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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, and the first species, in the reply filed on 4 August 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Wan does not teach the recited amount of isocyanate compound. This is not found persuasive because the broad teaching of Wan teaches a range of isocyanate use that clearly includes that which would provide the recited ratio. It is noted, moreover, that these arguments are moot in light of the cancelation of the unelected claims/species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “consists to at least” should be “consists of at least”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7, 8, and 22 are 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 7 recites “the alkylbenzene solvent” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, as neither claim 6, claim 6, nor claim 1 recite an alkylbenzene solvent. It is therefore unclear whether or not an alkylbenzene solvent is required.
Claim 8 recites the solvent “consists to at least 95 % by volume of ketone solvent as first component and C6-C8 alkane solvent as second component”. It is unclear whether 95% by volume refers to the first component, or to the combination of first and second components. For the purpose of applying prior art, it is presumed that this limitation applies to the combination of first and second component, as this interpretation is consistent with applicant’s embodiments.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 22 recites the broad recitation “20 to 50°C”, and the claim also recites “preferably 30°C to 40°C,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 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) 1-6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/003600 A1 (“Wan”).
As to claims 1, 3, 5, and 21, Wan teaches a method for adhering a TPO part to a polyester fabric, that is a polyester part with a second surface. Wan teaches applying a primer composition onto a sheet of PET (polyester) fabric, thus a second surface of the second polyester part (para. 172), and dried to remove solvents (para. 172). Wan teaches laminating a thermoplastic polyolefin to the coated and dried polyester fabric surface and bonded with heating (para. 174) as required by claims 1 and 21.
Wan teaches primer composition includes a functionalized polyolefin, a functionalized styrene block copolymer, an isocyanate component (crosslinker), and solvent (abstract). Specifically, Wan exemplifies as functionalized polyolefin maleic anhydride modified ethylene/octene polymer (Table 1), and maleic anhydride functionalized SEBS (styrene ethylene butene styrene) as functionalized styrene block copolymer as required by claims 1 and 3 (Table 1).
Examples 33-34 of Table 3 each teach primer compositions used for bonding polyolefin to polyester fabric containing the recited total amount of anhydride modified polyolefin and anhydride modified styrene block copolymer, as well as the weight ratio of these two polymers. The same examples comprise a solvent system including cyclohexanone, a ketone solvent according to the recited formula, and methylcyclohexane, a C7 alkane solvent as required by claims 1 and 5. The same examples use PAP-27 and Isonate 181 as isocyanate compound, each of which have the recited isocyanate content (see table 1).
Wan differs from the recitation of claim 1 in that it does not exemplify the amount of isocyanate crosslinker or weight ratio with respect to the anhydride modified resins. However, Wan teaches the use of amounts up to 5 weight percent of the composition (para. 0084), which includes amounts in the recited range, and which would provide the recited ratio of anhydride functional resins to isocyanate. As such, it would be an obvious modification to adjust the amount of isocyanate; moreover, Wan suggests peel strength is a result of bonds formed form isocyanate compound and functionalities of the polyolefin, which suggests that Wan recognizes the utility of isocyanate groups for desired peel strength (paras. 0141-0142).
As to claim 2, Wan teaches that Affinity GR 216 used in the examples is an ethylene alpha olefin copolymer grafted with maleic anhydride (para. 0047).
As to claim 4, while not exemplified, Wan teaches that the isocyanate compound is not limited, and may be those listed (para. 0074), including isophorone diisocyanate, and as such, the same is an obvious modification suggested by Wan.
As to claim 6, examples 33 and 34 use methylcyclohexane and cyclohexanone in a ratio of approximately 19:1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/003600 A1 (“Wan”) as applied to claim 1, further as evidenced by US 2,762,761 (“Stanley”), US 4,102,959 (“Maehara”), and US 2018/0342432 (“Yunokichi”).
As to claim 8, examples 33 and 34, the solvent system is 81.4 parts methylcyclohexane, 4.3 parts cyclohexanone, and 4.3 parts ethyl acetate. While these are presented in parts by mass, based on known densities of these solvents (Stanley, 2:28-30, showing a gravity of 0.774 for methylcyclohexane; Maehara, 5:33-35, evidencing ethyl acetate having density of 0.90; Yunokichi, para. 0079, showing specific gravity of 0.947 for cyclohexanone), it is calculated that these examples have 96 volume percent of cyclohexanone and methylcyclohexane as a total of the solvent.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/003600 A1 (“Wan”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of US 2009/0220751 (“Warner”).
As to claim 9, Wan teaches the use of a polyolefin layer that is a film (para. 0173), thus a sheetlike material having a planar first surface.
Wan does not discuss the surface energy; however, it is known, from Warner that untreated polyolefin films have low surface energy, typically 30 to 32 dynes cm (30 to 32 mN/m) (para. 0082). Thus, the use of a polyolefin film of the recited surface energy is obvious as is known to be typical for polyolefin films.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/003600 A1 (“Wan”) as applied to claim 21, further as evidenced by US 2011/0268966 (“Yun”).
As to claim 22, Wan does not explicitly teach the bonding condition recited. However, Wan teaches the use of Affinity PT 1450 G1 as the polyolefin layer (para. 0173), which as evidenced by Yun, para. 0050, has a melting point of 98 degrees C. Wan further teaches placing the laminate in a 160 degree C press (para. 0174). While this press temperature is higher than the recited range over the melt temperature of the polyolefin, it is reasonable to presume that the heating of the laminate will proceed through temperatures within the recited range at some portion of the process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2017/088168 A1 concerns similar adhesives for POE/polyester fabric adhesion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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 Reuther can be reached at (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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights