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 .
The lined out IDS items were not provided. Note that an abstract of a patent document is not the patent document actually cited on the form. Abstracts to be considered alone, should be cited as “other references” (MPEP711.06(a)). Note that a translation of a patent document is not the patent document actually cited on the form. The translations also likely lack tables/figures of the underlying patent document.
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.
Claims 1,2 and 4-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito 2016/0001598 in view of the Polgar article in JOVE.
Ito exemplifies (#7) combining 50 parts EPDM, 50 parts TAFMER MP0610, 2 parts anti-aging agents, 2 parts stearic acid 3 parts zinc oxide, 50 parts carbon black and 2.5 parts crosslinking agent. The crosslinking agent is a peroxide (paragraph 159). TAFMER MP0610 is inherently a maleated ethylene/propylene rubber (see paragraph 156 of Chino 2019/0048178). This premixture is then combined with the remaining 255 parts of Nylon (ie applicant’s “a”) and 43 parts butylbenzene sulfonamide (paragraphs 128,129). The resulting morphology (paragraph 67-69) should be islands of the elastomer in the sea of resin (ie nylon).
The example’s crosslinked ethylene/propylene rubber lacks crosslinking through a furan group and maleimide.
Such a crosslinked EPR, firstly maleated, then adducted with furfurylamine, followed by crosslinking with a bismaleimide has been made in the prior art. Polgar (fig 1) depicts such a crosslinked EPR. Polgar further (page 8) explains this Diels-Alder type crosslinking retains the properties of peroxide cured EPR with the additional benefit of the material being recyclable.
It would have been obvious to use Polgar’s crosslinked EPR in place of Ito’s peroxide crosslinked EPR/EPDM to achieve recyclability and otherwise similar properties.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Claim 2’s properties presumably would be met as the proposed substitution of the peroxide crosslinked EPR with the Diels-Alder type crosslinked EPR results in applicant’s preferred composition.
The ratio of EPR to EPR + Nylon is 50/(50 + 255) or 16%. The ratio of EPR + EPDM to EPR +EPDM + Nylon is (50 +50)/(50 + 50 + 255) or 28%. Either calculation meets applicant’s claim 4.
Ito’s Nylon is Nylon12. Other Nylon’s such as Nylon6 (paragraph 58) may used – meeting applicant’s claim 5.
Folgar’s conversion to EPR-g-furan is 93% - meeting applicant’s claim 6.
Claim 7’s density presumably would be met as Folgar’s Diels-Alder type crosslinked EPR meets applicant’s material requirements.
Ito’s composition may include various additives (paragraph 62) – meeting applicant’s claim 9.
Ito’s composition is injection molded into test pieces (paragraph 131) – meeting applicant’s claim 10.
Claims 1,2 and 4-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito 2016/0001598 in view of the Polgar article in JOVE.
Ito exemplifies (#12) combining 100 parts EPDM, 2 parts anti-aging agents, 2 parts stearic acid 3 parts zinc oxide, 50 parts carbon black and 2.5 parts crosslinking agent. The crosslinking agent is a peroxide (paragraph 159). This premixture is then combined with the remaining 420 parts of Nylon6 (ie applicant’s “a”) and 70 parts butylbenzene sulfonamide (paragraphs 128,129). The resulting morphology (paragraph 67-69) should be islands of the elastomer in the sea of resin (ie nylon).
The example’s crosslinked EPDM rubber lacks crosslinking through a furan group and maleimide.
Crosslinked EPM, firstly maleated, then adducted with furfurylamine, followed by crosslinking with a bismaleimide has been made in the prior art. Polgar (fig 1) depicts such a crosslinked EPM.
Polgar further (page 8) explains this Diels-Alder type crosslinking retains the properties of peroxide cured EPR with the additional benefit of the material being recyclable.
It would have been obvious to use Polgar’s crosslinked EPR in place of Ito’s peroxide crosslinked EPR/EPDM to achieve recyclability and otherwise similar properties.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Claim 2’s properties presumably would be met as the proposed substitution of the peroxide crosslinked EPR with the Diels-Alder type crosslinked EPR results in applicant’s preferred composition.
The ratio of EPDM to EPDM + Nylon is 100/(100 + 420) or 19% - meeting applicant’s claim 4.
Folgar’s conversion to EPR-g-furan is 93% - meeting applicant’s claim 6.
Claim 7’s density presumably would be met as Folgar’s Diels-Alder type crosslinked EPR meets applicant’s material requirements.
Ito’s composition may include various additives (paragraph 62) – meeting applicant’s claim 9.
Ito’s composition is injection molded into test pieces (paragraph 131) – meeting applicant’s claim 10.
Claims 1,2,4-8 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier 4594386 in view of the Polgar article in JOVE.
Olivier exemplifies (#12) blends of Nylon6 with 10-20% maleated EPM.
The example’s maleated EPM lacks crosslinking through a furan group and maleimide.
Such a crosslinked EPM, firstly maleated, then adducted with furfurylamine, followed by crosslinking with a bismaleimide has been made in the prior art. Polgar (fig 1) depicts such a crosslinked EPR.
Polgar (page 6) explains this Diels-Alder type crosslinking improves the properties relative to its non-crosslinked precursor (ie the maleated EPM). Polgar states (page 5) that this Diels-Alder type crosslinking converts the viscous polymer (ie the EPM or maleated EPM) into an elastic network. Additionally, this Diels-Alder type crosslinking is reversible – permitting recyclability.
Given Olivier intends the EPM to act as an impact modifier for the Nylon, the crosslinked more elastic version of the EPM would be expected to provide better impact properties.
It would have been obvious to use Polgar’s crosslinked EPM in place of Olivier’s maleated EPM to achieve better impact properties.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Claim 2’s properties presumably would be met as the proposed substitution of the peroxide crosslinked EPR with the Diels-Alder type crosslinked EPR results in applicant’s preferred composition.
Folgar’s conversion to EPR-g-furan is 93% - meeting applicant’s claim 6.
Claim 7’s density presumably would be met as Folgar’s Diels-Alder type crosslinked EPR meets applicant’s material requirements.
Olivier’s composition (col 10 line 16) is injection molded into test pieces – meeting applicant’s claim 10.
Claims 1,2 and 4-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yalcin 2018/0030270 in view of the Polgar article in JOVE.
Yalcin exemplifies (table 4) blends of Nylon6 with 4-18% Royaltuf (ie maleated EPM) and glass microspheres.
The example’s maleated EPM lacks crosslinking through a furan group and maleimide.
Such a crosslinked EPM, firstly maleated, then adducted with furfurylamine, followed by crosslinking with a bismaleimide has been made in the prior art. Polgar (fig 1) depicts such a crosslinked EPR.
Polgar (page 6) explains this Diels-Alder type crosslinking improves the properties relative to its non-crosslinked precursor (ie the maleated EPM). Polgar states (page 5) that this Diels-Alder type crosslinking converts the viscous polymer (ie the EPM or maleated EPM) into an elastic network. Additionally, this Diels-Alder type crosslinking is reversible – permitting recyclability.
Given Yalcin intends the maleated EPM to act as an impact modifier for the Nylon, the crosslinked more elastic version of the EPM would be expected to provide better impact properties.
It would have been obvious to use Polgar’s crosslinked EPM in place of Yalcin’s maleated EPM to achieve better impact properties.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Claim 2’s properties presumably would be met as the proposed substitution of the peroxide crosslinked EPR with the Diels-Alder type crosslinked EPR results in applicant’s preferred composition.
Folgar’s conversion to EPR-g-furan is 93% - meeting applicant’s claim 6.
Claim 7’s density presumably would be met as Folgar’s Diels-Alder type crosslinked EPR meets applicant’s material requirements.
Yalcin’s composition (paragraph 95) is injection molded into test pieces – meeting applicant’s claim 10.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito 2016/0001598 or Olivier 4594386 or Yalcin in view of the Polgar article in JOVE in further view of the Polgar article in Pure Applied Chemistry.
Ito, Olivier, Yalcin and Polgar apply as explained above.
Polgar’s bismaleimide is didodecyl bismaleimide rather than diphenylmethane bismaleimide.
However, such furan functional EPM’s crosslinked with diphenylmethane bismaleimide have been made. The second Polgar article (scheme 1) depicts multiple types of bis maleimides (including didodecyl bismaleimide and diphenylmethane bismaleimide) as crosslinkers for furan functional EPM. Each (page 1108) have different effects on the rubbers’ properties.
It would have been obvious to utilize any bismaleimide previously known for Diels-Alder type crosslinked EPR as the crosslinker in any of the primary reference’s Nylon/impact modifier blends.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BUTTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-3pm.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/DAVID J BUTTNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765 12/16/25
Prosecution Insights