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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/14/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-13 and 15) in the reply filed on 1/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 3-5 include Korean text. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract is objected to because it is incomplete or only incorporates the title.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
Claims 7 and 8 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 claims 7 and 8, it is unclear if the molecular weight or the molecular weight distribution is for the polyolefin or for the composite. Confusion arises from the specification which refers to either one as having the measured molecular weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Englund (US 2018/0148569).
Englund exemplifies a polymer composition comprising 98.5 wt % LDPE and 1.5 wt % Aerosil R7200 inorganic filler, wherein Aerosil R7200 is a silane treated silica (Table 3, Example 1; paragraph 0207). Englund teaches that the surface treatment provides for improved dispersion (paragraph 0110 and 0137) which suggests that there is an interaction, i.e., a bond, formed between LDPE and the silica filler.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 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, 5, 6, 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 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.
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
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 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 8 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 8 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).
Conclusion
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