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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05 June 2026 has been entered.
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 1-7, 9, 15-16, 27 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa (US 2004/0242794 A1) in view of Cohen (US 2010/0035074 A1) and Kuckertz (US 2002/0012756 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kanazawa teaches a method for surface modifying a material to produce a surface modified material, comprising oxidizing the material to obtain an oxidized material and surface coating the oxidized material to produce the surface modified material (paragraphs 38-41, 53-55, 86-87 and 105-111). Kanazawa teaches the surface coating comprises subjecting the oxidized material to coating a hydrophilic polymer. Kanazawa teaches one or more of the claimed hydrophilic polymer alternatives (paragraphs 38-41 and 105-111).
Kanazawa differs from claim 1 in that:
i. Kanazawa does not recite the specified properties achieved by oxidizing recited in lines 7-15 of claim 1.
ii. Kanazawa does not recite the surface coating of the oxidized material by coating a hydrophilic polymer increases a weight of the oxidized material by less than about 5%.
(i) Kanazawa suggests surface modifying a wide range of organic polymers and suggests oxidizing using plasma treatment in air (paragraphs 53-55 and 86-87). The oxidizing and surface coating provides greater adhesion to such polymer materials (paragraphs 1, 114, 126, and 128). Kanazawa further teaches that the oxidizing treatment provides functional groups for activating the surface of the polymeric material prior to coating the hydrophilic polymer (paragraphs 77-78 and 86-87). Naturally organic polymers have C-C bonds at the surface. In related art, it is known the surface active sites formed by plasma treatment may include groups having C-O bonds such as peroxides, oxides, hydroxyls or epoxides. See Cohen (paragraph 14). Cohen suggests surface modifying any organic polymer and suggests oxidizing using atmospheric plasma treatment (paragraphs 69-70). As in Kanazawa, the oxidizing and surface coating of Cohen provides greater surface adhesion to such polymer materials (paragraph 72). Cohen further teaches that plasma treatment variables such as plasma power, treatment time and choice of carrier gas can be adjusted to provide the necessary formation of surface active sites (paragraphs 10 and 70). Thus Cohen suggests changing plasma treatment variables to provide a desired increase in C-O surface bonds to provide a desired density of functional groups on the activated surface. Ultimately, as noted above, the result is a desired improvement in surface adhesion to treated polymer materials.
Kanazawa and Cohen are silent as to particular C-O/C-C percent increase at the claimed surface depth, C-O/C-C percentage at the claimed surface depth, or O/C atomic number ratio at the claimed surface depth, all as measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). It is noted that a positive step of measuring with XPS is not required. The recitation of XPS only serves to clearly define the claimed properties.
In related art, Kuckertz suggests atmospheric plasma treatment of polyethylene or polypropylene increases the O/C atomic number ratio from 0.01 to anywhere from 0.02 to 0.19 depending on the treatment conditions (paragraphs 23-25; Table 1), which substantially overlaps with the corresponding claimed range. Kuckertz teaches such treatment may be applied to various polymeric materials (paragraph 30) to provide enhanced wettability for adhesives (paragraph 2, 28, 34). Kuckertz teaches the surface is oxidized by addition of oxygen containing groups and plasma treatment should not be excessive to avoid damage to the treated material (paragraphs 34 and 44). Similarly, Applicant suggests the use of atmospheric plasma treatment and many of the same polymer materials (Applicant’s published application, paragraphs 75 and 122). Given the similar treatment methods, materials and O/C ratios achieved, Kuckertz suggests that similar results would naturally be achieved, i.e. values within the claimed ranges. Moreover it is clear from the above noted teachings of Cohen and Kuckertz that the desired amount of oxidation during plasma treatment should be provided as a matter of routine experimentation by adjusting recognized plasma variables to provide sufficient surface activation, sufficient improvement of surface adhesion, and to avoid damage of the treated material. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. Additionally, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Given the similar materials and treatment methods suggested by Kanazawa, Cohen and Kuckertz, the claimed properties would reasonably be expected to naturally flow from optimized or workable plasma conditions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide one or more of these limitations in Kanazawa because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide suitable plasma treatment conditions as a matter of routine experimentation for the reasons provided above in view of the teachings of Cohen and Kuckertz, the claimed properties naturally flowing from such optimized or workable plasma conditions, as evidenced by the teachings of Kuckertz.
(ii) Kanazawa suggests a weight increase for a surface modified material may be 4% (paragraphs 321 and 331). Kanazawa also suggests film substrates (paragraph 58). Kuckertz suggests using film substrates having a thickness of about 10 to 200 µm (paragraph 28). In related art, Cohen teaches a coating thickness may be as low as about 40 Å, which is about 0.004 µm (paragraph 71). It is clear that such a thin coating film, and even much thicker coating films, would be far less than 5 wt% of such a substrate film. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this additional limitation in the modified method of Kanazawa because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use known suitable film substrates and surface modifying coating thickness, as suggested by Kuckertz and Cohen, thereby naturally providing this limitation for the reasons provided above.
Claims 2-5 are satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claims 6-7, Kuckertz suggests such interfacial adhering with an adhesive present between the treated material and a second material (paragraphs 2 and 28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these additional steps in Kanazawa because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the enhanced adhesion taught by Kanazawa in known laminating techniques, as suggested by Kuckertz.
Regarding claim 9, given that the modified method of Kanazawa uses the same oxidation and surface coating as claimed, it is reasonable to expect the same results are achieved, i.e. a shear strength improvement in the claimed range. It is noted that “when a tensile test is performed” indicates the recitation of a property, i.e. improvement in shear strength under the recited testing conditions, rather than positive steps of performing the test.
Regarding claim 15, Kanazawa clearly teaches this additional limitation (paragraphs 65-66).
Regarding claims 16, Kanazawa clearly teaches this additional limitation (paragraphs 86-87).
Claim 27 is satisfied for the reasons provided above with respect to claims 6-7.
Regarding claims 30-32, Kanazawa clearly teaches these additional limitations (paragraphs 107-111).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa in view of Cohen and Kuckertz as applied to claims 1-7, 9, 15-16, 27 and 30-32 above, and further in view of Bilyk (US 2003/0194504 A1).
Regarding claim 8, while this limitation is not recited by Kanazawa, in related art Bilyk recognizes that plasma treatment alone only provides improved surface properties for a limited period of time (paragraphs 8 and 26). The additional step of coating allows improved stability (paragraph 26). Thus Bilyk suggests surface bonding, as suggested by Kuckertz above, at any desired time, such as about 1 hour after surface modification. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this additional limitation in the modified method of Kanazawa because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide such adhesion at any desired time as a matter of routine design choice for the reasons provided above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments directed to the previous grounds of rejection were persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims which now require coating the hydrophilic polymer and the hydrophilic polymer is selected from the claimed group. New grounds of rejection and a new primary reference have been applied above to address the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights