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 .
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.
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.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delanaye et al, WO2006/041433, in view of Zama, US2004/0034147.
The examiner notes that Page et al, US819273, and Kato et al, Polymer Journal vol. 43 (2011) have been cited as evidence in support of the following rejection.
Delanaye discloses the production of an insulating extrudate from polyolefin blends, wherein the prior art composition comprises a thermoplastic resin and hollow spherical fillers (abstract).
Regarding the claimed thermoplastic plastomer: As noted above, the prior art composition comprises a thermoplastic resin. As said resin, Delanaye discloses the use of (co)polymers of ethylene and/or (co)polymers of propylene (0013); note that applicant’s specification teaches that such polymers fall within the scope of the claimed thermoplastic plastomer (see specification ¶0018). Furthermore, the prior art thermoplastic resin is not disclosed to be acid-functionalized, and would be reasonably expected to have an acid value of approximately 0 mg KOH/g (for claim 1). The prior art thermoplastic resin therefore corresponds to the claimed thermoplastic plastomer (for claim 1) which is a polyolefin (for claim 5).
Regarding the claimed hollow particles: The prior art composition comprises hollow particulate filler which may be a resin/polymer-based particle (¶0007).
Regarding the claimed acid modified polyolefin: Delanaye teaches that the prior art composition may comprise a maleated ethylene (co)polymer, maleated propylene (co)polymer, or maleated styrene-ethylene-butene-styrene copolymer (¶0024); such polymers all comprise olefin monomers and therefore correspond to the claimed carboxylic acid modified polyolefin (for claims 1, 4) (see specification ¶0090).
One mole of maleic anhydride (molecular weight 98.06 g/mol) produces 2 moles of acid groups, and therefore requires 2 moles KOH (molecular weight 56.11 g/mol) for neutralization. One mole of maleic anhydride (corresponding to 98.06 g) therefore requires 2 × 56.11 g KOH (i.e., 112.22 g) for neutralization. The theoretical acid value of 100% maleic anhydride therefore is 112222 mg KOH/98.06 g, or about 1144 mg KOH/g. Delanaye teaches the use of maleated polymers having a maleic anhydride content in the range of 0.25 to 2.0 wt% (0024). Given that the prior art polymer can contain up to 2.0 wt% maleic anhydride, 1 g of the polymer will contain up to 0.02 g maleic anhydride. The prior art acid value will therefore be less than or equal to 1144 ×0.02 mg KOH/g polymer-i.e., ≤ 22.88 mg KOH/g, overlapping the claimed range (for claim 1).
Regarding claim 2: The composition of Delanaye comprises 10 to 45 wt% of the particulate filler (¶0008) and up to 20 wt% of the maleated copolymer (¶0024). The content of maleated copolymer can therefore be calculated to be ≤ 200 parts per 100 parts filler, overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3: Delanaye teaches the use of EXXELOR® PO 1015 and KRATON® FG1901X as the maleated copolymer (¶0024); note that these polymers have weight average molecular weight (Mw) values of about 209000 (see Kato page 584: right column, first paragraph) and 76900 (Page Column 2, lines 10-12). It therefore would be obvious to use a maleated copolymer having the required Mw in view of the prior art.
As noted above, Delanaye teaches the inclusion of a hollow particulate filler which may be polymeric. Delanaye is silent regarding the use of a filler wherein the shell comprises 30 to 100 parts crosslinking monomer per 100 parts of all monomers.
Zama discloses the production of hollow polymer particles having a good balance of properties (abstract), wherein said hollow particles comprise a shell layer (b) made by polymerizing 0 to 20 wt% monomer (b-1) and 80 to 100 wt% monomer (b-2) (¶0090). Zama teaches that monomer (b-2) may in turn comprise up to 50 wt% crosslinkable monomer (¶0089). Given that the shell may comprise 100% monomer (b-2) which in turn comprises up to 50 wt% crosslinkable monomer, an ordinary artisan can calculate that the shell of the prior art hollow particle may comprise up to 50 wt% crosslinkable monomer-i.e., up to 50 parts crosslinkable monomer per 100 parts monomer, overlapping the claimed range (for claim 1). Zama teaches that the prior art particle is used for products needing a heating insulating property (¶0037).
Delanaye teaches that the composition of WO2006/041433 is intended for use in thermal insulating applications (¶0001). As noted above, the hollow particle of Zama is taught to be used for applications requiring thermal insulation, with the air in the hollow particle contributing to its insulating properties. Barring a showing of evidence demonstrating unexpected results, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Delanaye by using the hollow particles of Zama as the hollow particulate filler, with the reasonable expectation of obtaining a final composition having the thermal insulating properties desired by Delanaye (for claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are related to the claimed invention.
Tayagaki et al, US2018/0208733, discloses a rubber composition comprising a base rubber and hollow particles; note that the shell of the prior art hollow particles only comprises 0.01 to 5 wt% crosslinking monomer (¶0068).
Nozue et al, JP2019014798, discloses a polyolefin resin comprising a polyolefin, a hollow particulate, and a modified polyolefin resin which may be an acid-modified polyolefin. Said hollow particulate is an inorganic material such as glass bubbles (page 4: lines 11-16).
Kashiwazaki, JP08-017255, discloses a composition comprising an amorphous ethylene polymer, hollow particles, and a maleic anhydride containing polymer (¶0022-0023: Example 1). Note that the hollow particles are a commercial product generically disclosed to have a shell which is a vinylidene chloride-acrylonitrile-acrylate-methacrylate copolymer (¶0012). The prior art does not disclose whether there is crosslinking monomer in the shell of the particle (and if so, how much), nor has a reference been found that would provide evidence with regards to this property.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY S LENIHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 5:30-2:00PM.
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 Riviere 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.
/JEFFREY S LENIHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765