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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Martinez et al.(US Publication 2006/0205833) in view of Lee et al.(US Patent 6,096793) and Ishida as evidenced by Wikipedia.
Martinez et al. discloses a method of making a polyethylene foam comprising extruding a foamable layer comprising a mix of an ethylene/ α-olefin interpolymer(OBC)(Abstract) and another polymer which can be LDPE or LLDPE or a combination thereof.[0137] The ratio of interpolymer to polyethylene is from 1:99 to 99:1.[0135] The foam can be irradiated by beta rays to cure it[0163] and then foamed.[0144] The foam has a density of 10-150 kg/m3.(Abstract) The OBC is a multi-block copolymer containing harder crystallizable blocks alternating with amorphous softer blocks in a manner that is not randomly distributed.([0053];[0071];[0087]) The harder blocks are the crystalline ones, which means the softer ones are the amorphous ones.[0087] The reference does not describe the ethylene as LLDPE, only referring to it as ethylene. However, LLDPE is commonly made from ethylene and an alpha olefin copolymer. Lee et al. discloses that foams can be made from a mix of low density polyethylene and a copolymer of LLDPE and an ethylene/alpha olefin copolymer.(Abstract) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have the ethylene/alpha olefin copolymer of Martinez et al. be polymerized such that it form a LLDPE copolymer with the alpha olefin since LLDPE is an ethylene/alpha olefin copolymer and since Lee et al. discloses that foam can be made of a mix of LD polyethylene(taught by Martinez et al.) and a copolymer of ethylene and alpha olefin(taught by Martinez et al.) that is a LLDPE copolymer.(Abstract)
The reference does not disclose the melt flow index of the LDPE or LLDPE. Ishida et al. is directed to a similar process and discloses that the LDPE has a melt flow rate of 2g/10 minutes and the LLDPE has a melt flow index of 0.8g/10 minutes(example 1). It does not disclose what temperature this is measured at. Wikipedia teaches that melt flow rates for polyethylene are measured at 190C. One in the art would understand that the melt flow rate of Ishida et al. was measured at 190C since Wikipedia indicates this is the temperature melt flow rate for polyethylene is measured. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use LDPE with a melt flow rate of 2g/10 minutes and LLDPE with a melt flow of 0.8 g/10 minutes as the LDPE and LLDPE in Martinez et al. since Ishida et al. discloses that LDPE and LLDPE with a melt flow rate in that range is used in a similar process.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 21, a ratio of 1:99-99:1 includes both claimed ranges. Absent unexpected results, it would have been within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ratio and pick any ratio within that range.
Regarding claim 4, Martinez et al. discloses the foam contains a chemical blowing agent[0138] in an amount of 0.1-20wt%.[0140]
Regarding claim 5, Martinez et al. discloses using 0-5 wt.% antioxidant.[0168]
Regarding claims 6-9, Martinez et al. discloses it is known to include processing aids, colorants, etc. in foamable compositions.[0013] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to include processing aids, anti-blocking agents, colorants, and decomposition suppressants in the foamable materials in the ranges claimed since these appear to be well-known and conventional materials which are added to foamable material in well-known and conventional amounts and thus are considered obvious absent unexpected results particularly considering specific compositions are not listed, indicating these materials are well-known and conventional to those in the art
Regarding claim 10, Martinez et al. discloses the interpolymer has a melt index of 0.01-2000 g/10 minutes.[0095] One in the art would appreciate that since all the components have a melt flow in the claimed range, the foamable material would also have one in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, Martinez et al. discloses the foam can be closed cell with a cell size of 0.5-5 mm.([0132]-[0133])
Regarding claim 13, the foam can have a thickness of 1-100 mm.[0176]
Regarding claim 15, Martinez et al. does not disclose irradiating the foam more than once.[0163]
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez et al., Lee et al., and Ishida et al. as evidenced by Wikipedia as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sieradzki et al.
Regarding claim 16, Martinez et al. does not disclose the degree to which the foam is cross-linked. Sieradzki et al. discloses the foamed layer is 20-75% cross-linked(Col. 13, ll. 41-44) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have similar degrees of cross-linking of the foam since it is intended to be used in the same ways.
Regarding claim 17, Martinez et al. discloses heating the foamable mixture but does not disclose how. Sieradzki et al. discloses heating using molten salt.(Col. 13, ll. 58) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use molten salt to heat the foamable mixture in Martinez et al. and Lee et al. since Sieradzki et al. discloses it is known to heat a similar mixture with molten salt thus a use of a known technique to improve a similar metho in the same way.
Regarding claims 18-20, Martinez et al. does not disclose the specifics of how the foam is used, only stating it is used in cushioning and automotive arts.[0002]. Sieradzki et al. discloses using foams in automotive and furniture(Col. 1, ll. 27-29) and applying pressure sensitive adhesive to both sides of the foam and attaching them to another layer to make a useable product.(Col. 17, ll. 40-58) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use apply pressure sensitive adhesive to both sides of the foam and attach it to another layer or laminate since Sieradzki et al. is directed to making the same sorts of products and teaches this is how this type of foam is used. While Sieradzki et al. discloses applying a layer, not a laminate, one in the art would appreciate that a laminate could be used when a multiple layer product was desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Martinez et al. does not disclose the ethylene alpha olefin copolymer is a LLDPE copolymer with harder crystalline blocks and softer amorphous blocks that are not randomly distributed, Martinez et al. discloses the ethylene/alpha olefin copolymer contains harder and softer blocks[0053], which do not have to be randomly distributed[0047], and the harder blocks are crystalline[0087] while there are more amorphous blocks[0071] which are presumably then the softer ones. While it does not explicitly state the ethylene is LLDPE, LLDPE is an ethylene/alpha olefin copolymer and Lee et al. discloses it is known to use LLDPE as an ethylene/alpha olefin copolymer in a foam in combination with another polyethylene as taught by Martinez as well. Examiner is not certain which part of the amendment applicant is arguing is not taught by Martinez et al. since it appears to teach everything except indicates the ethylene alpha copolymer is LLDPE, though all LLDPE is ethylene alpha olefin copolymer. Nonetheless, examiner cites Lee et al. to shows that the ethylene alpha olefin copolymer being LLDPE is well-known in the foam arts as shown by Lee et al.
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 BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights