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 Arguments
Frist, the examiner of record, Zhen Liu is no longer with the USPTO. This application has been transferred to examiner Kolb.
The amendment requires that the monomers A and B be linearly polymerized. This will be inherent feature for the ionomer of Hattori for the following reasons:
Monomer A is ethylene. It contains only two carbon atoms with double bond and there is no other way for it to polymerize other than linearly. If ethylene monomer results in branched polymer then it is only done by deliberate alteration of the ethylene as a monomer or once it is polymerized.
Monomer B is a monomer containing polar group. This monomer comprises required carboxy functionality and when in form of an acid additional -OH functionality. The monomers utilized are based on acrylic or methacrylic acids [0044] and acrylic esters (see examples). One having ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that acrylic monomer, especially when utilized in combination with ethylene will polymerize via free radical polymerization of the ethylenic unsaturation. This also yields a linear polymer.
A number of methyl branches in the ionomer of Hattori will depend on the specific monomers, for example, methyl (Methacrylate) or methacrylate. Judging by the examples of Hattori, polar monomer is ethylene butyl acrylate which has no methyl groups, consequently the content of methyl branches would be zero which meets the limitation of less than 50 of instant claim 1.
Having said that, the prior examiner utilized Mamoru to meet limitation of previous claim 25, which teaches ethylene-based polymer comprising polar groups, where the polar groups are grafted onto polyethylene resulting polymers that are not linear. Another important part of the teachings of Mamoru is that polyethylene is polymerized using transition metal catalyst such as Zieggler Natta catalyst or metallocene catalysts. Presence of polar group will kill the catalyst which has to be used in inert atmosphere and linear polymer having polar groups would never be formed. Consequently, the methyl branching in Mamoru will not be defined in the same manner as the methyl branching in Hattori.
Consequently, Mamoru will not be applicable against instant claims due to new limitation of “linearly polymerized”. Previously present limitation of “substantially linear” is viewed as limitation which enables small degree of grafting, because term “substantially” has not been defined. The examiner would like to note that while term “linearly polymerized” is a process step, which imparts structural limitation to the ionomer, consequently the term “linearly polymerized” has been given weight.
Current examiner will have to adjust grounds of rejection to meet both, linear polymer and methyl branching as necessitated by amendment.
With respect to claims 36-39, the applicants argue that these claims are not rejected over Hattori and Hideo alone. However, based on the non0final rejection starting bottom of page 8, they are in fact rejected over combination of Hattori and Hideo.
The only argument with respect to the teachings of Hideo is that Hideo discloses polymer constructed with hydrocarbons only (ethylene and alphaolefin).
It should be noted that Hideo is directed to extrusion and molding processes of ethylene-based polymers which includes ionomers (see col. 15, and col. 16) and it is utilized to supplement the process and article aspects of the composition of Hattori. Consequently, the applicants did not argue grounds of rejection which were specifically directed to using composition of Hattori with molding processes and articles of Hideo, wherein both references disclose molding. Both teach properties of sealability, transparency and toughness.
In any event, this office action is considered non-final to properly reject instant claims.
Claim Interpretation
Instant claim 24 recites number of methyl branches in the ionomer to be 50 or less per 1,000 carbon atoms. The limitation of “50 or less” has no lower limit therefore it includes no methyl branching.
Simplest polymer made from the monomers of claim 24 are ethylene and acrylate, wherein acrylate is converted to ionic components. Optional monomer C as defined in the instant claim 31 includes monomer of formula 1 and cyclic monomer of formula 2. The simplest formula 1, will have T1, T2 and T3 as hydrogen, T4 simplest formula is an ester group having 2-20 carbon atoms, which reads on another type of acrylate. Simplest formula 2 is when all R substituents are hydrogen.
With respect to claim 41, applicants claim following properties:
Film impact at -20oC and thickness of 30 microns is 20 J/mm or more
Tensile modulus of elasticity in MD direction is 150 MPa or more
Heat seal strength at 30 microns, seal temperature 120oC, seal pressure of 0.2 MPa, seal time 1 second, lower seal bar temperature of 60oC is 10 N/15 mm or more
Inflation film having gloss (20o) of 120% or more when thickness is 30 microns.
Each of these properties belong to a very specific composition. For example, Table 7 of applicants’ invention example I-17 discloses ionomer where monomers include ethylene, AA, NB with content of sodium at 0.2. This specific composition has gloss 145.5, tensile elasticity of 390, and a film impact of 34. Heat seal strength for this particular example was not disclosed. Please see other tables 1-6 for additional examples all having ionomer comprise of ethylene, AA, and second monomer varied between NM, iBA or ethylene and MAA. Another component that varies throughout the examples is the content of sodium (or conversion to ionic functional group) which content for inventive examples is 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.45, 0.6.
The scope of claims as pending is broader in scope because other than ethylene the only requirement of the second monomer is presence of carboxyl and/or dicarboxylic anhydride group that can be converted into salt. Instant specification fails to establish that every single monomer that is encompassed by claim 24 utilizes in any amount would meet the properties of dependent claim 14. Consequently, the claim will be interpreted that ionomer having any content of ethylene and any type of polar monomer having carboxylate or dicarboxylic anhydride also utilized in any amount will meet the claims, because this is all that claim 24 requires. Even conversion to ionomer is open to all or bare minimum (meaning one).
With respect to claims 24 which requires phase angle and haze, these properties are also directed at specific compositions. For example, Tables 9-11 two inventive ionomers:
Resin 1: E/AA/NB at a ratio of 92.0/5.1/2.9
Resin 2: E/AA/iBA at a ratio of 92.3/5.4/2.3
Phase angles are 62 and 64 respectively. When neutralized the angle changes to 61 and 55 respectively.
Haze, however, as depicted in the Tables do not meet the required 2% or less. (see Tables 11, 16). Not sure why applicants claim haze of less than 2%, which value is not commensurate with the description provided in the specification.
The same issues with respect to the scope of the claim vs. the specific composition that actually meets claimed properties are: claim 36 and limitations of phase angle and melt flow rate; claim 37 and limitation of phase angle, tensile fracture elongation and wear amount; claim 38 and limitation of phase angle, maximum stress, tensile impact an haze; claim 39 and limitations of phase angle, melt flow rate, elastic recovery, tensile modulus, tensile impact strength and wear amount.
In any event, all these properties are for a very specific composition based specific monomers and specific neutralization degree. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, nothing in the specification states that every monomer that meets the limitations of instant claim 24 will meet the claimed properties. Consequently, the properties will be considered as met based on the limitations of the independent claims 24 and 36-39.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 24, 26-33, 35 and 40-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori (US 2017/0306134) in view of Yoshikawa (US 6.833.420).
With respect to claim 24, Hattori discloses ionomer comprising ethylene and unsaturated carboxylic acid ester wherein the ester groups are converted into ionic functional group. The monomers utilized in addition to ethylene include t-butyl acrylate. Furthermore, specification also enables one of ordinary skill in the art to use other carboxylic acid-based monomer so that all monomers can be polymerized randomly without branching [0054]. Specification does not limit unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer. Examples disclosed in [0069] include acrylic acid ester, maleic acid esters, and the like with alkyl acrylates being preferred. Exemplary monomer of butyl acrylate would result in zero methyl branching, especially when, as described above, Hattori does not want any branching. The resulting polymer is a linear polymer [0074].
According to claim 10 of Hattori, the ionomer has phase angle of 45-75 degrees at the absolute value G* = 0.1 of a complex elastic modulus measures using a rotary rheometer.
Hattori further teaches that inventive polymers have good heat sealability, transparency, toughness and abrasion resistance [0002]. In order to determine the properties of the ionomer, the ionomer sample was pressure molded into a plate (film) [0246, 0283].
Consequently, since the polymer of Hattori has good transparency and is pressure molded into a plate which is a rigid layer or film, with the same phase angle, under broadest reasonable interpretation the limitation of haze is met, or the polymer is capable of obtaining the required haze when thickness of the film is at 30 microns.
The difference between instant invention and teachings of Hattori is recitation of utilizing inflation molding to make a film.
Yoshikawa teaches very similar type of ionomer, which comprises ethylene and acrylic based monomer having polar group that carries ionic functionality. Yoshikawa teaches molding such polymer into a film using inflation method (col. 7).
Yoshikawa teaches that inflation molding will form a film that is smooth, has good adhesion, does not foam and can be stretched and wrapped around an item.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that polymer of Hattori can be molded into an article (film) using any method that includes pressure molding, extrusion, T-die and inflation. One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that the method of forming article depends on its intended use. Consequently, if one of ordinary skill in the art wants the film to be stretched the method of Yoshikawa is very applicable when it comes to ionomers.
With respect to claim 26, the ionomer of Hattori has 1-30 mol% of polar monomer (Hattori’s claim 12). More preferably the content is 0.1-20 mol% [0062].
With respect to claim 27, Monomer A of Hattori is ethylene (claim 1 of Hattori).
With respect to claim 28, the claim is in a product by process format, wherein the patentable weight is given to the product and not the process by which it is made. Having said that, Hattori clearly teaches that choice of catalyst may affect transparency of the polymer [0097], consequently a specific catalyst is utilized. In order to produce a random linear polymer comprising ethylene and acrylate the catalyst has a structure (Ligand)MRL, wherein M is a transition metal of groups 8-11 of the periodic table [0121].
With respect to claim 29, working examples show binary polymer based on ethylene and butylacrylate.
With respect to claims 30-33, ionomer of Hattori can include optional monomers. These monomers include alpha-olefins which meet the limitation of formula 1 as depicted in claim 31 and 32. Wherein R18 is a hydrocarbon having 1-18 carbon atoms [0065].
The second optional monomer includes compounds that have at least one double bond in the molecular structure, wherein norbornene or vinyl nonbornene are preferred [0067]. This compound meets instant formula 2 as depicted in claims 31 and 33 for n being zero.
With respect to claim 35, the ion utilized in Hattori includes groupa I and 12 of the periodic table include, for example, sodium and zinc (claim 5 of Hattori, see also examples).
With respect to claim 40, Hattori teaches an ionomer that is molded into a fil or a sheet (see examples).
With respect to claim 41, Hattori discloses that the method utilized to determine melt flow rate is JIS K-7210 which is the same method of the instant invention [0302]. Table 4, examples 1-3 teach MFR of 1.5 g/10 min, 0.4 g/10 min and 0.13 g/10 min respectively.
Tensile properties of Hattori are measures using JIS K-7151 and JIS K-7161 [0304] which are the same standards utilized in the instant invention. Tensile modulus of elasticity for examples 1-3 (Table 4) is between 124-165 MPa, for example 9 (Table 5) the tensile modulus of elasticity is 197 MPa respectively (table 5) and tensile impact strength is 913 kJ/m2.
Hattori further teaches that inventive polymers have good heat sealability, transparency, toughness and abrasion resistance [0002]. In order to determine the properties of the ionomer, the ionomer sample was pressure molded into a plate (film) [0246, 0283].
Since mechanical properties of the ionomer of Hattori are within the claimed properties of the instant invention, the film when subject to the same testing will also have the same heat seal strength and gloss because gloss is dependent on the film making process. As such, under broadest reasonable interpretation the same polymer when incorporated into a film via inflation molding will be expected to have the same gloss.
With respect to claim 42, Hattori discloses molding of a sheet for testing purposes while Yoshikawa discloses specific articles such as flexible film which has thickness of 5-20 microns (Yoshikawa’s claim 1).
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that depending on the intended use, the thickness of the film will have to be changed.
MPEP 2144.04A states: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.)
In a nutshell, claiming different dimension for an already known composition or film does not patentably distinguish over the prior art of record.
With respect to claims 43 and 44, Hattori discloses use of maleic acid esters, which is derived from maleic anhydride so that the compound can form a salt [0069]. Having said that, what monomer is derived from is technically a process limitation which does not carry patentable weight.
Claims 24, 26-35 and 40-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori (US 2017/0306134) in view of Watanabe (US 6,423,808).
With respect to claim 24, Hattori discloses ionomer comprising ethylene and unsaturated carboxylic acid ester wherein the ester groups are converted into ionic functional group. The monomers utilized in addition to ethylene include t-butyl acrylate. Furthermore, specification also enables one of ordinary skill in the art to use other carboxylic acid-based monomer so that all monomers can be polymerized randomly without branching [0054]. Specification does not limit unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer. Examples disclosed in [0069] include acrylic acid ester, maleic acid esters, and the like with alkyl acrylates being preferred. Exemplary monomer of butyl acrylate would result in zero methyl branching, especially when, as described above, Hattori does not want any branching. The resulting polymer is a linear polymer [0074].
According to claim 10 of Hattori, the ionomer has phase angle of 45-75 degrees at the absolute value G* = 0.1 of a complex elastic modulus measures using a rotary rheometer.
Hattori further teaches that inventive polymers have good heat sealability, transparency, toughness and abrasion resistance [0002]. In order to determine the properties of the ionomer, the ionomer sample was pressure molded into a plate (film) [0246, 0283].
Consequently, since the polymer of Hattori has good transparency and is pressure molded into a plate which is a rigid layer or film, with the same phase angle, under broadest reasonable interpretation the limitation of haze is met, or the polymer is capable of obtaining the required haze when thickness of the film is at 30 microns.
The difference between instant invention and teachings of Hattori is recitation of utilizing inflation molding to make a film.
Watanabe discloses process which can be utilized to form molded article from ethylene-based polymers wherein the polymers can be ionomers (col. 16, l. 44-48) which are used for their adhesive properties. Composition for Watanabe can further be a mixture of ethylene polymer with ethylene polymer containing polar monomers (col. 15, l. 9-24) wherein mixtures of various polymers are not excluded from the scope of the claims.
While Hattori molds his ionomer using press molding Watanabe discloses other ways the ethylene-based polymers can be molded into a film or sheet. This includes inflation molding (see col. 19) into a film as well.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that polymer of Hattori can be molded into an article (film) using any method that includes pressure molding, extrusion, T-die and inflation. One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that the method of forming article depends on its intended use. Consequently, if one of ordinary skill in the art wants the film to be stretched the method of Yoshikawa is very applicable when it comes to ionomers.
With respect to claim 26, the ionomer of Hattori has 1-30 mol% of polar monomer (Hattori’s claim 12). More preferably the content is 0.1-20 mol% [0062].
With respect to claim 27, Monomer A of Hattori is ethylene (claim 1 of Hattori).
With respect to claim 28, the claim is in a product by process format, wherein the patentable weight is given to the product and not the process by which it is made. Having said that, Hattori clearly teaches that choice of catalyst may affect transparency of the polymer [0097], consequently a specific catalyst is utilized. In order to produce a random linear polymer comprising ethylene and acrylate the catalyst has a structure (Ligand)MRL, wherein M is a transition metal of groups 8-11 of the periodic table [0121].
With respect to claim 29, working examples show binary polymer based on ethylene and butylacrylate.
With respect to claims 30-33, ionomer of Hattori can include optional monomers. These monomers include alpha-olefins which meet the limitation of formula 1 as depicted in claim 31 and 32. Wherein R18 is a hydrocarbon having 1-18 carbon atoms [0065].
The second optional monomer includes compounds that have at least one double bond in the molecular structure, wherein norbornene or vinyl nonbornene are preferred [0067]. This compound meets instant formula 2 as depicted in claims 31 and 33 for n being zero.
With respect to claim 34, Hattori teaches use of alpha-olefins as an optional monomer of formula 1 (see rejection of claim 31) but does not disclose the content of the alpha olefins. Hattori however, states that the higher the content of alpha olefins and polar monomer, the lower the melting point will decrease [0100], consequently for high melting point polymers of Hattori (Abstract) the content of alpha olefin will be rather small. Alpha olefin in Hattori is defined as a monomer having 3-20 carbon atoms.
Watanabe further teaches composition that is transparent, flexible and has good impact resistance (col. 4) is a high-density polymer. Alpha olefin is also defined as having 3-20 carbon atoms. As evidenced in Watanabe, in order to maintain the high melting point and good mechanical properties as well as transparency, the content of alpha olefin is in a range of 3-20 mol% (col. 5, l. 46-47).
Since Hattori teaches that both the content of alpha olefin and the content of polar monomer the content of alpha olefin will have to be less than 20 mol% so that when utilized with polar monomer, the mechanical properties are not compromised, and the melting point is not too low.
With respect to claim 35, the ion utilized in Hattori includes group I and 12 of the periodic table include, for example, sodium and zinc (claim 5 of Hattori, see also examples).
With respect to claim 40, Hattori teaches an ionomer that is molded into a fil or a sheet (see examples).
With respect to claim 41, Hattori discloses that the method utilized to determine melt flow rate is JIS K-7210 which is the same method of the instant invention [0302]. Table 4, examples 1-3 teach MFR of 1.5 g/10 min, 0.4 g/10 min and 0.13 g/10 min respectively.
Tensile properties of Hattori are measures using JIS K-7151 and JIS K-7161 [0304] which are the same standards utilized in the instant invention. Tensile modulus of elasticity for examples 1-3 (Table 4) is between 124-165 MPa, for example 9 (Table 5) the tensile modulus of elasticity is 197 MPa respectively (table 5) and tensile impact strength is 913 kJ/m2.
Hattori further teaches that inventive polymers have good heat sealability, transparency, toughness and abrasion resistance [0002]. In order to determine the properties of the ionomer, the ionomer sample was pressure molded into a plate (film) [0246, 0283].
Since mechanical properties of the ionomer of Hattori are within the claimed properties of the instant invention, the film when subject to the same testing will also have the same heat seal strength and gloss because gloss is dependent on the film making process. As such, under broadest reasonable interpretation the same polymer when incorporated into a film via inflation molding will be expected to have the same gloss. Specifically, Watanabe teaches that when polar monomer containg ethylene is introduced into film composition, the composition itself is very much dependent on all the components. The gloss when inflation molding is utilized (Table 9) can be as high as 130% wherein test sample has a thickness of 30 microns (JIS Z8741) for ethylene copolymer where co-monomer content is 20 mol% or less. Consequently polymer having less than 20 mol% of co-monomer will be expected to result in the same gloss and haze when prepared via inflation molding.
With respect to claim 42, Hattori discloses molding of a sheet for testing purposes while Yoshikawa discloses specific articles such as flexible film which has thickness of 5-20 microns (Yoshikawa’s claim 1).
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that depending on the intended use, the thickness of the film will have to be changed.
Watanabe, is a further evidence that when ionomers or ethylene containing polar groups are incorporated into film composition the thickness of the film can be adjusted based on intended use. For examples for heat sealing properties, the thickness of the film is in a range of 3-500 microns (col. 16, l. 10), laminated articles have thickness 5-200 microns (col. 16, l. 55-59). Inflation molding is shown to make film having thickness as low as 30 microns, further supporting examiner’s position that thickness has to adjusted based on the intended use.
MPEP 2144.04A states: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.)
In a nutshell, claiming different dimension for an already known composition or film does not patentably distinguish over the prior art of record.
With respect to claims 43 and 44, Hattori discloses use of maleic acid esters, which is derived from maleic anhydride so that the compound can form a salt [0069]. Having said that, what monomer is derived from is technically a process limitation which does not carry patentable weight.
Claim 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori (US 2017/0306134) in view of Yoshikawa (US 6,423,808).
With respect to claim 36, Hattori discloses ionomer comprising ethylene and unsaturated carboxylic acid ester wherein the ester groups are converted into ionic functional group. The monomers utilized in addition to ethylene include t-butyl acrylate. Furthermore, specification also enables one of ordinary skill in the art to use other carboxylic acid-based monomer so that all monomers can be polymerized randomly without branching [0054]. Specification does not limit unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer. Examples disclosed in [0069] include acrylic acid ester, maleic acid esters, and the like with alkyl acrylates being preferred. Exemplary monomer of butyl acrylate would result in zero methyl branching, especially when, as described above, Hattori does not want any branching. The resulting polymer is a linear polymer [0074].
According to claim 10 of Hattori, the ionomer has phase angle of 45-75 degrees at the absolute value G* = 0.1 of a complex elastic modulus measures using a rotary rheometer.
Hattori discloses that the method utilized to determine melt flow rate is JIS K-7210 which is the same method of the instant invention [0302]. Table 4, examples 1-3 teach MFR of 1.5 g/10 min, 0.4 g/10 min and 0.13 g/10 min respectively.
Tensile properties of Hattori are measures using JIS K-7151 and JIS K-7161 [0304] which are the same standards utilized in the instant invention. Tensile modulus of elasticity for examples 1-3 (Table 4) is between 124-165 MPa, for example 9 (Table 5) the tensile modulus of elasticity is 197 MPa respectively (table 5) and tensile impact strength is 913 kJ/m2.
Hattori further teaches that inventive polymers have good heat sealability, transparency, toughness and abrasion resistance [0002]. In order to determine the properties of the ionomer, the ionomer sample was pressure molded into a plate (film) [0246, 0283].
With respect to ware and haze, Hattori clearly stays away from chromium catalysts in order to preserve transparency. Since the polymer of Hattori is made utilizing the same catalyst, the same monomer (ethylene and butyl acrylate) including the same content of each monomer, wherein mechanical properties above are met, the wear and haze when subject to the same testing will also be within claimed range. This is because compounds and their properties are inseparable, especially when tensile properties play a multifaceted role in wear performance. While the relationship isn’t very direct the wear depends on hardness and toughness which are reflected in the tensile strength and thermal stability, both exhibited in the ionomer of Hattori.
Consequently, since the polymer of Hattori has good transparency and is pressure molded into a plate which is a rigid layer or film, with the same phase angle, under broadest reasonable interpretation the limitation of haze is met, or the polymer is capable of obtaining the required haze when thickness of the film is at 30 microns.
The difference between instant invention and teachings of Hattori is recitation of utilizing inflation molding to make a thin, soft film.
Yoshikawa teaches very similar type of ionomer, which comprises ethylene and acrylic based monomer having polar group that carries ionic functionality. Yoshikawa teaches molding such polymer into a film using inflation method (col. 7).
Yoshikawa teaches that inflation molding will form a film that is smooth, has good adhesion, does not foam and can be stretched and wrapped around an item.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that polymer of Hattori can be molded into an article (film) using any method that includes pressure molding, extrusion, T-die and inflation. One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that the method of forming article depends on its intended use. Consequently, if one of ordinary skill in the art wants the film to be stretched the method of Yoshikawa is very applicable when it comes to ionomers.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori (US 2017/0306134) in view of Watanabe (US 6,423,808).
With respect to claim 36, Hattori discloses ionomer comprising ethylene and unsaturated carboxylic acid ester wherein the ester groups are converted into ionic functional group. The monomers utilized in addition to ethylene include t-butyl acrylate. Furthermore, specification also enables one of ordinary skill in the art to use other carboxylic acid-based monomer so that all monomers can be polymerized randomly without branching [0054]. Specification does not limit unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer. Examples disclosed in [0069] include acrylic acid ester, maleic acid esters, and the like with alkyl acrylates being preferred. Exemplary monomer of butyl acrylate would result in zero methyl branching, especially when, as described above, Hattori does not want any branching. The resulting polymer is a linear polymer [0074].
According to claim 10 of Hattori, the ionomer has phase angle of 45-75 degrees at the absolute value G* = 0.1 of a complex elastic modulus measures using a rotary rheometer.
Hattori discloses that the method utilized to determine melt flow rate is JIS K-7210 which is the same method of the instant invention [0302]. Table 4, examples 1-3 teach MFR of 1.5 g/10 min, 0.4 g/10 min and 0.13 g/10 min respectively.
Tensile properties of Hattori are measures using JIS K-7151 and JIS K-7161 [0304] which are the same standards utilized in the instant invention. Tensile modulus of elasticity for examples 1-3 (Table 4) is between 124-165 MPa, for example 9 (Table 5) the tensile modulus of elasticity is 197 MPa respectively (table 5) and tensile impact strength is 913 kJ/m2. Tensile fracture strain is for examples 1-5 is more than 489% (Table 4).
With respect to ware and haze, Hattori clearly stays away from chromium catalysts in order to preserve transparency. Since the polymer of Hattori is made utilizing the same catalyst, the same monomer (ethylene and butyl acrylate) including the same content of each monomer, wherein mechanical properties above are met, the wear and haze when subject to the same testing will also be within claimed range. This is because compounds and their properties are inseparable, especially when tensile properties play a multifaceted role in wear performance. While the relationship isn’t very direct the wear depends on hardness and toughness which are reflected in the tensile strength and thermal stability, both exhibited in the ionomer of Hattori.
Hattori further teaches that inventive polymers have good heat sealability, transparency, toughness and abrasion resistance [0002]. In order to determine the properties of the ionomer, the ionomer sample was pressure molded into a plate (film) [0246, 0283].
Consequently, since the polymer of Hattori has good transparency and is pressure molded into a plate which is a rigid layer or film, with the same phase angle, under broadest reasonable interpretation the limitation of haze is met, or the polymer is capable of obtaining the required haze when thickness of the film is at 30 microns.
The difference between instant invention and teachings of Hattori is recitation of utilizing inflation molding to make a soft, thin film.
Watanabe discloses process which can be utilized to form molded article from ethylene-based polymers wherein the polymers can be ionomers (col. 16, l. 44-48) which are used for their adhesive properties. Composition for Watanabe can further be a mixture of ethylene polymer with ethylene polymer containing polar monomers (col. 15, l. 9-24) wherein mixtures of various polymers are not excluded from the scope of the claims.
While Hattori molds his ionomer using press molding, Watanabe discloses other ways the ethylene-based polymers can be molded into a film or sheet. This includes inflation molding (see col. 19) into a film as well, wherein film or sheet can be soft and can be wrapped around an object.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that polymer of Hattori can be molded into an article (film) using any method that includes pressure molding, extrusion, T-die and inflation. One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that the method of forming article depends on its intended use. Consequently, if one of ordinary skill in the art wants the film to be stretched the method of Yoshikawa is very applicable when it comes to ionomers.
Claim 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori (US 2017/0306134) in view of Yoshikawa (US 6,423,808).
With respect to claim 37, Hattori discloses ionomer comprising ethylene and unsaturated carboxylic acid ester wherein the ester groups are converted into ionic functional group. The monomers utilized in addition to ethylene include t-butyl acrylate. Furthermore, specification also enables one of ordinary skill in the art to use other carboxylic acid-based monomer so that all monomers can be polymerized randomly without branching [0054]. Specification does not limit unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer. Examples disclosed in [0069] include acrylic acid ester, maleic acid esters, and the like with alkyl acrylates being preferred. Exemplary monomer of butyl acrylate would result in zero methyl branching, especially when, as described above, Hattori does not want any branching. The resulting polymer is a linear polymer [0074].
According to claim 10 of Hattori, the ionomer has phase angle of 45-75 degrees at the absolute value G* = 0.1 of a complex elastic modulus measures using a rotary rheometer.
Hattori discloses that the method utilized to determine melt flow rate is JIS K-7210 which is the same method of the instant invention [0302]. Table 4, examples 1-3 teach MFR of 1.5 g/10 min, 0.4 g/10 min and 0.13 g/10 min respectively.
Tensile properties of Hattori are measures using JIS K-7151 and JIS K-7161 [0304] which are the same standards utilized in the instant invention. Tensile modulus of elasticity for examples 1-3 (Table 4) is between 124-165 MPa, for example 9 (Table 5) the tensile modulus of elasticity is 197 MPa respectively (table 5) and tensile impact strength is 913 kJ/m2.
Hattori further teaches that inventive polymers have good heat sealability, transparency, toughness and abrasion resistance [0002]. In order to determine the properties of the ionomer, the ionomer sample was pressure molded into a plate (film) [0246, 0283].
Tensile properties of Hattori are measures using JIS K-7151 and JIS K-7161 [0304] which are the same standards utilized in the instant invention. Tensile modulus of elasticity for examples 1-3 (Table 4) is between 124-165 MPa, for example 9 (Table 5) the tensile modulus of elasticity is 197 MPa respectively (table 5) and tensile impact strength is 913 kJ/m2. Tensile fracture strain is for examples 1-5 is more than 489% (Table 4).
With respect to ware, polymer of Hattori is made utilizing the same catalyst, the same monomer (ethylene and butyl acrylate) including the same content of each monomer, wherein mechanical properties above are met, the wear subject to the same testing will also be within claimed range. This is because compounds and their properties are inseparable, especially when tensile properties play a multifaceted role in wear performance. While the relationship isn’t very direct the wear depends on hardness and toughness which are reflected in the tensile strength and thermal stability, both exhibited in the ionomer of Hattori.
Consequently, since the polymer of Hattori has good transparency and is pressure molded into a plate which is a rigid layer or film, with the same phase angle, under broadest reasonable interpretation the limitation of haze is met, or the polymer is capable of obtaining the required haze when thickness of the film is at 30 microns.
The difference between instant invention and teachings of Hattori is recitation of utilizing inflation molding to make a film that reads on the term “tape” that can be cut or diced.
Yoshikawa teaches very similar type of ionomer, which comprises ethylene and acrylic based monomer having polar group that carries ionic functionality. Yoshikawa teaches molding such polymer into a film using inflation method (col. 7).
Yoshikawa teaches that inflation molding will form a film that has good cutting (dicing) properties (col. 8).
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that polymer of Hattori can be molded into an article (film) using any method that includes pressure molding, extrusion, T-die and inflation. One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that the method of forming article depends on its intended use. Resulting film can be cut easily and cleanly.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori (US 2017/0306134) in view of Watanabe (US 6,423,808).
With respect to claim 37, Hattori discloses ionomer comprising ethylene and unsaturated carboxylic acid ester wherein the ester groups are converted into ionic functional group. The monomers utilized in addition to ethylene include t-butyl acrylate. Furthermore, specification also enables one of ordinary skill in the art to use other carboxylic acid-based monomer so that all monomers can be polymerized randomly without branching [0054]. Specification does not limit unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer. Examples disclosed in [0069] include acrylic acid ester, maleic acid esters, and the like with alkyl acrylates being preferred. Exemplary monomer of butyl acrylate would result in zero methyl branching, especially when, as described above, Hattori does not want any branching. The resulting polymer is a linear polymer [0074].
According to claim 10 of Hattori, the ionomer has phase angle of 45-75 degrees at the absolute value G* = 0.1 of a complex elastic modulus measures using a rotary rheometer.
Hattori discloses that the method utilized to determine melt flow rate is JIS K-7210 which is the same method of the instant invention [0302]. Table 4, examples 1-3 teach MFR of 1.5 g/10 min, 0.4 g/10 min and 0.13 g/10 min respectively.
Tensile properties of Hattori are measures using JIS K-7151 and JIS K-7161 [0304] which are the same standards utilized in the instant invention. Tensile modulus of elasticity for examples 1-3 (Table 4) is between 124-165 MPa, for example 9 (Table 5) the tensile modulus of elasticity is 197 MPa respectively (table 5) and tensile impact strength is 913 kJ/m2. Tensile fracture strain is for examples 1-5 is more than 489% (Table 4).
With respect to ware, polymer of Hattori is made utilizing the same catalyst, the same monomer (ethylene and butyl acrylate) including the same content of each monomer, wherein mechanical properties above are met, the wear subject to the same testing will also be within claimed range. This is because compounds and their properties are inseparable, especially when tensile properties play a multifaceted role in wear performance. While the relationship isn’t very direct the wear depends on hardness and toughness which are reflected in the tensile strength and thermal stability, both exhibited in the ionomer of Hattori.
Hattori further teaches that inventive polymers have good heat sealability, transparency, toughness and abrasion resistance [0002]. In order to determine the properties of the ionomer, the ionomer sample was pressure molded into a plate (film) [0246, 0283].
Consequently, since the polymer of Hattori has good transparency and is pressure molded into a plate which is a rigid layer or film, with the same phase angle, under broadest reasonable interpretation the limitation of haze is met, or the polymer is capable of obtaining the required haze when thickness of the film is at 30 microns.
The difference between instant invention and teachings of Hattori is recitation of utilizing inflation molding to make a film that can be cut (diced)
Watanabe discloses process which can be utilized to form molded article from ethylene-based polymers wherein the polymers can be ionomers (col. 16, l. 44-48) which are used for their adhesive properties. Composition for Watanabe can further be a mixture of ethylene polymer with ethylene polymer containing polar monomers (col. 15, l. 9-24) wherein mixtures of various polymers are not excluded from the scope of the claims.
While Hattori molds his ionomer using press molding, Watanabe discloses other ways the ethylene-based polymers can be molded into a film or sheet. This includes inflation molding (see col. 19) into a film as well, wherein film or sheet that can diced.
Watanabe further discloses ionomer that was applied to a nylon substrate (col. 20, l. 7) to obtain composite article. The article was then heat sealed which means the ionomer performs as an adhesive on a nylon substrate which meets the definition of instantly claimed dicing tape.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that polymer of Hattori can be molded into an article (film) using any method that includes pressure molding, extrusion, T-die and inflation. One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that the method of forming article depends on its intended use. Resulting article can be cut as it is done with the laminate of Watanabe.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori (US 2017/0306134) in view of Watanabe (US 6,423,808).
With respect to claim 38, Hattori discloses ionomer comprising ethylene and unsaturated carboxylic acid ester wherein the ester groups are converted into ionic functional group. The monomers utilized in addition to ethylene include t-butyl acrylate. Furthermore, specification also enables one of ordinary skill in the art to use other carboxylic acid-based monomer so that all monomers can be polymerized randomly without branching [0054]. Specification does not limit unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer. Examples disclosed in [0069] include acrylic acid ester, maleic acid esters, and the like with alkyl acrylates being preferred. Exemplary monomer of butyl acrylate would result in zero methyl branching, especially when, as described above, Hattori does not want any branching. The resulting polymer is a linear polymer [0074].
According to claim 10 of Hattori, the ionomer has phase angle of 45-75 degrees at the absolute value G* = 0.1 of a complex elastic modulus measures using a rotary rheometer.
Hattori discloses that the method utilized to determine melt flow rate is JIS K-7210 which is the same method of the instant invention [0302]. Table 4, examples 1-3 teach MFR of 1.5 g/10 min, 0.4 g/10 min and 0.13 g/10 min respectively.
Tensile properties of Hattori are measures using JIS K-7151 and JIS K-7161 [0304] which are the same standards utilized in the instant invention. Tensile modulus of elasticity for examples 1-3 (Table 4) is between 124-165 MPa, for example 9 (Table 5) the tensile modulus of elasticity is 197 MPa respectively (table 5) and tensile impact strength is 913 kJ/m2. Tensile fracture strain is for examples 1-5 is more than 489% (Table 4).
With respect to ware, polymer of Hattori is made utilizing the same catalyst, the same monomer (ethylene and butyl acrylate) including the same content of each monomer, wherein mechanical properties above are met, the wear subject to the same testing will also be within claimed range. This is because compounds and their properties are inseparable, especially when tensile properties play a multifaceted role in wear performance. While the relationship isn’t very direct the wear depends on hardness and toughness which are reflected in the tensile strength and thermal stability, both exhibited in the ionomer of Hattori.
Hattori further teaches that inventive polymers have good heat sealability, transparency, toughness and abrasion resistance [0002]. In order to determine the properties of the ionomer, the ionomer sample was pressure molded into a plate (film) [0246, 0283].
Consequently, since the polymer of Hattori has good transparency and is pressure molded into a plate which is a rigid layer or film, with the same phase angle, under broadest reasonable interpretation the limitation of haze is met, or the polymer is capable of obtaining the required haze when thickness of the film is at 30 microns.
The difference between instant invention and teachings of Hattori is recitation of utilizing inflation molding to make a film that is a laminate.
Watanabe discloses process which can be utilized to form molded article from ethylene-based polymers wherein the polymers can be ionomers (col. 16, l. 44-48) which are used for their adhesive properties. Composition for Watanabe can further be a mixture of ethylene polymer with ethylene polymer containing polar monomers (col. 15, l. 9-24) wherein mixtures of various polymers are not excluded from the scope of the claims.
While Hattori molds his ionomer using press molding, Watanabe discloses other ways the ethylene-based polymers can be molded into a film or sheet. This includes inflation molding (see col. 19) into a film as well, wherein film or sheet that can diced.
Watanabe further discloses composition, which is used as an adhesive, wherein ionomers are utilized as adhesive component (See rejection of claim 24) that was applied to a nylon substrate (col. 20, l. 7) to obtain composite article. The two substrates were then sealed together forming a laminate. While the peel test was performed, the results were not reported. Consequently, since mechanical properties of the polymer of Hattori are the same, when utilized in the same manner, the maximum stress in peeling is also expected to be within the same range as instant claim 38.
Additionally, Watanabe states that the haze of the composition (see examples) is less than 10% consequently the ionomer of Hattori having the same ethylene content and high melting point along with the same content of comonomer is expected to have a haze in claimed range as transparency is one of the properties required by Hattori. In order to maintain transparency, Hattori clearly states that chromium-based catalysts will not be utilized.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that polymer of Hattori can be molded into an article (film) using any method that includes pressure molding, extrusion, T-die and inflation. One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that the method of forming article depends on its intended use. Resulting article can be cut as it is done with the laminate of Watanabe.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori (US 2017/0306134) in view of Watanabe (US 6,423,808).
With respect to claim 39, Hattori discloses ionomer comprising ethylene and unsaturated carboxylic acid ester wherein the ester groups are converted into ionic functional group. The monomers utilized in addition to ethylene include t-butyl acrylate. Furthermore, specification also enables one of ordinary skill in the art to use other carboxylic acid-based monomer so that all monomers can be polymerized randomly without branching [0054]. Specification does not limit unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer. Examples disclosed in [0069] include acrylic acid ester, maleic acid esters, and the like with alkyl acrylates being preferred. Exemplary monomer of butyl acrylate would result in zero methyl branching, especially when, as described above, Hattori does not want any branching. The resulting polymer is a linear polymer [0074].
According to claim 10 of Hattori, the ionomer has phase angle of 45-75 degrees at the absolute value G* = 0.1 of a complex elastic modulus measures using a rotary rheometer.
Hattori discloses that the method utilized to determine melt flow rate is JIS K-7210 which is the same method of the instant invention [0302]. Table 4, examples 1-3 teach MFR of 1.5 g/10 min, 0.4 g/10 min and 0.13 g/10 min respectively.
Tensile properties of Hattori are measures using JIS K-7151 and JIS K-7161 [0304] which are the same standards utilized in the instant invention. Tensile modulus of elasticity for examples 1-3 (Table 4) is between 124-165 MPa, for example 9 (Table 5) the tensile modulus of elasticity is 197 MPa respectively (table 5) and tensile impact strength is 913 kJ/m2. Tensile fracture strain is for examples 1-5 is more than 489% (Table 4).
While elastic recovery of the ionomer is not disclosed by Hattori, such will be inherent for following reasons:
Elastic recovery refers to the partial ability of material to return to its original shape after deformation and it depends on polymer structure. Specifically, with ethylene polymers it will depend on the molecular weight and content of co-monomer as well as branching density and crystallinity. It was already established that Hattori does not want a lot of branching as it will disrupt crystallinity and lower the melting point. The ethylene of Hattori has the same content of polar monomer, the same salt ions and melt flow within the same range. Consequently, its ability to recover will be within the same range as claimed.
With respect to ware, polymer of Hattori is made utilizing the same catalyst, the same monomer (ethylene and butyl acrylate) including the same content of each monomer, wherein mechanical properties above are met, the wear subject to the same testing will also be within claimed range. This is because compounds and their properties are inseparable, especially when tensile properties play a multifaceted role in wear performance. While the relationship isn’t very direct the wear depends on hardness and toughness which are reflected in the tensile strength and thermal stability, both exhibited in the ionomer of Hattori.
Hattori further teaches that inventive polymers have good heat sealability, transparency, toughness and abrasion resistance [0002]. In order to determine the properties of the ionomer, the ionomer sample was pressure molded into a plate (film) [0246, 0283].
Consequently, since the polymer of Hattori has good transparency and can be molded into a film.
The difference between instant invention and teachings of Hattori is recitation of utilizing inflation molding to make gasket material.
As was mentioned earlier, Hattori already teaches that the composition has excellent sealability.
Watanabe discloses process which can be utilized to form molded article from ethylene-based polymers wherein the polymers can be ionomers (col. 16, l. 44-48) which are used for their adhesive properties. Composition for Watanabe can further be a mixture of ethylene polymer with ethylene polymer containing polar monomers (col. 15, l. 9-24) wherein mixtures of various polymers are not excluded from the scope of the claims.
While Hattori molds his ionomer using press molding, Watanabe discloses other ways the ethylene-based polymers can be molded into a film or sheet. This includes inflation molding (see col. 19) into a film as well, wherein film is a sealable electrical insulating film. Under broadest reasonable interpretation this is the function of a gasket.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that polymer of Hattori can be molded into an insulating sealing layer using any method that includes molding, extrusion, T-die and inflation. One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that the method of forming article depends on its intended use. As a good sealing material ionomer of Hattori will be able to provide electrical insulation in the same manner as the composition of Watanabe.
*** Note – examiner invites the applicants to an interview to discuss possible amendment and thereby secure allowable subject matter. Specifically,
Claim 24 is directed to a film made from resin comprising an ionomer, the way claim is presented the ionomer can be a resin, or it can be mixed with polymers such as those of Watanabe. Specifying the type of resin and including perhaps an amounts or type of structural units A and B will avoid possible written description that the examiner is contemplating because of the scope of claim 1 vs. what is taught or presented by instant specification and properties associated therewith. Currently, the only component claimed is ionomer itself.
Claim 36 and soft sheet – instant specification does not have a lot of detail regarding soft sheet as such the examiner would suggest perhaps cancelling the claim. Soft sheet is taught in claim 40. Unless applicants are willing to include what the soft sheer really is as defined in instant [0113]
Claim 37 and dicing tape. The term dicing tape is very broad and while applicants define the tep in [0129] the examiner cannot read the specification into the claims. [0129] states that the ionomer is utilized as a base layer and it is specifically used in making semiconductor chips and the ionomer can be utilized with high melting point polymers such as polyamide or polyurethane. The tape has expanding property which is not disclosed in the prior art. Currently, the only component of the dicing tape is the ionomer.
Claim 38 – directed to laminated body, again the only component disclosed in the claim is the ionomer. As such any laminate will meet the claim. If applicants claim laminate, defining other layers would also overcome the prior art. Instant [0114] defines laminated body where the substrate is a glass. Prior art does not teach glass substrate.
Claim 39 directed to a gasket is also very broad and it has to have one layer that is made of ionomer. The way claim 39 is written ionomer can be the only layer. [0132] of instant invention does not have a lot of detail with respect to the gasket so there is not much that can be changed. Maybe cancelling the claim wherein gasket is claimed already in instant claim 40 would be possible
Examiner requests that applicants consider the proposed changes.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 5712701046. 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.
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 September 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights