Claims 1-9, 11, 12, and 14-20 are currently pending with claims 10 and 13 being cancelled. Claims 14-16 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-9, 11, 12, and 17-20 are rejected.
The rejections over Martinez alone and in view of other references have been maintained.
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 1-4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0205833 to Martinez et al. (hereinafter “Martinez”).
As to claims 1-3, Martinez discloses a soft foam comprising an ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer and a second polymer with a mixing ratio about 1:2 to 2:1 wherein the second polymer is low density polyethylene (LDPE), LLDPE or a combination thereof (paragraphs 134, 135, and 137).
The ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer comprises ethylene and one or more copolymerizable α-olefin comonomers, characterized by multiple blocks of two or more polymerized monomer units differing in chemical or physical properties (paragraphs 47 and 48). The multi-block ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer is represented by the (AB)n formula, indicating an alternating sequence of A and B blocks (paragraph 47). Hence, A and B blocks are not randomly distributed along the polymer chain. The ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer contains at least one hard block and at least one soft block wherein the hard block refers to a LLDPE block comprising at least 95 wt% of ethylene and less than 5 wt% of 1-octene comonomer and wherein the soft block refers to a LLDPE block comprising ethylene and greater than 5 wt% of 1-octene comonomer (paragraphs 48 and 235). The hard block refers to the crystalline block (paragraph 87). The ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer contains both of crystalline blocks and amorphous blocks (paragraph 71). Therefore, the multi-block ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer represented by the (AB)n formula, indicating an alternating sequence of A and B blocks wherein A and B are a harder crystallizable LLDPE copolymer block, and a softer amorphous LLDPE copolymer block, respectively. The ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer reads on the claimed OBC.
The soft foam has a density of 10-50 kg/m3 (paragraph 132), particularly of 2.05 pcf or 32.8 kg/m3 (table 13, example L). This is within the claimed range. The soft foam has a thickness of 1-15 mm within the claimed range (paragraph 178).
Martinez does not explicitly disclose the soft foam comprising 40-65 wt% of the LDPE, LLDPE or a combination thereof; and 22-45 wt% of the ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the contents of the ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer and the second polymer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such the contents of the ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer and the second polymer are critical or provide unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the contents of the ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer and the second polymer in the ranges instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to provide the foam layer with a unique balance of resiliency, high temperature compression set, rebound and high tear strength. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 4, Martinez discloses that the soft foam contains 0.1 to 20 wt% of a chemical blowing agent (paragraph 140).
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the content of the chemical blowing agent will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such the content of the chemical blowing agent is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the chemical blowing agent in an amount in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to obtain desired foaming properties. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 12, Martinez discloses that the soft foam has closed cells with an average cell size ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 mm (paragraphs 132 and 133). This is within the claimed range.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0126617 to Baldwin et al. (hereinafter “Baldwin I”).
Martinez discloses the soft foam further including antioxidant and processing aid in an amount of 1 to 40 wt% (paragraph 165). Martinez does not explicitly disclose the soft foam comprising (i) an antioxidant masterbatch in an amount of 1-10 wt%, or (ii) a processing aid masterbatch in an amount of 1 to 10 wt%.
Baldwin I, however, discloses a polyolefin foam having a density of 20 to 250 kg/m3, an average cell size from 0.05 to 1.0 mm, a thickness of 0.2 to 50 mm (paragraphs 104-107). The polyolefin foam is obtained from a resin mixture comprising polypropylene, LDPE, impact modified polypropylene (paragraphs 68-70). The polyolefin foam further comprises 4.7 wt% of an antioxidant masterbatch, and 1.7 wt% of a process aid masterbatch (example 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an antioxidant masterbatch in an amount disclosed in Baldwin I in the soft foam of Martinez motivated by the desire to prevent oxidative degradation of the foam material, thereby enhancing the integrity and durability of the foam material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a processing aid masterbatch in an amount disclosed in Baldwin I in the soft foam of Martinez motivated by the desire to promote processing and handling of the foam material.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0015872 to Iwasaki et al. (hereinafter “Iwasaki”).
Martinez discloses the soft foam comprising a thermal decomposition foaming agent in an amount of 0.1 to 20 wt% (paragraph 140). The soft foam further includes colorants and fillers comprising mica and talc, and each of which corresponding to the claimed anti-blocking agent (paragraphs 165 and 171).
Martinez does not explicitly disclose the soft foam comprises (i) a chemical foaming agent decomposition suppressant masterbatch in an amount of 1-10 wt%, (ii) an anti-blocking agent masterbatch in an amount of 1 -10 wt%, or (iii) a colorant masterbatch in an amount of 1 to 12 wt%.
Iwasaki, however, discloses an adhesive tape comprising a substrate, and an adhesive layer provided on at least one surface of the substrate (abstract).
The substrate is a polyethylene foam comprising at least 40 wt% of polyethylene resin (paragraph 115). The polyethylene resin can be LDPE, LLDPE or a combination thereof (paragraph 119). The foam substrate has a closed cell structure with a density of 0.08 to 0.7g/cc (paragraphs 110 and 111). The foam substrate further includes additives such as black colorant, antioxidant, filler and/or thermal decomposition foaming agent (paragraphs 137-141). Iwasaki teaches that to in order to prevent color defect and foaming defect, the colorant, the thermal decomposition foaming agent and foaming aid should be added in the form of a masterbatch (paragraph 143). The masterbatch of the additive is in an amount of 1 to 7 wt% (paragraph 142).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a masterbatch of the thermal decomposition foaming agent disclosed in Iwasaki in the Martinez soft foam motivated by the desire to provide a uniform foam structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a filler masterbatch disclosed in Iwasaki in the Martinez soft foam motivated by the desire to provide a uniform dispersion of the fillers within the foam structure, thereby enhancing uniform foaming properties.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a colorant masterbatch disclosed in Iwasaki to the Martinez soft foam motivated by the desire to eliminate the color defects.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2020/0270432 to Kummer et al. (hereinafter “Kummer”).
Martinez discloses that the soft foam can be uncrosslinked or crosslinked (paragraphs 53 and 142). When the soft foam is crosslinked, a crosslinking agent can be incorporated in the soft foam in an amount of 0.1 to 7.5 wt% (paragraph 142).
Martinez does not explicitly disclose a crosslinking degree of 20-75%.
Kummer, however, discloses a foam composition comprising an ethylene-α olefin interpolymer, and a second polymer with a mixing ratio of 1:2 and 2:1 (paragraph 98). The ethylene-α olefin interpolymer comprises a block copolymer of an ethylene and at least one C3-C20 α olefin (abstract, and paragraph 83). The second polymer is a polyethylene comprising LDPE, LLDPE or a combination thereof (paragraphs 99 and 100). The foam composition contains a chemical blowing agent in an amount of 0.1 to 20 wt% and a crosslinking agent in an amount of 0.1 to 7.5 wt% (paragraphs 103, and 142). The polyethylene foam has a degree of crosslinking of 20 to 75% (paragraph 94).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a soft foam disclosed in Martinez having a crosslinking degree in the range disclosed in Kummer motivated by the desire to enhance cushioning, supporting properties and durability.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez in view of US 2016/0185080 to Baldwin et al. (hereinafter “Baldwin II”).
As to claims 17-20, Martinez discloses a soft foam comprising an ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer and a second polymer with a mixing ratio about 1:2 to 2:1 wherein the second polymer is low density polyethylene (LDPE), LLDPE or a combination thereof (paragraphs 134, 135, and 137).
The ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer comprises ethylene and one or more copolymerizable α-olefin comonomers, characterized by multiple blocks of two or more polymerized monomer units differing in chemical or physical properties (paragraphs 47 and 48). The multi-block ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer is represented by the (AB)n formula, indicating an alternating sequence of A and B blocks (paragraph 47). Hence, A and B blocks are not randomly distributed along the polymer chain. The ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer contains at least one hard block and at least one soft block wherein the hard block refers to a LLDPE block comprising at least 95 wt% of ethylene and less than 5 wt% of 1-octene comonomer and wherein the soft block refers to a LLDPE block comprising ethylene and greater than 5 wt% of 1-octene comonomer (paragraphs 48 and 235). The hard block refers to the crystalline block (paragraph 87). The ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer contains both of crystalline blocks and amorphous blocks (paragraph 71). Therefore, the multi-block ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer represented by the (AB)n formula, indicating an alternating sequence of A and B blocks wherein A and B are a harder crystallizable LLDPE copolymer block, and a softer amorphous LLDPE copolymer block, respectively. The ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer reads on the claimed OBC.
The soft foam has a density of 10-50 kg/m3 (paragraph 132), particularly of 2.05 pcf or 32.8 kg/m3 (table 13, example L). This is within the claimed range. The soft foam has a thickness of 1-15 mm within the claimed range (paragraph 178).
Martinez does not explicitly disclose the soft foam comprising 40-65 wt% of the LDPE, LLDPE or a combination thereof; and 22-45 wt% of the ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the contents of the ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer and the second polymer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such the contents of the ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer and the second polymer are critical or provide unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the contents of the ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer and the second polymer in the ranges instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to provide the foam layer with a unique balance of resiliency, high temperature compression set, rebound and high tear strength. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Martinez discloses that the soft foam has been suitable for gasket applications (paragraph 271). Martinez does not explicitly disclose a foam gasket comprising a pressure sensitive layer provided on a side of the soft foam.
Baldwin II, however, discloses a soft, flexible polyolefin foam suitable as an adhesive tape or a foam gasket (paragraph 151). The polyolefin foam comprises a polyethylene foam (paragraph 62). The adhesive tape or the foam gasket comprises the polyolefin foam and a PSA layer provided on at least one side of the polyolefin foam (paragraph 152). The PSA comprises one or more of acrylic polymers, polyurethanes, thermoplastic elastomers, block copolymers, polyolefins, silicone, rubber-based adhesives, copolymers of ethylhexylacrylate and acrylic acid, copolymers of isooctyl acrylate and acrylic acid, or combinations thereof (paragraph 152). The adhesive tape or the foam gasket is used for sealing and cushioning of handheld electronic devices and household appliances (paragraph 151). This is a clear indication that the adhesive tape or the foam gasket is in the form of a flat sheet so that it can be cut and shaped to fit into the handheld electronic devices and household appliances. The flat sheet allows for easy installation and effective sealing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the soft foam disclosed in Martinez to construct an adhesive tape or a foam gasket disclosed in Baldwin II, because such is an intended use of the soft foam and Baldwin II provides necessary details to practice the invention of Martinez.
Response to Arguments
Applicant alleges that Martinez fails to disclose the claimed OBC which is a multi-block LLDPE copolymer containing harder crystallizable LLDPE copolymer blocks alternating with amorphous softer LLDPE copolymer blocks that are not randomly distributed.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As previously discussed, the ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer comprises ethylene and one or more copolymerizable α-olefin comonomers, characterized by multiple blocks of two or more polymerized monomer units differing in chemical or physical properties (paragraphs 47 and 48). The multi-block ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer is represented by the (AB)n formula, indicating an alternating sequence of A and B blocks (paragraph 47). Hence, A and B blocks are not randomly distributed along the polymer chain. The ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer contains at least one hard block and at least one soft block wherein the hard block refers to a LLDPE block comprising at least 95 wt% of ethylene and less than 5 wt% of 1-octene comonomer and wherein the soft block refers to a LLDPE block comprising ethylene and greater than 5 wt% of 1-octene comonomer (paragraphs 48 and 235). The hard block refers to the crystalline block (paragraph 87). The ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer contains both of crystalline blocks and amorphous blocks (paragraph 71). Therefore, the multi-block ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer represented by the (AB)n formula, indicating an alternating sequence of A and B blocks wherein A and B are a harder crystallizable LLDPE copolymer block, and a softer amorphous LLDPE copolymer block, respectively. The ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer reads on the claimed OBC.
Claims 1-4, 12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0205833 to Martinez et al. (hereinafter “Martinez”) in view of US 2016/0185080 to Baldwin et al. (hereinafter “Baldwin II”).
As to claims 1-3, and 17-20, Martinez discloses a soft foam comprising an ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer and a second polymer with a mixing ratio about 1:2 to 2:1 wherein the second polymer is low density polyethylene (LDPE), LLDPE or a combination thereof (paragraphs 134, 135, and 137).
The ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer comprises ethylene and one or more copolymerizable α-olefin comonomers, characterized by multiple blocks of two or more polymerized monomer units differing in chemical or physical properties (paragraphs 47 and 48). The multi-block ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer is represented by the (AB)n formula, indicating an alternating sequence of A and B blocks (paragraph 47). Hence, A and B blocks are not randomly distributed along the polymer chain.
The soft foam has a density of 10-50 kg/m3 (paragraph 132), particularly of 2.05 pcf or 32.8 kg/m3 (table 13, example L). This is within the claimed range. The soft foam has a thickness of 1-15 mm within the claimed range (paragraph 178).
Martinez does not explicitly disclose (i) the soft foam comprising 40-65 wt% of the LDPE, LLDPE or a combination thereof; and 22-45 wt% of the ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer, (ii) the ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer comprising a multi-block LLDPE copolymer containing harder crystallizable LLDPE copolymer blocks alternating with amorphous softer LLDPE copolymer blocks that are not randomly distributed, and (iii) a foam gasket comprising a pressure sensitive layer provided on a side of the soft foam.
Regarding limitation (i): in the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the contents of the ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer and the second polymer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such the contents of the ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer and the second polymer are critical or provide unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the contents of the ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer and the second polymer in the ranges instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to provide the foam layer with a unique balance of resiliency, high temperature compression set, rebound and high tear strength. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding limitations (ii) and (iii):
Baldwin II, however, discloses a soft, flexible polyolefin foam suitable as an adhesive tape or a foam gasket (paragraph 151). The polyolefin foam comprises a polyethylene foam wherein the polyethylene is an INFUSE ™ metallocene polyethylene olefin block copolymer with alternating crystallizable hard blocks and amorphous soft blocks that are not randomly contributed (table 1; and paragraphs 62 and 96). The adhesive tape or the foam gasket comprises the polyolefin foam and a PSA layer provided on at least one side of the polyolefin foam (paragraph 152). The PSA comprises one or more of acrylic polymers, polyurethanes, thermoplastic elastomers, block copolymers, polyolefins, silicone, rubber-based adhesives, copolymers of ethylhexylacrylate and acrylic acid, copolymers of isooctyl acrylate and acrylic acid, or combinations thereof (paragraph 152). The adhesive tape or the foam gasket is used for sealing and cushioning of handheld electronic devices and household appliances (paragraph 151). This is a clear indication that the adhesive tape or the foam gasket is in the form of a flat sheet so that it can be cut and shaped to fit into the handheld electronic devices and household appliances. The flat sheet allows for easy installation and effective sealing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an INFUSE ™ metallocene polyethylene olefin block copolymer disclosed in Baldwin II for the ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer of Martinez motivated by the desire to provide a good balance of flexibility and heat resistance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the soft foam disclosed in Martinez to construct an adhesive tape or a foam gasket disclosed in Baldwin II, because such is an intended use of the soft foam and Baldwin II provides necessary details to practice the invention of Martinez.
As to claim 4, Martinez discloses that the soft foam contains 0.1 to 20 wt% of a chemical blowing agent (paragraph 140).
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the content of the chemical blowing agent will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such the content of the chemical blowing agent is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the chemical blowing agent in an amount in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to obtain desired foaming properties. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 12, Martinez discloses that the soft foam has closed cells with an average cell size ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 mm (paragraphs 132 and 133). This is within the claimed range.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez in view of Baldwin II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0126617 to Baldwin et al. (hereinafter “Baldwin I”).
Martinez discloses the soft foam further including antioxidant and processing aid in an amount of 1 to 40 wt% (paragraph 165). Martinez in view of Baldwin II does not explicitly disclose the soft foam comprising (i) an antioxidant masterbatch in an amount of 1-10 wt%, or (ii) a processing aid masterbatch in an amount of 1 to 10 wt%.
Baldwin I, however, discloses a polyolefin foam having a density of 20 to 250 kg/m3, an average cell size from 0.05 to 1.0 mm, a thickness of 0.2 to 50 mm (paragraphs 104-107). The polyolefin foam is obtained from a resin mixture comprising polypropylene, LDPE, impact modified polypropylene (paragraphs 68-70). The polyolefin foam further comprises 4.7 wt% of an antioxidant masterbatch, and 1.7 wt% of a process aid masterbatch (example 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an antioxidant masterbatch in an amount disclosed in Baldwin I in the soft foam of Martinez/Baldwin II, motivated by the desire to prevent oxidative degradation of the foam material, thereby enhancing the integrity and durability of the foam material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a processing aid masterbatch in an amount disclosed in Baldwin I in the soft foam of Martinez/Baldwin II, motivated by the desire to promote processing and handling of the foam material.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez in view of Baldwin II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0015872 to Iwasaki et al. (hereinafter “Iwasaki”).
Martinez discloses the soft foam comprising a thermal decomposition foaming agent in an amount of 0.1 to 20 wt% (paragraph 140). The soft foam further includes colorants and fillers comprising mica and talc, and each of which corresponding to the claimed anti-blocking agent (paragraphs 165 and 171).
Martinez does not explicitly disclose the soft foam comprises (i) a chemical foaming agent decomposition suppressant masterbatch in an amount of 1-10 wt%, (ii) an anti-blocking agent masterbatch in an amount of 1 -10 wt%, or (iii) a colorant masterbatch in an amount of 1 to 12 wt%.
Iwasaki, however, discloses an adhesive tape comprising a substrate, and an adhesive layer provided on at least one surface of the substrate (abstract).
The substrate is a polyethylene foam comprising at least 40 wt% of polyethylene resin (paragraph 115). The polyethylene resin can be LDPE, LLDPE or a combination thereof (paragraph 119). The foam substrate has a closed cell structure with a density of 0.08 to 0.7g/cc (paragraphs 110 and 111). The foam substrate further includes additives such as black colorant, antioxidant, filler and/or thermal decomposition foaming agent (paragraphs 137-141). Iwasaki teaches that to in order to prevent color defect and foaming defect, the colorant, the thermal decomposition foaming agent and foaming aid should be added in the form of a masterbatch (paragraph 143). The masterbatch of the additive is in an amount of 1 to 7 wt% (paragraph 142).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a masterbatch of the thermal decomposition foaming agent disclosed in Iwasaki in the Martinez soft foam motivated by the desire to provide a uniform foam structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a filler masterbatch disclosed in Iwasaki in the Martinez soft foam motivated by the desire to provide a uniform dispersion of the fillers within the foam structure, thereby enhancing uniform foaming properties.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a colorant masterbatch disclosed in Iwasaki to the Martinez soft foam motivated by the desire to eliminate the color defects.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez in view of Baldwin II as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2020/0270432 to Kummer et al. (hereinafter “Kummer”).
Martinez discloses that the soft foam can be uncrosslinked or crosslinked (paragraphs 53 and 142). When the soft foam is crosslinked, a crosslinking agent can be incorporated in the soft foam in an amount of 0.1 to 7.5 wt% (paragraph 142).
Martinez in view of Baldwin II does not explicitly disclose a crosslinking degree of 20-75%.
Kummer, however, discloses a foam composition comprising an ethylene-α olefin interpolymer, and a second polymer with a mixing ratio of 1:2 and 2:1 (paragraph 98). The ethylene-α olefin interpolymer comprises a block copolymer of an ethylene and at least one C3-C20 α olefin (abstract, and paragraph 83). The second polymer is a polyethylene comprising LDPE, LLDPE or a combination thereof (paragraphs 99 and 100). The foam composition contains a chemical blowing agent in an amount of 0.1 to 20 wt% and a crosslinking agent in an amount of 0.1 to 7.5 wt% (paragraphs 103, and 142). The polyethylene foam has a degree of crosslinking of 20 to 75% (paragraph 94).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a soft foam disclosed in Martinez/Baldwin II having a crosslinking degree in the range disclosed in Kummer, motivated by the desire to enhance cushioning, supporting properties and durability.
Response to Arguments
Assuming that Martinez does not disclose the claimed OBC which is a multi-block LLDPE copolymer containing harder crystallizable LLDPE copolymer blocks alternating with amorphous softer LLDPE copolymer blocks that are not randomly distributed (which the examiner does not agree for the reasons set forth above), the claim is not rendered unobvious because new combination of Martinez and Baldwin II suggests the claimed invention.
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 Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights