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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6,8-14,16 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 inconsistently calls for 0.5-25wt% dispersion stabilizing agent(s), then later 1-6wt% of the fatty acid/salt dispersion stabilizing agent. Which is the minimum amount?
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen 2016/0168368.
Chen claims (#1) a composite polymer that mirrors applicant’s claim 1, with the exception that a minimum grafting efficiency is specified and Chen’s claim calls for “dispersion stabilizing agents” in general rather than fatty acids and their salts. Chen (paragraph 42) also teaches a more limited amount (1-5%) of the stabilizing agent.
However, Chen (paragraph 43) suggests fatty acids and their salts as the stabilizing agent as well as sodium stearate, potassium stearate and potassium oleate (paragraph 45) in particular.
It would have been prima facie obvious to employ any of these fatty acids or their salts as Chen’s stabilizer. These types of stabilizing agents must inherently result in high grafting efficiencies given all other of applicant’s material/process variables are met by Chen.
In regard to applicant’s dependent claims:
One or more stabilizing units may be used (paragraph 42) – meeting applicant’s claim 6.
Claims 8-15 mirror that of applicant’s claims 2-10.
Claims 1-5,8,9,11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2007023093.
The reference (paragraph 47) produces G-1 by extruding a combination of 87 parts EPDM, 13 acid modified olefin polymer, 2.6 parts potassium oleate and aqueous KOH. The EPDM and acid modified olefin polymer qualify as applicant’s polyolefin. Potassium oleate qualifies as applicant’s fatty acid salt stabilizing agent. The resulting particle size is 420nm. This meets applicant’s (i) step.
G-1 is later used for being grafted with styrene + acrylonitrile (table 1).
The graft ratio of the reference’s examples is as high as 88% (see A-5 of table 1). Given the rubber base is 50 parts and the grafting monomers are added in 50 parts, the graft efficiency would also be 88% as shown by:
Attached monomers insol graft – rubber content insol graft – 50
Gaft ratio = ----------------------------- = ------------------------------------- = ----------------------- = .88
rubber content rubber content 50
The grafted particle’s insolubles would necessarily be 94 parts. Given 50 parts of the insoluble graft is rubber, 44 parts of the insoluble graft must be derived from the grafting monomers. The graft efficiency would therefore be 44/50 or 88% meeting applicant’s “at least 80%”.
Neither styrene or acrylonitrile qualify as applicant’s (meth)acrylic grafting monomer. However, the reference teaches (meth)acrylates may be used for grafting in lieu of styrene and acrylonitrile (paragraph 23,25).
It would have been obvious to produce similar grafts using (meth)acrylate grafting monomer.
In regard to applicant’s dependent claims:
The ratio of grafting monomer to rubber base is 80-20/20-80 (paragraph 26) – meeting applicant’s claim 8.
Presumably, the reference’s graft exhibits a core/shell structure as monomers are grafted to an emulsion of polyolefin in the same ratios as applicant teaches – meeting applicant’s claim 11.
The graft is coagulated to form a powder (paragraph 49) – meeting applicant’s claims 13 and 15.
The graft is added to vinyl polymer (table 2) – meeting applicant’s claim 14.
The graft ratio may be as high as 90% (paragraph 27) which means the graft efficiency of the exemplified grafts would also be as high as 90% - meeting applicant’s claim 16.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chen does not support a prima facie case of obviousness.
This is not convincing. The rejection points out where Chen teaches applicant’s claimed limitations. According to applicant’s own arguments and specification, if 1-6% of fatty acid salt is used, the high grafting efficiency must result. This supports a prima facie case of obviousness. Simply because Chen lists alternative species of stabilizers outside of applicant’s fatty acid/salts, does not detract from the rejection (see MPEP2123).
The question at hand is whether or not applicant’s examples/comparisons overcome the prima facie case of obviousness. Such a showing must be commensurate in scope with the claims (MPEP716.02(d)).
Applicant’s specification attempts to show fatty acids/salts improve grafting efficiency relative to lauryl ether sulfate, but the showing is limited to the particular polyolefin combination of applicant’s examples. Each of applicant’s examples and comparisons employ ENGAGE8183, RETAIN3000, LICOCENE PEMA4351 and triallyisocyanurate. Applicant’s claims simply call for “polyolefin” in general.
It is unknown if the superiority of the fatty acid/salts only occurs when the maleated polyethylene LICOCENE of applicant’s examples is present. It is unknown if the superiority of the fatty acid/salts only occurs when the triallylisocyanurate of applicant’s examples is present. It is unknown if the superiority of the fatty acid/salts only occurs when the unidentified RETAIN3000 of applicant’s examples is present.
Given the exceptionally strong case of prima facie obviousness, the breadth of claim (ie any polyolefin) the limited scope of showing (ie ENGAGE + RETAIN + LICOCENE + triallylisocyanurate) the showing is not convincing of patentability (see MPEP716.01(d)).
Applicant provides no specific arguments directed to the JP2007023093 rejection other than there is no reason to modify the reference and there are unexpected results shown relative this reference.
This not convincing. The proposed rejection does not “modify” the reference. The rejection merely relies on what the reference clearly suggests – using (meth)acrylic grafting monomers. Applicant fails to point out which examples and comparisons should be evaluated. The reference actually exemplifies the use of the proper amount of fatty acid salt. Showing the importance of the proper amount of fatty acid salt is irrelevant to this rejection.
JP2005263960’s graft ratios (paragraph 50) appear to be approximately 15%. Given the reference’s examples polymerize 20 parts grafting monomers with 80 parts base polymer, this means only 15 of the 20 parts of grafting monomer actually attach to the base. This would be a 75% efficiency – below that of applicant’s claims.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BUTTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1084. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays from 9 to 3pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Kelley, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-1831. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/DAVID J BUTTNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765 9/5/25