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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Heo (WO 2020/045907; citations are relative to translation, attached). Regarding Claim 1, Heo shows that it is known to carry out a method for continuous production of a sulfur polymer cement material (Abstract) comprising introducing a sulfur containing material and a sulfur modifier into a continuous high shear mixer, and mixing the sulfur containing material and the sulfur modifier together in the continuous high shear mixer to form a sulfur modified polymer (step 100; pg 4, para 3; pg 5, para 6; pg 6, para 4-5 (blending cylinder)); and extruding the sulfur modified polymer to produce an extrudate comprising the sulfur modified polymer (step 200; pg 7, para 3-7).
Regarding Claim 5, Heo shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the sulfur containing material is a powder (pg 4, para 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Heo shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the sulfur containing material comprises at least 65 wt% sulfur (pg 5, para 6: held to be implicit, if not would be held to be optimizable).
Regarding Claim 8, Heo shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the sulfur modifier comprises olefins (pg 4, para 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Heo shows the method of claim 1 above, including one further comprising pelletizing the extrudate (pg 12, para 3).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4, 7, 9-10, and 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo, in view of Bergman et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2017/0361543).
Regarding Claim 3, Heo shows the method of claim 1 above, but he does not show introducing a micro-aggregate into the continuous high shear rate mixer. Bergman et al., hereafter “Bergman,” show that it known to carry out a method for continuous production of a sulfur polymer material which further comprises introducing a micro-aggregate into a mixer and mixing the micro-aggregate with the sulfur modified polymer prior to the extruding step (0144-0145: silica). It would have been obvious to use Bergman’s micro-aggregate into Heo’s mixer with sulfur and polymer because silica has art-recognized suitability for its function in sulfur/polymer extrudates (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claims 4 and 7, Heo shows the method of claim 1 above, including showing that blending ratios and appropriate composition ratios may be selected (pg 4, para 3-4), but he does not show the specific component amounts. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose any appropriate amounts of sulfur material and sulfur modifiers, such as that which is claimed, because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claims 9-10, Heo shows the method of claim 1 above, but he does not show introducing a micro-aggregate into the continuous high shear rate mixer. Bergman shows that it known to carry out a method for continuous production of a sulfur polymer material wherein the micro-aggregate is silica (0144-0145; it is held that the average particle size would be implicit in order for efficient mixing to occur). It would have been obvious to use Bergman’s micro-aggregate into Heo’s mixer with sulfur and polymer because silica has art-recognized suitability for its function in sulfur/polymer extrudates (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claims 14-15, Heo shows the method of claim 13 above, but he does not show cooling during the pelletizing step. Bergman shows that it is known to carry out a method which comprises pelletizing a sulfur/polymer composition in a cooled water system (0086). It would have been obvious to use Bergman’s cooled water system alongside Heo’s pelletizing step in order to ensure that the pellets remain separated after cooling.
Regarding Claim 16, Heo shows the method of claim 13 above, but he does not show drying the pelletized extrudate. Bergman shows that it is known to carry out a method which comprises drying the pelletized extrudate (0087). It would have been obvious to use Bergman’s drying step after Heo’s pelletizing step in order to ensure that the pellets are of desired water composition in preparation for their next step (e.g. storage, molding).
Regarding Claims 17-18, Heo shows the method of claim 1 above, but he does not specifically show heating in the mixer. Bergman shows that it is known to carry out a method which comprises heating a mixer with sulfur and a polymer to a temperature of 120-200C (0064). It would have been obvious to use Bergman’s heated mixer as that in Heo’s process in order to ensure proper melting/mixing.
Regarding Claims 19-21, Heo shows the method of claim 1, but he does not specifically show a twin screw compounding extruder. Bergman shows that it is known to carry out a process using a twin screw compounding extruder which comprises parallel co-rotating screws (0047, 0062). It would have been obvious to use Bergman’s twin screw extruder as the mixer in Heo’s process because there is art recognized suitability for twin screw extruders as mixers (MPEP 2144.07).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA HUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
MONICA ANNE HUSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights