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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 18, in the reply filed on 5/26/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination of all groups would not be an undue burden. This is not found persuasive because there is both a search and examination burden for each group.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “approximately 0.1 to 2 wt. % for each or more” can be interpreted more than one way and is therefore unclear. This limitation can be interpreted as “0.1 to 2 wt. % for each” of the components or “0.1 to 2 wt. % for each or more” as in greater than the claimed range. For purposes of examination the limitation “approximately 0.1 to 2 wt. % for each or more” was interpreted as “approximately 0.1 to 2 wt. % for each of the components to the total with weight of the thermoplastic or elastomer”.
Claim 6 contains the trademark/trade name ceteareth-20. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the material itself and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims 2 – 18 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected independent claim.
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 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190263981 A1 to Wu et al. hereinafter “Wu”.
Regarding claims 1 – 3 and 5 - 6, Wu teaches a composition at Example 3 comprising 99.89% polypropylene, 1% poly(ethylene glycol) sorbitol hexaolate (polyol derivative), 1% polyoxyethylene allyl ether, 0.1% millad 3988 and 0.01% kestone OB-1. From Table 3 the composition SEBS-M the composition meets the requirements of germ repellency, Izod impact, elongation and tensile strength. Example 3 lacks one or more components however, Wu teaches that additives such as anti-oxidant, optical brighteners, color masterbaches, nucleator and anti-transesterification agent can be used at 0.01 to 1 wt. % [0020, 0040]. Addressing the limitation where the anti-biofouling agents forms a hydration layer refer to Figure 1. The polyol derivatives are shown grafted onto the surface of the thermoplastic. This structure is the same as shown in applicant’s figure 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to an additive as claimed in the same amount as this is directly taught by Wu.
As to claim 4, Wu teaches the use of a polypropylene impact copolymers such as TPV (thermoplastic vulcanizate) [0038]. TPV is a copolymer of PP/EPDM ([0045].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a copolymer of polypropylene such as TPV as this is directly taught by Wu.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 – 18 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 PETER A. SALAMON whose telephone number is 571-270-3018. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 6PM.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
PAS 6/11/26
/PETER A SALAMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights