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 § 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) 1-7 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adur (US 2007/0244237) in view of PolyOne (Thermoplastic Elastomers, 2009) with evidence provided by PolyOne (Syncure S1054A Natural, 2016).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 6, Adur teaches a polymer blend comprising:
a thermoplastic elastomer such as styrene-ethylene-butadiene-styrene rubber (SEBS) ([0031])
an additive such as a silane-grafted polyolefin ([0045]) such as Syncure S1054A (Table 2). This additive is present in a minor amount ([0046]) which ranges from 0.1 to less than 50% by weight ([0021]). As evidenced by PolyOne, 2016, Syncure S1054A is a crosslinked polyethylene which is silane grafted (Title and Key Characteristics).
However, Adur fails to teach the exact thermoplastic elastomer with the recited properties. PolyOne, 2009 teaches thermoplastic elastomers which are styrenic block copolymers (page 1) such as Versaflex CL 2000X, CL 2003X, and CL 30 (page 20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the SEBS of Adur be the Versaflex CL 2003X, CL 2003X and CL 30 of PolyOne, 2009. One would have been motivated to do so to impart the high clarity special grades of the Versaflex components (PolyOne, 2009, page 20).
It is noted that the Syncure S1054A and the various Versaflex components would inherently have the recited Shore A hardness and compression set as they are the same components used in the inventive examples.
Regarding claim 5, Adur teaches that the composition further comprises a thermoplastic polyolefin such as polypropylene ([0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Adur teaches that the cross-linked silane grafted polyolefin is dispersed within the thermoplastic elastomer ([0068]).
Regarding claims 9-11 Adur does not explicitly exemplify the recited ratio, but the examples of Adur give guidance to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Example 1 in Table 1 of Adur shows EPDM and the Syncure S 1054A in the ratio amount of 60:5 or 12:1. It is noted that the specification of Adur teaches that the EPDM is in the same class of elastomeric component as the SEBS rubber ([0031] and [0032]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the EPDM in the example of Adur with the SEBS rubber and therefore arrive at the inventive ratio. It would have been nothing more than using known components in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 12-15, given the characteristics of the thermoplastic elastomer (Versaflex) and the crosslinked silane grafted polyolefin (Syncure) and that the compression set of the polyolefin is much lower than that of the elastomer due to its crosslinked nature, the polymer blend would inherently have at least 3-4% lower of a compression set value than that of the thermoplastic elastomer on its own.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adur (US 2007/0244237) in view of PolyOne (Thermoplastic Elastomers, 2009) and Gopalan et aal (US 2018/0282460) with evidence provided by PolyOne (Syncure S1054A Natural, 2016) and Patermann (Influence of different crosslinking systems on the mechanical and morphological properties of thermoplastic vulcanizates, AIP Conf. Proc., 1664, 120002 (2015).
The discussion regarding Adur, PolyOne 2009 and PolyOne 2016 in paragraph 3 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 8, Adur teaches that the crosslinked silane grafted polyolefin is Syncure S1054A (Table 1) which has a compression set of 65.6 in accordance with ASTM D395 at 125 C.
However, it fails to teach that it has a compression set less than or equal to 25 % at the same temperature.
Gopalan teaches crosslinked ([0055]) silane-grafted polyolefin ([0056]) and that the degree of crosslinking can be controlled by the production process of the crosslinked silane-grafted polyolefin ([0069]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the silane grafted polyolefin of Adur and modify its degree of crosslinking as taught by Gopalan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to modify the final polymer properties (Gopalan, [0069]). It is well known that as polymers become more crosslinked, the bonds among the atoms become more entwined and, the compression set value will decrease as the resistance to compression increases. As evidence, Patermann teaches that as crosslinking density increases, the compression set values decrease (page 120002-3, compression set test section).
So, while Adur does not teach the compression set of the polyolefin in to be less than or equal to 25%. However, it is well known in the art to optimize result effective variables such as crosslinking density, and therefore compression set values. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized the crosslinking density, and the motivation to so would have been, as Patermann suggests, to increase the resistance to compression.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adur (US 2007/0244237) in view of PolyOne (Thermoplastic Elastomers, 2009) with evidence provided by PolyOne (Syncure S1054A Natural, 2016), Suzuki (US 2004/0161714) and Paul (US 2002/0128345).
The discussion regarding Adur, PolyOne 2009 and PolyOne 2016 in paragraph 3 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 16, Adur teaches a SEBS polymer and a crosslinked polyethylene. However, it fails to teach the specific gravity of this blend. As evidenced by Suzuki, crosslinked polyethylene has a specific gravity of 0.92-0.98 ([0189]-[0191) and as evidenced by Paul, SEBS polymers can have a specific gravity of 0.92 ([0017]). Given the specific gravity of the components of the polymer blend, one would expect the specific gravity of the blend to be a weighted average of the components and therefore would overlap the claimed range of 0.7 to 1.3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764