DETAILED ACTION
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 17 and 19 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.
In claims 17 and 19 the solvent is required to be in an amount of less than or equal to 1.0 wt, but no units of the weight are given. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not know if this was grams or kilograms, etc. For the purpose of further examination, it is taken to be wt %.
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 1-9, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penfold et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,824,718).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, and 6: Penfold et al. teaches a process to cure/crosslink a composition (col. 5 lines 25-37) comprising thermally treating a composition at 200 °C in the presence of moisture/humidity and a relative humidity of 50% (col. 7 lines 45-54), which overlaps the claimed range. The composition comprises an ethylene/silane interpolymer/grafted polymer (col. 1 lines 5-30) and a cure catalyst such as lead carboxylate (col. 5 lines 25-35). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the overlapping relative humidity of Penfold et al. and would have been motivated to do so since Penfold et al. teaches this is an acceptable humidity to achieve the disclosed invention.
Regarding claim 3: Penfold et al. teaches the catalyst present in the presence of moisture/humidity (col. 5 lines 25-37, col. 7 lines 45-54), which means moisture/water is touching the catalyst and therefore is either adsorbed or absorbed.
Regarding claims 5 and 7: Penfold et al. teaches a silane that has an ethylenically unsaturated hydrocarbyl group and hydrolyzable groups such as alkyls (col. 4 lines 40-50, which overlap the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 8: Penfold et al. teaches a crosslinked composition (col. 6 lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 9: Penfold et al. teaches an article (col. 6 line 15-25).
Regarding claims 16 and 18: Penfold et al. teaches the catalyst in an amount of 0.015-0.035 per 100 parts resin (col. 5 lines 34-37), which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claims 17 and 19: Penfold et al. does not teach any solvents.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longi et al. (U.S. Pat. 3,644,306) in view of Penfold et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,824,718).
Regarding claims 10, 11, and 14: Longi et al. teaches a process to form a composition (abstract) comprising heating/thermally treating (col. 4 lines 25-35) a composition comprising an olefin/ethylene or propylene and a silane/alkenylsilane terpolymer/interpolymer (abstract), and alcohol (col. 4 lines 30-35) and a Lewis acid such as aluminum triethyl (col. 2 lines 65-70). Longi et al. does not teach the molecular weight distribution. However, Penfold et al. teaches a molecular weight distribution of 1.76 (example 1), which overlaps the claimed range. Further, Longi et al. does not teach an alkoxysilane. However, Penfold et al. teaches an alkoxysilane (col. 4 lines 40-50). Longi et al. and Penfold et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely olefin/silane interpolymers. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the alkoxysilane of Penfold et al. in the process of Longi et al. and would have been motivated to do so since the alkoxy groups are hydrolyzable. Further a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the molecular weight distribution of Penfold et al. in the composition of Longi et al. and would have been motivated to do so to control the physical properties of the products.
Regarding claim 12: Longi et al. teaches butanol (example 1), which is the claimed formula where n is 4.
Regarding claim 13: Longi et al. teaches
PNG
media_image1.png
42
274
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(col. 2 line 5), which reads on the instant formula where R1 is (CH2)p, R is the claimed R and R’ and is alkyl, and n can be 2 and m can be 1.
Regarding claim 15: Longi et al. teaches an article formed of the composition (col. 2 lines 15-20).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longi et al. (U.S. Pat. 3,644,306) in view of Penfold et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,824,718) as applied to claim 10 set forth above and in view of Campbell, Jr. et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,258,902).
Regarding claim 20: Longi et al. teaches the basic claimed process as set forth above. Not disclosed is the specifically claimed Lewis acid. However, Campbell, Jr. et al. teaches a similar process where the Lewis acid is tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane (col. 12 lines 45-50). Longi et al. and Campbell, Jr. et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely olefin silane interpolymers. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to sue the tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane of Campbell, Jr. et al. in the process of Longi et al. and would have been motivated to do so since Campbell, Jr. et al. teaches it is preferred.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments directed to independent claims 1 and 6 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, but independent claim 10 has the same base reference.
Applicant’s argument that claim 10 is directed to a process to form an interpolymer and not to a process to form a crosslinked interpolymer is acknowledged. However, Longi et al. also teaches first forming the interpolymer/terpolymer (col. 2 lines 1-5), which are then mixed with the catalyst in order to crosslink. Therefore, the interpolymer and catalyst exists mixed together and uncrosslinked.
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 Megan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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.
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767