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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 1,
The applicant states that the halogenated benzene is a dihalobenzene and/or a trihalobenzene, rendering the inclusion of the trihalobenzene to be optional. For the purposes of examination, the composition of the claim may be interpreted as allowing only dihalobenzene, trihalobenzene, or any combination thereof. The examiner notes that because the use of the trihalobenzene is optional, Konno (US 20160237216), listed in the other references considered, would read upon claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 101125924, using Espacenet Machine Translation).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6,
Zhu teaches a composition in which a polyphenylene sulfide polymer is mixed with a hyperbranched polyphenylene sulfide polymer (Paragraph 6). The hyperbranched polyphenylene sulfide has the following structure (Paragraph 7):
PNG
media_image1.png
212
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and in which the two polymers are mixed in a ratio of 100 parts by weight of polyphenylene sulfide to 0.1 to 50 parts by weight (0.1 to 33%) hyperbranched polyphenylene sulfide (Paragraph 6). Therefore, the range disclosed by Zhu overlaps significantly with the range of the instant claim (1 to 30%). One of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to adjust the tensile strength and flexibility in the final composition would be motivated to alter the ratio between the two polymers in order to obtain optimal values of these parameters for the final use case. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected the overlapping portions of the ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding the method of synthesis, while Zhu utilizes a method that differs from the method of the instant claim, Zhu obtains a polymer that otherwise meets the requirements of the instant claim. As the claim requirement is a product-by-process claim, the patentability is determined solely on the basis of the product itself. See MPEP 2113.I. Because the compound is disclosed by Zhu and used in a polymer blend, it would have been obvious to have used the hyperbranched poly(phenylene sulfide) polymer of the instant claim for the same purpose.
Finally, as Zhu uses only trisubstituted benzene in the synthesis (Example 1, Paragraph 19), it would be present in 100% by mass of the hyperbranched polymer, meeting the requirement of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 7,
Zhu teaches that the polymer blend is melt blended and then extruded into pellets (Example 4, Paragraph 26). An extruded pellet reads upon a molded article, meeting the requirements of the instant claim.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 101125924) as applied to claims 1, 6, and 7 above, and further in view of Bailey (New Industrial Polymers, Volume 4, Chapter 7 (1974)).
Zhu teaches that the composition is made up of hyperbranched poly(phenylene sulfide) and poly(phenylene sulfide), but does not specify whether the poly(phenylene sulfide) is only poly(p-phenylene sulfide). However, commercially available poly(phenylene sulfide) is synthesized from 1,4-dichlorobenzene as evidenced by Bailey (Page 84, second synthetic scheme). As such, the commercially available material would be poly(p-phenylene sulfide). It would therefore have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used the para isomer derived polymer.
Other References Considered
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bo (Macromolecular Symposia (2007) volume 254, Pages 167-172) discloses a hyperbranched poly(phenylene sulfide) polymer that is blended with linear poly(phenylene sulfide) in similar proportions to the instant application for the purposes of generating a polymer blend with improved material characteristics. Konno (US 20160237216) describes adding trihalobenzenes and specifically trichlorobenzenes (Paragraph 57) to poly(phenylene sulfide) synthesis to generate branched polymers and uses a similar synthetic procedure to the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BERRO whose telephone number is (703)756-1283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 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 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.
/A.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1765 /HEIDI R KELLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765