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 .
Response to Amendment
All outstanding rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on 5/12/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 5/12/2026. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to require that the non-porous inorganic material is “directly bonded” to the polyolefin or bonded through at least one of a catalytically active component and cocatalyst and that the chemical bond is formed through a hydroxyl or siloxane group present on the surface of the non-porous inorganic material. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, penultimate line, the term “the chemical bond” lacks antecedent basis. It is not clear how “chemical” limits bond, i.e., only covalent or also allowing for hydrogen or ionic bonding.
With respect to claims 2-5, 7-10, and 15, they are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency of the claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukui (US 2007/0123656).
With respect to claims 1-3 and 5, Fukui discloses a polyolefin resin comprising a graft polyolefin copolymer which is copolymerized to modified particle of a metallic compound (abstract). In Example 1 6.58 g silica are treated with 0.5 g of 3-acryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane (an ethylenically unsaturated coupling agent) and 2.0 g of 1-hexene (paragraphs 0088-0090), which provides for about 72 wt % silica in the graft copolymer. In Example 2, 20 g of a polypropylene resin is mixed with 4 g of the graft copolymer of Example 1 (paragraph 0091), which provides for about 12 wt % silica which is bonded to “at a least portion of the polyolefin” like claimed. Because the ethylenically unsaturated coupling agent is polymerized with 1-hexene, it meets the claim limitation of “directly bonded” through a siloxane group from the ethylenically unsaturated coupling agent which is reacted with silanol (hydroxyl) on the silica (paragraph 0050).
With respect to claim 9, Example 2 exhibits elastic (Young’s) modulus of 692 MPa (Table 1).
With respect to claim 15, the composite disclosed by Fukui is capable of behaving as a separator material, including a divider or made into a sieve. The body of this claim does not provide a structure for the separator made from the hybrid composite.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukui (US 2007/0123656) in view of evidence provided by Fomitchev (US 10,407,571).
The discussion with respect to Fukui in paragraph 8 above is incorporated here by reference.
Example 1 of Fukui utilizes SNOWTEX ZL colloidal silica (paragraph 0062) which inherently has a surface area of 30 m2/g as evidenced by Fomitchev in Table 1 (col. 14, line 59).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui (US 2007/0123656).
The discussion with respect to Fukui in paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Fukui does not explicitly disclose the water contact angle but shows that Example 2 has a wetting property of 323 µN/cm which is the highest value and is representative of high polarity and wetting property (paragraph 0085) which are directly related to water contact angle.
Given the desirability of wetting property and further given that Example 2 has a high wetting property, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a polyolefin composite having a water contact angle of 45° or less.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui (US 2007/0123656) in view of US ‘703 (US 7,335,703).
The discussion with respect to Fukui in paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Fukui teaches that the graft copolymer prepared with an amount of monomer to activated species is 10 to 109 in order to avoid low molecular weight (paragraph 0039).
US ‘703 also discloses a polyolefin graft copolymer (abstract) and teaches (like Fukui) that the ratio of monomer to activated species is 10 to 109 in order to avoid low molecular weight (col. 5, lines 56-63). US ‘703 also teaches that the graft copolymer has a weight average molecular weight of 5,000-1,000,000 and molecular weight distribution of 1.4 to 10 (col. 8, lines 15-19).
Given that both Fukui and US ‘703 are drawn to polyolefin graft copolymers which teach obtaining a graft copolymer that does not have a small molecular weight and further given that US ‘703 teaches that its graft copolymer’s molecular weight and molecular weight distribution overlap with the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a suitable molecular weight and molecular weight distribution taught by US ‘703 as the molecular weight and molecular weight distribution for Fukui’s graft copolymer—absent a showing of unexpected or surprising results. Case laws holds that if there is no evidence in the record pointing to any critical significance in a claimed molecular weight then the claims are not patentable over the prior art. In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that Fukui does not disclose a non-porous inorganic material that is directly bonded to at least a portion of the polyolefin where the chemical bond is formed through a hydroxyl group or a siloxane group present on the surface of the non-porous material.
Because the ethylenically unsaturated silane coupling agent exemplified with is polymerized with 1-hexene, it meets the claim limitation of “directly bonded” through a siloxane group from the ethylenically unsaturated coupling agent which is reacted with silanol (hydroxyl) on the silica (paragraph 0050).
Applicant also argues that Fukui does not disclose that the silica is bonded to the polyolefin via a catalyst.
The claim limitation regarding the catalyst is used to bond the silica to the polyolefin is in an alternative embodiment and therefore optional. Also, Fukui discloses a polymerization catalyst to polymerize surface-treated silica with the olefin (e.g., 1-hexene) which also meets the claim limitation that a catalyst is used to bond the silica to the polyolefin.
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 VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/VICKEY NERANGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn
Prosecution Insights