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 Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims should be amended to include articles. Specifically, claim 1 should recite “A composition”, claim 2 should recite “The composition”, and so forth. 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 2 and 8 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation 30% to 99.9%, and the claim also recites “typically from 50% to 99.9% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
As to claim 8, the Mw/Mn and Mz/Mw are recited. However, it is not clear what these are respect to. The composition? The EVA? The ethylene alkyl (meth)acrylate? Component (b)? Only the polymers of the composition?
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) 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1650255 (herein Willemse) in view of US 2007/0106034 (herein Linemann) and CN 107325280 (herein Shen).
In setting forth the instant rejection, a machine translation of Shen has been relied upon. The machine translation is supplied with the instant rejection.
Willemse discloses a composition comprising a copolymer comprising blocks of polyamide and polyether blocks. See abstract, paragraph 14 and examples. The composition is a blend with copolymers of ethylene and alkyl (meth)acrylate. See paragraph 38. The composition is crosslinked via a crosslinker such as peroxide. See paragraph 39 and examples.
Willemse is silent on the block copolymer being branched.
Linemann discloses that polyamide block polyether block copolymers having branching (functionality greater than 2) is preferred for having higher mechanical properties (impact, processing, filmification etc). See abstract, paragraph 21 and examples.
Shen discloses copolymers with polyamide blocks and polyether blocks can improve their melt strength, flexibility and elasticity by including branching. See abstract and examples.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the composition of Willemse by utilizing a branched copolymer of polyamide blocks and polyether blocks because one would want to improve the mechanical properties (impact, processing, filmification etc), melt strength, flexibility and elasticity of the composition.
As to claim 3, the block copolymer is formed by using a polyol with three hydroxyl groups. See abstract of Linemann.
As to claim 4, this is a process limitation in a product by process claim and the three hydroxyl group polyol could be formed by a polyepoxide. See abstract of Linemann.
As to claim 5, the polyamide is polyamide 6 (PA 6) or PA 12. See paragraph 21 and 26.
As to claim 6, the polyether is PEG and/or PTMG. See paragraph 26.
As to claims 8, the Mw/Mn is 2 to 5 and exemplified as 2.6. See paragraph 51 of Linemann. Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize the Mw/Mn for the block copolymer of Willemse because one would want the copolymer with improved mechanical properties taught by Linemann.
As to claim 9, the polyolefin is functionalized. See paragraph 38.
As to claim 11, foams of the composition are taught. See abstract and paragraph 39 and examples.
As to claims 12-13, Willemse discloses a process of mixing the components and a foaming component(paragraph 39), injection molding (paragraph 40) and foaming (paragraph 39.
As to claim 15, foams of the composition and process are taught. See abstract and paragraph 39 and examples.
As to claims 16-17, articles such as balls, gloves, etc are taught. See table in paragraph 40.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102660108 (herein Cai) in view of US 2007/0106034 (herein Linemann) and CN 107325280 (herein Shen).
In setting forth the instant rejection, a machine translation of Cai and Shen has been relied upon. The machine translation is supplied with the instant rejection.
Cai discloses a composition comprising a thermoplastic elastomer, a polyolefin and a crosslinking agent. See abstract and examples. The thermoplastic polyester is a copolymer comprising polyamide blocks and polyether blocks (PEBAX). See paragraph 4. The polyolefin is ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) or ethylene methyl acrylate (EMA). See paragraph 22. The crosslinking agent is triallyl isocyanurate (TAIC), etc. See paragraph 23. Further, see examples, which utilize the PEBAX, EMA and TAIC. See paragraph 26, 40 and table 1.
Cai is silent on the block copolymer being branched.
Linemann discloses that polyamide block polyether block copolymers having branching (functionality greater than 2) is preferred for having higher mechanical properties (impact, processing, filmification etc). See abstract, paragraph 21 and examples.
Shen discloses copolymers with polyamide blocks and polyether blocks can improve their melt strength, flexibility and elasticity by including branching. See abstract and examples.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the composition of Cai by utilizing a branched copolymer of polyamide blocks and polyether blocks because one would want to improve the mechanical properties (impact, processing, filmification etc), melt strength, flexibility and elasticity of the composition.
As to claim 2, the thermoplastic elastomer (claimed component b) is present in 100 parts, the polyolefin (claimed component a) is present in 2 to 80 parts and the crosslinking agent is present in 0.2 to 8 parts. See abstract. Further, see example 8 with 50 parts polyamide polyester block copolymer, 40 parts EMA and 3 parts crosslinking agent, which correlates to 35 wt% polyamide elastomer (b), 28 wt% EMA (a) and 2 wt% crosslinking agent and 28 wt% elastomer (d).
Example 8
Engineering plastic nylon
10
Polyamide elastomer
50
EMA
40
Flame Retardant
40
Crosslinking agent
3
As to claim 3, the block copolymer is formed by using a polyol with three hydroxyl groups. See abstract of Linemann.
As to claim 4, this is a process limitation in a product by process claim and the three hydroxyl group polyol could be formed by a polyepoxide. See abstract of Linemann.
As to claim 5, Cai teaches that the polyamide is PA-6, etc. See paragraph 21. Linemann teaches that the polyamide is polyamide 6 (PA 6) or PA 12. See paragraph 17-18 and examples. Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize the PA-6 and/or PA-12 in the block copolymer of Cai because one would want the copolymer with improved mechanical properties taught by Linemann.
As to claim 6, Linemann teaches that the polyether is polyethylene glycol (PEG) or PTMG blocks. See paragraph 30 and examples. Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize the PA-6 and/or PA-12 in the block copolymer of Cai because one would want the copolymer with improved mechanical properties taught by Linemann.
As to claims 8, the Mw/Mn is 2 to 5 and exemplified as 2.6. See paragraph 51 of Linemann. Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize the Mw/Mn for the block copolymer of Cai because one would want the copolymer with improved mechanical properties taught by Linemann.
As to claim 9, the polyolefin may be functionalized with maleic acid (see paragraph 13 and examples).
As to claim 10, the composition may comprises copolyester elastomer of polyester blocks and polyether blocks. See paragraph 3, 18 and examples.
As to claim 12, the composition is mixed (examples and paragraph 27) and injection molding and/or extrusion. See examples and paragraph 27-28.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2005/0131147 (herein Brule) teaches similar composition comprising a polyolefin (B, reading on claimed component a) and a polyamide (A, reading on claimed component b). See paragraph 10 and examples. The polyolefin (B) is preferably ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer (see paragraphs 73, 75, and 79) or ethylene alkyl (meth)acrylate copolymer (see paragraphs 74-75, and 81). The polyamide (A) is a copolymer having polyamide blocks and polyether blocks, wherein the polyether blocks are polytetramethylene glycol (PTMG). See paragraph 52, 59 and 96. However, the reference is cumulative to Willemse and Cai utilized above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK S KAUCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 PM EST.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/MARK S KAUCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764