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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of formula 2, claims 1-14 and 16-20, in the reply filed on February 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 18, 2026.
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 1-14 and 16-20 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 “1,3 butadiene monomer with 21 to 85 wt% incorporated by 1,2 addition” which causes confusion. What is the basis for the percentage? For purposes of examination, the 1,3 butadiene monomer of block B is interpreted as “based on the weight of the polymerized 1,3-butadiene monomer in each block B”.
Claims 2-14 and 16-20 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A multi-block polyolefin copolymer represented by at least one formula selected from:
[(A)p(B)q(C)r1]nX (2),
wherein
p, q, q2 and r, each independently is greater than or equal to 1,
p1, q1 and r1, each independently is greater than or equal to 0,
n is ranging from 2 to 10, and
X is a residue of a coupling agent; and
wherein
each block A and C is a semicrystalline polymer block, same or different from each other, and independently derived from 1,3-butadiene monomer with 80 to 97 wt.% incorporation by 1,4 addition, based on weight of the polymerized 1,3-butadiene monomer in each block A and C; and each block B is an amorphous polymer block derived from at least one monomer selected from isoprene monomer, 1,3-butadiene monomer with 21 to 85 wt.% incorporation by 1,2 addition, and mixtures thereof.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leland (US 4370448) in view of Naylor et al. (US 4107236).
Regarding claim 1, Leland teaches a composition comprising an elastomeric 1,3-butadiene polymer consisting of segments of high vinyl having about 50 to about 90 percent 1,2 addition and low vinyl having about 5 to about 15 percent 1,2 addition in a weight ratio of high vinyl:low vinyl of about 60:40 to about 40:60 (claim 1), equivalent to a low vinyl segment of having 85 percent to 95 percent 1,4 addition and thereby reading on the multiblock copolymer formula 2 wherein r1 is 0, and overlapping with block A that is a semicrystalline polymer block and block B is an amorphous polymer block derived from 1,3-butadiene monomer.
Leland is silent on if the multiblock polymer has the structure of formula (2) as recited in the instant claim.
However, Leland teaches the multiblock polymer are disclose in Naylor et al. [col 2, line 33-65]. Naylor et al. teach a hydrogenated radial block polymer represented by the formula (HLvB--HMvB)a z wherein each HLvB represents a block of hydrogenated low vinyl polybutadiene, each HMvB represents a block of hydrogenated medium vinyl polybutadiene, Z represents a residue from the coupling agent employed in the preparation of said radial block polymer, and a represents the degree of branching and is at least about 3, thereby reading on formula 2. Naylor et al. offer the motivation that the multiblock copolymer exhibits good tensile and elongation characteristics and shows tensile strength [col 18, line 1-5]. Leland is also interested in tensile and elongation characteristics [col 6, line 1-11]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the structure of the multiblock polymer of Naylor et al. to form the multiblock polymer of Leland with reasonable expectation that the tensile and elongation characteristics would improve.
Regarding claim 2 and 3, Leland is silent on the polydispersity index of the multiblock copolymer as recited in the instant claim.
Naylor et al. teach in Example IV, Run 30 a multiblock polymer having a MW × 10-3 of 157 and a Mn × 10-3 of 87, equivalent to a PDI of 1.8 and thereby lying within the claimed range. Naylor et al. offer the motivation that the multiblock copolymer exhibits good tensile and elongation characteristics and shows tensile strength [col 18, line 1-5]. Leland is also interested in tensile and elongation characteristics [col 6, line 1-11]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the structure of the multiblock polymer of Naylor et al. to form the multiblock polymer of Leland with reasonable expectation that the tensile and elongation characteristics would improve.
Leland and Naylor et al. is silent on the Mp and Me as recited in instant claim 2 and 3.
However, a copolymer's characteristics are determined by the process by which the copolymer is polymerized, including the catalyst and the reaction conditions. Naylor et al. teaches an s-butyllithium initiator was used in Example IV run 30. The initiator is the same initiator used in Example 1 of the instant specification (See instant specification [0117-0118]). Thus, the resulting copolymer should likewise be substantially identical to the claimed copolymer. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
Regarding claim 4 and 10, Leland teaches the multiblock copolymer elastomeric 1,3-butadiene polymer comprises a weight ratio block A to block B of about 60:40 to about 40:60 (claim 1), thereby overlapping the claimed range. Block C of instant claim 10 is considered optional and thereby rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 5, 6, and 7, Leland teaches the multiblock copolymer has a low vinyl segment of about 5 to about 15 percent 1,2 addition, equivalent to formed from 1,4 addition of 85 percent to 95 percent 1,4 addition (claim 1), thereby lying with the claimed amount of 1,3-butadiene monomer incorporated by 1,4 addition of instant claim 5 and the claimed amount of 1,3-butadiene monomer incorporated by 1,2 addition of instant claims 6 and 7.
Regarding claim 8, 9, and 12, Leland in view of Naylor et al. discloses the multiblock copolymer of formula (2) as recited in the rejection for claim 1 above.
Leland is silent on whether block A and B has a vinyl content before hydrogenation as recited in the instant claim 8 and 12 and the amount of crystallinity of block A as recited in instant claim 9.
However, a copolymer's characteristics are determined by the process by which the copolymer is polymerized, including the catalyst and the reaction conditions. Naylor et al. teaches an s-butyllithium initiator was used in Example IV run 30. The initiator is the same initiator used in Example 1 of the instant specification (See instant specification [0117-0118]). Thus, the resulting copolymer should likewise be substantially identical to the claimed copolymer. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
Regarding claim 11, Leland teaches the multiblock copolymer has a high vinyl segment formed from 1,2 addition of about 50 percent to about 90 percent of 1,2 addition (claim 1) , thereby overlapping with the claimed range of instant claim 11.
Claims 1 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al. (JP-58122945).
The examiner refers to the English translation of Takeuchi et al. provided in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Takeuchi et al. disclose a block copolymer comprising a polyisoprene block and a butadiene block characterized in that each block contains at least 10-1 units (claim 1), thereby reading on block B is an amorphous polymer block that is isoprene and block A is a semicrystalline polymer block that is 1,3-butadiene. Takeuchi et al. also disclose a coupling agent is added to obtain the block copolymer, thereby reading on formula (2) of the instant claim (page 4).
Takeuchi is silent on the amount of 1,3-butadiene monomer that is incorporated by 1,4 addition.
However, the isomers found in the polymerization of butadiene is dependent on the initiator used. Takeuchi et al. teach a n-butyllithium initiator is used in the examples (page 5). The instant specification also teaches n-butyllithium can be used (See instant specification [0061]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the amount of isoprene monomer incorporated by 1,4 addition and 3,4 addition to be expected.
Regarding claim 13 and 14, Takeuchi et al. is silent on the isoprene monomer incorporated by 1,4 addition and 3,4 addition as recited in the instant claims.
However, the isomers found in the polymerization of isoprene is dependent on the initiator used. Takeuchi et al. teach a n-butyllithium initiator is used in the examples (page 5). The instant specification also teaches n-butyllithium can be used (See instant specification [0061]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the amount of isoprene monomer incorporated by 1,4 addition and 3,4 addition to be expected.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leland (US 4370448) in view of Naylor et al. (US 4107236) in further view of Shan et al. (US 20110313108).
The multiblock copolymer of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 16, Leland does not disclose a polyolefin blend comprising polyethylene, polypropylene, and the multiblock copolymer of claim 1 in the amounts as recited in the instant claim.
Shan et al. teach a composition comprising polypropylene, polyethylene, and a crystalline block composite as a compatibilizer (claim 1, abstract). Shan et al. broadly teaches the composition comprises 98 to 0.5 wt% of compatibilizer with the remainder being polyethylene and polyalphaolefin, wherein the polyalphaolefin may be polypropylene [0083-0086], thereby overlapping the claimed range of C, B, and A respectively. Shan et al. teach appropriate monomers to form the compatibilizer includes butadiene [0066]. Shan et al. offer the motivation that the compatibilizer with the polyethylene and polypropylene exhibits improved impact strength [0086]. Leland in view of Naylor et al. teach a butadiene multiblock copolymer as recited in the rejection for claim 1. Leland is also interested in improving impact strength [col 2, line 3-15]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the multiblock copolymer of Leland to the composition of Shan et al. with reasonable expectation that the impact strength would improve.
Regarding claim 17, 18, and 19, Leland does not disclose a polyolefin blend of claim 16 comprising polyethylene and polypropylene as recited in the instant claim.
Shan et al. teach the polyethylene may be a high density polyethylene (HDPE), linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE), or low density polyethylene (LLDPE) [0084], thereby reading on instant claim 17. Shan et al. also teach the polypropylene may be a crystalline random copolymer of ethylene and propylene with rubbery ethylene-propylene copolymer among others [0085], thereby reading on instant claim 18. Shan et al. is silent on if the polyethylene and polypropylene is recycled [0084-0085] and thereby interpreted as virgin polyethylene and polypropylene, thereby reading on the instant claim 19. Shan et al. offer the motivation that the compatibilizer with the polyethylene and polypropylene exhibits improved impact strength [0086]. Leland in view of Naylor et al. teach a butadiene multiblock copolymer as recited in the rejection for claim 1. Leland is also interested in improving impact strength [col 2, line 3-15]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the multiblock copolymer of Leland to the composition of Shan et al. with reasonable expectation that the impact strength would improve.
Regarding claim 20, Leland teaches fillers, curing agent, antioxidants, pigments antistatic agents, and plasticizers may be added to the composition (claim 3), thereby reading on the instant claim.
Leland is silent on the polyolefin blend of claim 16. However, Shan et al. teaches an polyolefin as recited in the rejection for claim 16 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M F 8 - 5.
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.
/ANDREA WU/
Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights