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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 – state “wherein (B) R3Si[O….”. It is suggested to add “comprises” or some other transitional verb following (B).
Claim 21 – states “for form a molding”. This is assumed to be a typing error. The office suggests to change to “to form a molding”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 13-16, 18-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over JPH083455 A to Ono. For the purposes of examination, citations for Ono are taken from a machine translation equivalent of the document.
Regarding Claim 11, 13, and 15, Ono discloses a synthetic resin composition [title] wherein Example 3 comprises 100 parts polypropylene resin (i.e., polyolefins) and 1 part polylactone modified siloxane (i.e., organosilicon compound) which is synthesis example 2 [Translated table 1, 0023].
Synthesis example 2 is the structure of chemical formula 14 [0020] and shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
182
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Synthesis example 2 reads on general formulas (I) and (II) wherein R is methyl, R1 is not required, R2 is formula (II) wherein X is -O-, R3 is hydrogen, R4 is (CH2)3, R5 is hydrogen, Rx is not required, Rz is not required, n is 5, m is 20, a is 0, b is 0, p is 30, q is 5, r is 0, wherein a + b ≤ 3 and q + r is an integer greater than 0, thereby reading on all limitations of claim 11.
Regarding Claim 14, Ono discloses the composition of claim 11 comprising 100 parts polypropylene, 3 parts silicone oil, and 1 part polylactone modified siloxane [Table 1]. Therefore it is reasonably calculated that the composition comprises 96.1 weight% polyolefin.
Regarding Claim 16, Ono discloses the composition of claim 11 comprising 100 parts polypropylene and 1 part polylactone modified siloxane [Table 1]. Therefore it is reasonably calculated that the component (B) is used in an amount of 1% based on the about of component (A)
Regarding Claim 18, Ono discloses the composition of claim 11 wherein the composition is extrusion mixed and can be made into a predetermined molded product by injection molding [0017].
Regarding Claim 19 and 21, Ono discloses a process for producing a synthetic resin composition [title] wherein Example 3 comprises 100 parts polypropylene resin (i.e., polyolefins) and 1 part polylactone modified siloxane (i.e., organosilicon compound) which is synthesis example 2 [Translated table 1, 0023].
Synthesis example 2 is the structure of chemical formula 14 [0020] and shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
182
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Synthesis example 2 reads on general formulas (I) and (II) wherein R is methyl, R1 is not required, R2 is formula (II) wherein X is -O-, R3 is hydrogen, R4 is (CH2)3, R5 is hydrogen, Rx is not required, Rz is not required, n is 5, m is 20, a is 0, b is 0, p is 30, q is 5, r is 0, wherein a + b ≤ 3 and q + r is an integer greater than 0. Ono’s composition is extrusion mixed [0017] and can be made into a predetermined molded product by injection molding [0017] thereby reading on all the limitations of claim 19 and 21.
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.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH083455A to Ono in view of CN105462073A to Wang et al. For the purposes of examination, citations for Wang are taken from a machine translation equivalent of the document.
Regarding Claim 12, Ono discloses the composition of claim 11 wherein comprising polypropylene [Table 1] reading on R6 and R8 is hydrogen, and R7 and R9 are hydrocarbon radicals.
Ono is silent regarding x is a number between 100 and 100,000.
However, Wang teaches a polypropylene material comprising polypropylene and organic silicon material wherein the polypropylene is a molecular weight of 50,000-250,000 [abstract]. Wang and Ono are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polypropylene compositions.
The motivation would have been that this raw material makes a softer touch feeling, more resistance to scratching, integrates certain rigidity and good toughness and is excellent in mechanical property [abstract].
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Wang’s polypropylene with specified molecular weight with Ono, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Claims 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH083455A to Ono as evidenced by US20120271004 to Quinebeche et al.
Regarding Claim 20, Ono discloses a process of claim 19 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference wherein the mixing is extrusion mixing [0017].
Ono does not particularly teach the extrusion process is carried out continuously.
However, Quinebeche evidences that extrusion is a technique of continuous mixing and transformation of materials [Quinebeche, 0102].
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use extrusion mixing, which is a continuous mixing process, as taught by Ono to be a suitable mixing method.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Polyester polysiloxanes in conjunction with polymers are known (e.g., US 5,599,862, and EP 0473812) as well as the nitrogen linking group, see e.g., DE 102004035835, but there is insufficient rationale to arrive at the specific polyolefin, and resin having polycaprolactone-siloxane that has the recited structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Devin Darling whose telephone number is (703) 756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached on (571) 270-7026. 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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764