DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
As previously set forth: The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
As previously set forth: The claims have an effective date of the filing of the provisional application: 7/29/20
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues Johnson is overcome by the new amendment requiring the MFBA to be in the backbone with the ethylene.
The Examiner disagrees. Johnson polymerizes all the monomers together. Thus, though the diallylmaleate is a crosslinking agent it is also capable, and expected, to be part of the backbone. It will not exclude itself from the backbone. As such, the claim limitation is met and arguments therein are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues Krasovskiy is commonly owned and should be withdrawn.
The Examiner agrees, and withdraws the position.
Applicant argues the ODP rejections are overcome with a TD.
The Examiner agrees in part. 2 TDs were filed and approved. ODPs relating to these TD’s are withdrawn. No TD is found for 18/007201 and this rejection is thusly continued below.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 1/20/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12269906, US 12479945 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Objections
Objection over Claims 4, 7, and their dependents, is overcome by amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Objection over Claim 8 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Johnson (US 3393168).
Elements of this rejection are as previously set forth, reiterated below in italics. Regarding the new backbone requirements of the claims, Johnson prefers (and exemplifies) including all monomers in the reaction vessel to form the crosslinked product (Column 4 lines 59-62). Some of each of the monomers must thusly form the backbone, e.g. each of the monomers is expected to be found in the backbone. Though the diallymaleate is used as a crosslinker therein, it is capable of both being in the backbone, and, crosslinking between nearby chains. Johnson anticipates the new claim limitation.
Johnson discloses crosslinked olefin/maleic anhydride interpolymers (title). Example 8 exemplifies a polymer polymerized in an autoclave comprising ethylene and diallylmaleate. The diallylmaleate meets the species of claim 4 (which as evidenced by the instant specification has an R value of 5.6, see table 2). See Ex 4 and 5 wherein the crosslinking agent (there allyl crotonate) is added with the other reacting monomers, thus ethylene and the diallylmaleate are reacted together in Ex 8. Elements above meet claims 1, 3-4, 6-7. Articles such as printing pastes (Column 1 line 72) comprising the above products meet claim 9.
Rejection over Claim(s) 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 12269906 is withdrawn due to the statement of common ownership in the remarks dated 1/20/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 5, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson.
Elements of this rejection are as previously set forth, reiterated below in its entirety in italics. New claim 10 is added and is met by elements below.
Johnson includes elements as set forth above. Johnson exemplifies the use of ethylene as the olefin monomer (Examples). Johnson discloses the olefin may be chosen from n-butylene and those others of Column 2 lines 42-43. Using two elements known suitable for the same intended use (herein using 2 different olefins) is prima facie obvious. See In re Kerkhoven. Thus, using a combination of ethylene and n-butylene is prima facie obvious, meeting claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, which depends from those termonomers of claim 6, n-butylene is reasonably interpreted as an alpha-olefin having the double bond in the first position. However, in the event n-butylene is taken as any of the other double bond positions (second position, or, third position…which is equivalent as the first position), it is prima facie obvious to use any of the isomers thereof, embracing using 1-butylene and meeting the above claims since 1-butylene is an alpha olefin.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Lammens (US 20180244813).
Elements of this rejection are as previously set forth, reiterated below in its entirety in italics.
Johnson includes elements as set forth above. Johnson discloses the use of autoclaves for pressurized reaction of ethylene to form a polyethylene polymer. Johnson does not disclose the use of tubular reactors.
Lammens discloses in [0004] that pressurized polymerization of ethylene (title) to produce polyethylene is carried out in autoclaves (thus akin to Johson) or tubular reactors [0004]. Lammens thusly teaches these two types of pressurized polymerization reactors to function equivalently to polymerize ethylene compositions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Johnson the use of a tubular reactor, as taught by Lammens, since these are recognized in the art of pressurized reactors for polymerizing ethylene to function equivalently.
Double Patenting
Claim 6-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 8 of copending Application No. 18007201 (reference application).
Elements of this rejection are as previously set forth, reiterated below in italics in its entirety.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 3 of ‘201 meet instant claims 6-8, claim 8 of ‘201 meets instant claim 9.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Rejection over Claims 1-9 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 10, 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12269906 is overcome by terminal disclaimer.
Rejection over Claims 1, 4-9 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 15 of copending Application No. 18007231 (reference application) is overcome by terminal disclaimer over US 12479945 which is the patent of the ‘231 application.
Conclusion
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 ALICIA BLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2451. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 am -3:00 pm EST.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ALICIA BLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759