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
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in lines 6 and 7, “i.e., propylene oxide (PO)/ethylene oxide (EO)” is redundant and not needed for the claim.
Regarding claim 5, at the beginning of line 2, the number 4 should be deleted.
Regarding claim 9, in lines 2 and 3, “i.e., antistatic agent (Z)/thermoplastic resin (E)” is redundant and not needed for the claim.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10, these claims depend from an objected to claim and include all of the limitations thereof. Therefore, they are also subject to the objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi et al. (JP 2015134907). For convenience, the citations below for Sakaguchi et al. are taken from an English language machine translation provided by applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Sakaguchi et al. teaches an antistatic agent and an antistatic resin composition (¶1). The antistatic agent comprises a block polymer (A) having blocks of hydrophobic polymer (a) and blocks of hydrophilic polymer (b) (¶5). The hydrophobic polymer (a) is a polyamide (¶7) and the hydrophilic polymer (b) is a polyether (¶54, 55). The polyether can be a polyetherdiol, which is a diol containing alkylene oxides (¶55). The alkylene oxides are ethylene oxide (EO), propylene oxide (PO), or butylene oxide (BO), with preference given to either ethylene oxide alone or ethylene oxide with propylene oxide or butylene oxide (¶56, 57). The weight-based content of oxyethylene groups is most preferably 60 to 100% by weight (¶58), which means the propylene oxide or butylene oxide is present in 0 to 40% by weight. Therefore, the weight ratio of (PO or BO) to EO is 0/100 to 40/60, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Sakaguchi et al. does not provide an example wherein the antistatic agent is a polyamide together with a polyetherdiol comprising propylene oxide units and ethylene oxide units. However, Sakaguchi et al. teaches that the polyamide and the polyetherdiol comprising propylene oxide units and ethylene oxide units are suitable for use together in a block copolymer that can be used as an antistatic agent. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a block copolymer comprising a polyamide and a polyether for use as an antistatic agent, and would have been motivated to do so by a reasonable expectation of success based on the teaching of Sakaguchi et al.
Regarding claim 2, Sakaguchi et al. teaches that the polyether has a number average molecular weight of 150 to 20,000, more preferably 1,000 to 15,000 (¶62).
Regarding claim 3, Sakaguchi et al. teaches that the polyamide has a number average molecular weight of 200 to 25,000 (¶52).
Regarding claim 4, Sakaguchi et al. teaches that the block polymer (A) has a number average molecular weight of 2,000 to 1,000,000, more preferably 6,000 to 100,000 (¶78).
Regarding claim 7, Sakaguchi et al. teaches that the antistatic agent also contains at least one antistatic enhancer (¶90) which may be 2-dimethylamino-1,3,4-trimethylimidazolinium (an imidazolium salt) (¶92).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Sakaguchi et al. teaches an antistatic resin composition comprising the antistatic agent (Z) and a thermoplastic resin (E), wherein the weight ratio of (Z)/(E) is preferably 3/97 to 20/80 (¶97).
Regarding claim 10, Sakaguchi et al. teaches a molded article made of the resin composition (¶116).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi et al. (JP 2015134907) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 109208177). For convenience, the citations below for Liu et al. are taken from an English language machine translation provided by applicant.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Sakaguchi et al. teaches the antistatic agent of claim 1 as set forth above. Sakaguchi et al. does not teach that the block copolymer of the antistatic agent also contains from 2 to 12% by weight, based on the weight of the block copolymer (A), of a monomer (c) that is a C6-C12 lactam. However, Liu et al. teaches an antistatic agent (¶2) comprising 30 to 40 parts by weight of polyamide, 30 to 35 parts by weight of ethylene glycol, and 2 to 5 parts by weight of caprolactam (a C6 lactam) (¶10). Based on the weights of the polyamide, polyethylene glycol, and caprolactam (the components which would make up block copolymer A), the caprolactam is present in from 2.6% to 7.7% by weight (calculated by Examiner)1. Sakaguchi et al. and Liu et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of antistatic agents. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 2.6% to 7.7% by weight of a caprolactam, as taught by Liu et al., to the block copolymer of the antistatic agent, as taught by Sakaguchi et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to produce an antistatic agent with excellent mechanical and antistatic properties as well as good thermal insulation and wear resistance (¶8).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
1 Polyamide 40+ethylene glycol 35+caprolactam 2 = 77, 2/77*100=2.6%; Polyamide 30+ethylene glycol 30+caprolactam 5 = 65, 65/5*100=7.7%.