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 .
DETAILED ACTION
All the references cited in the International Search Report have been considered. None is anticipatory or meet the amended claims. The most pertinent of these references have been applied below.
The amendment is supported by the original disclosure.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-16 and 18-19, is acknowledged. All groups are distinct inventions and present a serious burden to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office based on a proper lack of unity analysis. The traversal is on the ground that the restriction is only proper if the claims are independent or distinct and there would be a serious burden placed on the Examiner if restriction is not required. This is not found persuasive because the issue as to the meaning and intent regarding “independent and distinct” as used in 35 U.S.C 121 and 37 CFR 1.41, which is for national applications, but it is not used for PCT national stage (371) applications. For PCT national stage applications, restriction is based upon unity of invention; restriction of a national stage application does not take into account whether or not the inventions are independent or distinct, and does not take into account burden on the examiner.
The applicant argued the special technical feature is not met by prior arts in view of the amendment. The examiner disagrees. The examiner asserts the special technical feature is met by prior arts. See below rejections.
Amended claim 13 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 13 is drawn to a process further comprising a step in addition to the claimed process of claim 1. The restriction, based on the same rationale of lack of unity, as stated in the previous office action is repeated here as such. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. If, after an office action on an application, the applicant presents claims directed to an invention distinct from and independent of the invention previously claimed, the applicant will be required to restrict the claims to the invention previously claimed if the amendment is entered, subject to reconsideration and review as provided in §1.143 and 1.144. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. Accordingly, claim 13 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
To facilitate the prosecution, the examiner withdraws the previous election of species.
This restriction is made FINAL. The restriction and election of species as stated in the previous office action are repeated here as such.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 18 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pyun et al. (US 20140199592) in view of Ramanathan et al. (US 20030069362) and evidenced by Blasius et al. (US 20040138381).
As to claims 1, 9-11, 15, Pyun (abs., claims, examples, figures) discloses a process of producing polysulfide for mold application (60, 63, 65) via inverse vulcanization (Fig.1, claims 26-30) by polymerizing (Ex.2) of sulfur (0.36g) with vinyl monomers (38) such as divinylbenzene (0.198g). The weight ratio is 1.8:1, falling withing the range of claim 15. Divinylbenzene meets the unsaturated hydrocarbon of claims 9-11. As to claim 3, Pyun (Ex.2) teaches feeding divinylbenzene independently to sulfur. Pyun teaches the copolymer may comprises other comonomers, such as 1,2-diisoperpenyl benzene (Ex.5, claim 18).
Pyun is silent on the using the claimed extrusion method.
In the same area of endeavor of producing molds (2) using a composition comprising sulfur (11), olefins such as propylene (2, 10, claim 12), and ethylidene norbornene (EPDM, 27), Ramanthan (abs., claims, examples) discloses using an extruder via reactive extrusion (37-40) to produce extrudate from monomers to directly form into molded articles. The reactive extruder is a well-known continuous reactor (meets claim 4) for polymerizing vinyl monomers such as styrene (24, claim 1), as evidenced by Blasius (33-34, 45).
As to claim 2, Pyun, Ramanathan, and Blasius do not teach feeding reactants concurrently. However, selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930).
As to claims 5 and 12-13, the extruder (44) comprises a barrel having temperature profile of 100-220 °C, and the extruder comprises a screw having a compression ratio of 3:1.
As to claims 6-8, Pyun, Ramanathan, and Blasius do not teach a sequence of extruders operated at different temperatures and pressure. However, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP-2144.04. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously recognize to use different temperatures and pressure for different reactive extruders to polymerize Pyun’s copolymer comprising different comonomers based on their different reactivity toward sulfur to facilitate the inverse vulcanization.
As to claim 14, the extruder may comprise twin screws (47).
As to claim 16, Pyun (Fig.2, Ex.2) discloses melting and ring opening sulfur (cyclic S8) before the polymerization. In light of this, one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously recognize to melt sulfur in the extruder via screwing movement that would inherently rotate to pressurize at elevated temperature before injection of Pyon’s divinylbenzene into the barrel for polymerization.
As to claim 18, the extruder may comprise different temperature zones (38, 44).
Therefore, as to claims 1-16 and 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process disclosed by Pyun and utilized the extruders in view of Ramanathan and Blasius, because the resultant process would produce polymeric extrudate from monomers to directly form into molded articles via the polymerization in the reactive extruder.
Claim(s) 19 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pyun et al. (US 20140199592) in view of Ramanathan et et al. (US 20030069362) and evidenced by Blasius et al. (US 20040138381) in view of James et al. (US 20070129483).
Disclosure of Pyun, Ramanathan, and Blasius is adequately set forth in ¶1 and is incorporated herein by reference.
They are silent on venting gas during the extrusion.
In the same area of endeavor of producing mold (52) via extrusion using a composition comprising sulfur vulcanizing agent (11, 30) and olefins such as ethylidene norbornene (60,19, 27), James (46) discloses introducing vent ports to remove volatiles in the extruder.
Therefore, as to claim 19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process disclosed by Pyun, Ramanathan, and Blasius and added vent ports to the extruder in view of James, because the resultant process would yield decreased volatiles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7378. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs. 8am-6pm. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571.572.1302. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHANE FANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766