DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Godlewski et al. does not teach the composition includes filler pre-treated with an acrylic functional silane and that the reference distinguishes pre-treatment from integral addition is not persuasive. Godlewski et al. clearly teaches blending the thermoplastic organic polymer/olefin with a reinforcing filler mixture (col. 2 lines 8-10). In other words, the reinforcing filler is in a mixture with other components before it is blended with the olefin. That reinforcing filler mixture comprises inorganic filler, a polymerizable unsaturated organic compound having at least two polymerizable unsaturation groups, a vinyl polymerizable unsaturated, hydrolyzable silane, a surfactant, and a free radical generator to form a substantially homogeneous mixture (col. 2 lines 5-25). The vinyl-polymerizable unsaturated, hydrolyzable silane in that mixture can be gamma-acryl-oxypropyltriethoxysilane (col. 4 lines 66-67 and col. 5 lines 30-31), which reads on the claimed acrylic functional silane as set forth in the rejection below. Therefore, the claimed filler is pre-treated/premixed with the claimed acrylic functional silane before it is blended with the polyolefin resin, as in the amended claims. Applicants point to column 3 lines 5-19 to allegedly show Godlewski et al. teaches away from pre-treatment. However, Godlewski et al. considers “integral blending” to include mixing the “reinforcing filler mixture” components (col. 2 line 45-col. 3 line 5), while pre-treatment of a filler is considered to be with an additive, e.g. a coupling agent at high intensity mixing (col. 3 lines 5-10). Godlewski et al. teaches the reinforcing additives, including the claimed silane, can be performed at any convenient time or point in the formulation procedure; the reinforcing additives can be added to the coarse filler material as it is received from the mine and such addition can be performed before grinding the filler to the desired size (col 2 lines 53-68), further disclosing that the mixing with the additive occurs before addition to the olefin. Therefore, it appears Godlewski et al. teaches away from pre-treatment of filler with an additive such as a coupling agent in a high intensity mixer, but does disclose the advantages of mixing the filler with a select mixture of additives, and not at high intensity, before incorporating into the olefin.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 13-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Godlewski et al. (U.S. Pat. 4,481,322).
Regarding claim 1: Godlewski et al. teaches a polyolefin composite(abstract) , comprising a polyolefin (abstract), compounded with a filler treated (col. 10 lines 15-20) with an acrylic functional silane such as gamma-acryl-oxypropyltriethoxysilane (col. 2 lines 5-15 and col. 5 lines 25-32), which is the claimed formula where X is O, R1 is a straight chain alkyl containing 3 carbon atoms, R2 is (OR5)b where R5 is a straight chain alkyl containing 1 carbon atom and b is 3. The composition is free of a grafted polyolefin. The method of making comprises blending the thermoplastic organic polymer/polyolefin with a reinforcing filler mixture (col. 2 lines 40-45), the mixture including filler and a vinyl polymerizable unsaturated, hydrolyzable silane (col. 2 lines 10-15). Since the filler and the silane are first in a mixture together, and then blended with the polyolefin, the filler has been pretreated with the silane.
Regarding claims 13-15 and 17: Godlewski et al. teaches a silane, an acryloxy functional silane, such as gamma-acryl-oxypropyltriethoxysilane (col. 2 lines 5-15 and col. 5 lines 25-32), which can be considered a silane additive and has the structure claimed in claim 15.
Regarding claim 18: Godlewski et al. teaches a peroxide (col. 8 lines 10-15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 2-12, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godlewski et al. (U.S. Pat. 4,481,322).
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 4: Godlewski et al. teaches the gamma-acryl-oxypropyltriethoxysilane is a vinyl polymerizable unsaturated hydrolyzable silane (col. 5 lines 25-31), which is present in an amount of 0.05 to 5 weight percent per 80-99 weight percent of the filler (col. 2 lines 9-15), which converts to 0.051-6.25 wt.% based on the total weight of the filler, which overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the overlapping amount of acrylic functional silane and would have been motivated to do so since Godlewski et al. teaches it is an acceptable amount to achieve the disclosed invention.
Regarding claims 5-7: Godlewski et al. teaches silica (col. 4 lines 10-15). While Godlewski et al. teaches other embodiments for the filler also, at the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the silica as filler and would have been motivated to do so since Godlewski et al. teaches it is an acceptable filler to achieve the disclosed invention.
Regarding claims 8 and 9: Godlewski et al. teaches the amount of the filler is 5-85 percent by weight of the filled polymer blend (col. 8 lines 18-30), which overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the overlapping amount of filler and would have been motivated to do so since Godlewski et al. teaches it is an acceptable amount to achieve the disclosed invention.
Regarding claims 10 and 11: Godlewski et al. teaches polyethylene and polypropylene (col. 3 lines 40-45). While Godlewski et al. teaches other polymeric matrixes, at the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to choose the polyethylene or polypropylene and would have been motivated to do so since Godlewski et al. teaches it is an acceptable polymer to achieve the disclosed invention.
Regarding claim 12: Godlewski et al. teaches 5-85% of the reinforcing filler mixture in the filled thermoplastic polymer blend (col. 8 lines 18-30), which leaves 15-95 wt.% as the polymer, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claims 19 and 20: Godlewski et al. teaches following the procedure of the comparative examples, which injection molds the composition, using the polymer of the disclosed invention (col. 10 lines 49-68).
Regarding claim 21: Godlewski et al. teaches gamma-acryl-oxypropyltriethoxysilane (col. 2 lines 5-15 and col. 5 lines 25-32), which is and acrylic functional silane, compounded with a polyolefin composition (abstract).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godlewski et al. (U.S. Pat. 4,481,322) as applied to claim 1 set forth above and in view of Fukui et al. (US 2007/0123656).
Regarding claim 16: Godlewski et al. teaches the basic claimed composition as set forth above. Not disclosed is the composition in the form of a pellet or particle. However, Fukui et al. teaches processing into pellets (para. 68). Godlewski et al. and Fukui et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyolefin compositions with silane treated fillers. At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to process the composition of Godlewski et al. into a pellet as in Fukui et al. and would have been motivated to do so for easier transportation to a different location for molding.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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 on 571-272-1197. 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.
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights