DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 4/23/26. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to require that the composition is foamable.
The newly introduced limitations and/or the new claims were not present at the time of the preceding action. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-13 and 15-18 are rejected.
Claims 7 and 14 are allowed.
Claims 2, 10 and 19 are objected to.
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
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-13 and 15-18 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. The composition is foamable. See abstract 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.
As to claim 18, the examples of Shen also show that the polyol (propanetriol) has at least three OH groups and/or an acid of three groups (e.g. citric acid), thus yielding at least three branches. See examples.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 10 and 19 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.
Claims 7 and 14 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
The rejections over Cai et al. are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the block copolymers of Linemann are “linear or weakly branched”. In response, weakly branched reads on the claimed branched copolymers wherein the Efn is greater than 2. Note that an Efn of 2 is linear, thus weakly branched must be within the claimed range.
Applicant argues that Shen does not comprise EVA.
In response, Shen is not utilized alone and is a secondary reference to teach the advantageous of branched block copolymers.
Applicant argues that Shen does not address the problems solved by the instant application.
In response, it is noted that the problems solved upon are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the rationale of improving mechanical properties, etc. are generic and not tied to Willemse, which already teaches improved properties.
In response, the normal desire of the skilled artisan is to improve upon what is already known. Paragraph 40 of Willemse lists properties that are advantageous for foams and one would seek to further improve those properties by the branched copolymers of Shen and Linemann.
Lastly, applicant argues synergistic effects of utilizing 20 wt% PEBA.
In response, the secondary considerations are not persuasive for the following reasons.
To be probative of nonobviousness results must be unexpected not just different. In re Merck & Co. 800 F.2d 1091, 1098, 231 PQ 375, 280 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Also see MPEP 716.02, first paragraph. It is not evident how changes in properties in table 2 would be unexpected. One would expect some change in properties by adding a different polymer.
MPEP 716.02(a) states that the evidence must show unexpected results. It is not clear how the results are unexpected, especially considering that no trend or anything can be deduced since only one comparative and one working example are shown. Note that MPEP 716.02(b) states that the burden is on applicant to establish that the results are unexpected and significant. Applicant has the burden of explaining proffered data.
MPEP 716.02(e) states that the data should be compared to the closest prior art. However, table 2 merely compares to EVA alone.
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 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
Prosecution Insights