comprises vinyl(alkoxy)silanes such as vinyltrimethoxysilane [0119]. It would have been obvious to one with skill in the art to utilize the formulation disclosed by Slater et al. further comprising additional filler treating agents utilized in similar composites, as disclosed by Bruce et al. through routine experimentation.
In regards to claim 6, Slater et al. in view of Bruce et al. disclose a formulation similar to the coupling agent formulation of claim 2, as disclosed above, and Bruce et al. further disclose wherein the at least one silicon-containing reagent having structure (II) comprises (alkyl)(alkoxy)silanes such as hexyltrimethoxysilane [0033].
In regards to claim 10, Slater et al. do not disclose wherein the at least one zinc-containing reagent comprises compounds listed. However, Bruce et al. disclose polymer composites [Abstract] comprising cellulose [0025] comprising various fillers including zinc oxide [0017]. It would have been obvious to one with skill in the art to utilize the formulation disclosed by Slater et al., further comprising additional filler agents utilized in similar composites, as disclosed by Bruce et al. through routine experimentation.
In regards to claim 12, Slater et al. do not disclose further comprising: c) at least one silicon-containing reagent having structure (II): SiR5R6R7R8 (11); wherein R5, R6, R7, or RB do not comprise an unsaturation and are hydrogen or alkyl or alkoxy groups and may be the same or different from each other and may be the same or different from the R1, R2, R3, or R4 groups that do not contain an unsaturation. However, Bruce et al. disclose polymer composites [Abstract] comprising cellulose [0025] and at least one silicon-containing reagent having structure (II): SiR5R6R7R8 (II); wherein RS, R6, R7, or RB do not comprise an unsaturation and are hydrogen or alkyl or alkoxy groups and may be the same or different from each other and may be the same or different from the R1, R2, R3, or R4 groups that do not contain an unsaturation such as hexyltrimethoxysilane [0033]. It would have been obvious to one with skill in the art to utilize the formulation disclosed by Slater et al., further comprising additional filler treating agents utilized in similar composites, as disclosed by Bruce et al., through routine experimentation.
In regards to claim 18, Slater et al. do not disclose wherein the at least one zinc-containing reagent comprises compounds listed. However, Bruce et al. disclose polymer composites [Abstract] comprising cellulose [0025] comprising various fillers including zinc oxide [0017]. It would have been obvious to one with skill in the art to utilize the formulation disclosed by Slater et al., further comprising additional filler agents utilized in similar composites, as disclosed by Bruce et al. through routine experimentation.
In regards to claim 19, Slater et al. do not disclose wherein the at least one silicon-containing reagent having structure (I) comprises compounds listed. However, Bruce et al. disclose polymer composites [Abstract] comprising cellulose [0025] and at least one silicon-containing reagent having structure (I) comprises vinyl(alkoxy)silanes such as vinyltrimethoxysilane [0119]. It would have been obvious to one with skill in the art to utilize the formulation disclosed by Slater et al., further comprising additional filler treating agents utilized in similar composites, as disclosed by Bruce et al. through routine experimentation.
In regards to claim 20, Slater et al. do not disclose wherein the at least one silicon-containing reagent having structure (II) comprises compounds listed. However, Bruce et al. disclose polymer composites [Abstract] comprising cellulose [0025] and at least one silicon-containing reagent having structure (II) comprises (alkyl)(alkoxy)silanes such as hexyltrimethoxysilane [0033]. It would have been obvious to one with skill in the art to utilize the formulation disclosed by Slater et al., further comprising additional filler treating agents utilized in similar composites, as disclosed by Bruce et al. through routine experimentation.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slater et al. (US 2017/0275462 A1) as evidenced by Spetz et al. (Ann. Occup. Hyg., Vol. 46, No.7, pp. 637-641, 2002) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0023882 A1).
The rejection of claim 1 is adequately set forth in Paragraph 4 above and is incorporated herein by reference.
In regards to claim 8, Slater et al. do not disclose wherein the at least one organic peroxide comprises at least one functionalized organic peroxide. However, Kim et al. disclose similar cellulosic material-polymer composites [Abstract] comprising least cine functionalized organic peroxide of t-butylperoxy maleic acid [0130]. It would have been obvious to one with skill in the art to utilize the formulation disclosed by Slater et al., further comprising similar organic peroxides utilized in similar composites, as disclosed by Kim et al. through routine experimentation.
In regards to claim 16, Slater et al. do not disclose wherein the at least one organic peroxide comprises at least one functionalized organic peroxide. However, Kim et al. disclose similar cellulosic material-polymer composites [Abstract] comprising least one functionalized organic peroxide such as t-butylperoxy maleic acid [0130]. It would have been obvious to one with skill in the art to utilize the formulation disclosed by Slater et al., further comprising similar organic peroxides utilized in similar composites, as disclosed by Kim et al. through routine experimentation.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slater et al. (US 2017/0275462 A1) as evidenced by Spetz et al. (Ann. Occup. Hyg., Vol. 46, No.7, pp. 637-641, 2002) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Patterson et al (EP 1086988 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Slater teaches the coupling agent formulation in claim 1 and the coupling agent masterbatch in claim 11 as stated above.
Slater does not teach that the i) at least one zinc-containing reagent or combination thereof comprises at least one of: - an organic zinc compound comprising Zn-O functionality and at least one polymerizable substituent; - an organic zinc compound comprising Zn-O functionality and at least one unsaturation; - a non-organic zinc oxide or hydrate thereof; - zinc halides; or - combinations thereof.
Patterson teaches a vinyl chloride resin (examiner note: a thermoplastic resin) and a cellulosic material composite with fillers for extrudable products [abstract], which is in the same field of endeavor as Slater, since Slater also teaches a thermoplastic polymer and cellulosic material composite with fillers for extrusion products [abstract, 0006].
Patterson teaches that a suitable filler is zinc oxide [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select zinc oxide as the filler in Slater’s composition, as it is expressly disclosed as being useful in this capacity. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
Zinc oxide meets the claimed “non-organic zinc oxide”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Robert Jones can be reached on (571) 270-7733. 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.
/JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights