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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 9-10, recites “to form a mixture, to form a mixture.” This should read “to form a mixture.”
Claim 18, lines 9-10, recites “to form a mixture, to form a mixture.” This should read “to form a mixture.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-11, 13-14, 18-19, 21-22, 24-25, and 27-29 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.
Claim 1 recites “a mixture” in line 9 and line 15. Because each instance refers to a different mixture, the limitations need to be differentiated. For the purpose of further examination, the claim will be taken to read as “a first mixture” in line , referring to a mixture of (1), (2), (3), and (4), and “a second mixture” in line 15, referring to a mixture of (a), (b), and (c).
Claim 1 recites “the mixture” in line 16. It is unclear which of the two mixtures of claim 1 this refers to. For the purpose of further examination, it will be taken to read as “the second mixture.”
Claims 2, 4-5, 7-11, and 13 are indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 9, lines 1-2, recites “the mixture.” It is unclear which of the two mixtures of claim 1 this refers to. For the purpose of further examination, it will be taken to read as “the second mixture.”
Claim 14 recites “a mixture” in line 3 and line 7. Because each instance refers to a different mixture, the limitations need to be differentiated. For the purpose of further examination, the claim will be taken to read as “a first mixture” in line 3, referring to a mixture of the masterbatch and the core resin, and “a second mixture” in line 7, referring to a mixture of (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv).
Claim 18 recites “a mixture” in line 9 and line 14. Because each instance refers to a different mixture, the limitations need to be differentiated. For the purpose of further examination, the claim will be taken to read as “a first mixture” in line , referring to a mixture of (1), (2), (3), and (4), and “a second mixture” in line 14, referring to a mixture of (a), (b), and (c).
Claim 18 recites “the mixture” in line 15. It is unclear which of the two mixtures of claim 1 this refers to. For the purpose of further examination, it will be taken to read as “the second mixture.”
Claims 19, 21-22, 24-25, and 27-29 are indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-2, 8, 10-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al (US 2017/0135344 A1, hereinafter referred to as Lau ‘344) in view of Li et al (Study on styrene-assisted melt free-radical grafting of maleic anhydride onto polypropylene, 2001, Polymer, Vol 42, p. 3419-3425).
Regarding Claims 1-2, 8, and 10-11: Lau ‘344 teaches a method of preparing a plastic article, comprising combining a core material resin/polypropylene, a modified resin composition, and a polyethylene glycol into a mixture and melt processing the mixture through extrusion (para. 0060), and shaping the composition through molding (para. 0038). Lau ‘344 teaches that the modified resin is a maleic anhydride-grafted olefin plastomer (para. 0060), indicating that the resin is prepared with a thermoplastic resin and an anhydride monomer.
However, Lau ‘344 is silent to the preparation of the modified resin including a vinyl monomer and an initiator.
Li teaches a maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene prepared by melt-processing a mixture of polypropylene, maleic anhydride, styrene, and a thermal free radical initiator/dicumyl peroxide in an extrusion process (p.3420, Sections 2.1-2.2). Li further teaches that including styrene monomer a melt-grafting preparation of a maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene increases the graft rate of the maleic anhydride (p.3420, col. 1, para. 3). Li and Lau ‘344 are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely modified resins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the maleic anhydride-grafted polyolefin of Lau ‘344 with the process and reactants taught by Li in order to increase the number of reactive maleic anhydride moieties in the modified resin.
Regarding Claim 13: Lau ‘344 does not teach that the plastic article is protein-repellant. However, the references teach all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amount. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. protein repellence, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Claims 4-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al (US 2017/0135344 A1, hereinafter referred to as Lau ‘344) in view of Li et al (Study on styrene-assisted melt free-radical grafting of maleic anhydride onto polypropylene, 2001, Polymer, Vol 42, p. 3419-3425) and Lau et al (US 2018/0208753 A1, hereinafter referred to as Lau ‘753).
Regarding Claims 4-5 and 7: Lau ‘344 and Li teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. However, Lau ‘344 is silent to the alcohol ethoxylate.
Lau ‘753 teaches an anti-fouling resin composition wherein the antifouling modifier that is reacted with a base polymer includes compounds such as polyethylene glycol/polyether glycol and AEO-5 (para. 0036), which para. 0169 of the instant specification indicates is an alcohol ethoxylate with an HLB value of 10-11 and a chemical formula reading on claim 5. Lau ‘753 and Lau ‘344 are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely antifouling resin compositions.
Where two compounds are art-recognized functional equivalents for the same purpose, substituting one for the other is considered obvious. MPEP 2144.06. Because Lau ‘753 teaches that both PEG and AEO-5 are suitable for use as antifouling modifiers, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to substitute the PEG of Lau ‘753 with the AEO-5 of Lau ‘753 and would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 9: Lau ‘344 is silent to an antioxidant.
Lau ‘753 teaches an antioxidant [0038]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an antioxidant to the composition taught by Lau ‘344 to prevent oxidation of the plastic article.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al (US 2017/0135344 A1, hereinafter referred to as Lau ‘344) in view of Li et al (Study on styrene-assisted melt free-radical grafting of maleic anhydride onto polypropylene, 2001, Polymer, Vol 42, p. 3419-3425).
Lau ‘344 teaches a method of preparing a plastic article, comprising mixing a masterbatch with a core resin, wherein the masterbatch comprises an antifouling compound and a modified resin (para. 0036). The modified resin is a polymer backbone with a reactive linker such as maleic anhydride (para. 0037), and the antifouling compound may be a Zwitterionic polymer (para. 0037) inspired by a phospholipid (para. 0017), which is commonly known to be an amphiphili8c compound. The composition may further include additives such as catalysts, initiators, stabilizers, foaming agents, plasticizers, thickeners, lubricants, fillers, impact modifiers, anti-blocks, clarifiers, antistatics, flame retardants and/or colorants (para. 0037). The method further comprises shaping the composition into a plastic article (para. 0038).
However, Lau ‘344 is silent to the preparation of the modified resin including a vinyl monomer and an initiator.
Li teaches a maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene prepared by melt-processing a mixture of polypropylene, maleic anhydride, styrene, and a thermal free radical initiator/dicumyl peroxide in an extrusion process (p.3420, Sections 2.1-2.2). Li further teaches that including styrene monomer a melt-grafting preparation of a maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene increases the graft rate of the maleic anhydride (p.3420, col. 1, para. 3). Li and Lau ‘344 are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely modified resins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the maleic anhydride-grafted polyolefin of Lau ‘344 with the process and reactants taught by Li in order to increase the number of reactive maleic anhydride moieties in the modified resin.
Claims 18-19, 25, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al (US 2017/0135344 A1, hereinafter referred to as Lau ‘344) in view of Li et al (Study on styrene-assisted melt free-radical grafting of maleic anhydride onto polypropylene, 2001, Polymer, Vol 42, p. 3419-3425).
Regarding Claims 18-19, 25, and 27-28: Lau ‘344 teaches a method of preparing a plastic article, comprising combining a core material resin/polypropylene, a modified resin composition, and a polyethylene glycol into a mixture and melt processing the mixture through extrusion (para. 0060), and shaping the composition through molding (para. 0038). Lau ‘344 teaches that the modified resin is a maleic anhydride-grafted olefin plastomer (para. 0060), indicating that the resin is prepared with a thermoplastic resin and an anhydride monomer.
However, Lau ‘344 is silent to the preparation of the modified resin including a vinyl monomer and an initiator.
Li teaches a maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene prepared by melt-processing a mixture of polypropylene, maleic anhydride, styrene, and a thermal free radical initiator/dicumyl peroxide in an extrusion process (p.3420, Sections 2.1-2.2). Li further teaches that including styrene monomer a melt-grafting preparation of a maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene increases the graft rate of the maleic anhydride (p.3420, col. 1, para. 3). Li and Lau ‘344 are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely modified resins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the maleic anhydride-grafted polyolefin of Lau ‘344 with the process and reactants taught by Li in order to increase the number of reactive maleic anhydride moieties in the modified resin.
Regarding Claim 29: The preparation of the modified resin taught by Li does not include the use of a surfactant.
Claims 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al (US 2017/0135344 A1, hereinafter referred to as Lau ‘344) in view of Li et al (Study on styrene-assisted melt free-radical grafting of maleic anhydride onto polypropylene, 2001, Polymer, Vol 42, p. 3419-3425) and Lau et al (US 2018/0208753 A1, hereinafter referred to as Lau ‘753).
Lau ‘344 and Li teach all of the limitations of claim 18, as set forth above. However, Lau ‘344 is silent to the alcohol ethoxylate.
Lau ‘753 teaches an anti-fouling resin composition wherein the antifouling modifier that is reacted with a base polymer includes compounds such as polyethylene glycol/polyether glycol and AEO-5 (para. 0036), which para. 0169 of the instant specification indicates is an alcohol ethoxylate with an HLB value of 10-11 and a chemical formula reading on claim 22. Lau ‘753 and Lau ‘344 are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely antifouling resin compositions.
Where two compounds are art-recognized functional equivalents for the same purpose, substituting one for the other is considered obvious. MPEP 2144.06. Because Lau ‘753 teaches that both PEG and AEO-5 are suitable for use as antifouling modifiers, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to substitute the PEG of Lau ‘753 with the AEO-5 of Lau ‘753 and would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bookbinder (US 2010/0280174 A1) teaches protein-repellent plastic articles comprising non-ionic surfactants.
Liu (US 2020/0017658 A1) teaches germ-repelling polymers comprising polyethoxylated compounds.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767