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 § 102
1. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 9441085 Norfolk with Devendra et al., “Rheology of Metallocene Polyethylene-based Nanocomposites: Influence of Graft Modification”, Journal of Rheology, vol. 50, No. 4, 1 July 2006, pages 415-434 being cited as evidence of the identity of the Fusabond MB226 of Norfolk.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11, and 13:
Devendra, page 417, under “II EXPERIMENT” and “A. Materials”, describes Fusabond MB 226 as maleic anhydride grafted polyethylene having 0.89% maleic anhydride, which falls within the scope of the instantly claimed functionalized polyolefin and amounts of RP02.
Norfolk exemplifies compositions containing Vicnyl 600, PA10,T/10,6, which falls within the scope of the instantly claimed polyphthalamides including those of the instant claim 6, Fusabond MB226, and glass fiber at column 10, lines 18-34, noting examples CE2 and E1. These examples have a functionalized polyolefin weight ratio of 2.8% and 3% respectively, which falls within the scope of the instant claims including the instant claim 13. The exemplified amounts of glass fiber fall within the scope of the instant claim 9. The amounts of polyamide of these examples anticipates the instant claim 11. These examples anticipate the instant claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11, and 13.
Regarding claim 4:
The compositions of Norfolk discussed above do not require all of the compounds which are alternatively excluded by the instant claim 4. Note all of the recitations of “and/or”. The compositions of Norfolk therefore anticipate the instant claim 4.
Regarding claim 8:
The glass fiber of Norfolk is made of glass and is therefore expected to have similar properties to the glass fiber of the instant claim 8 necessarily and inherently. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 10:
The amount of functionalized polyolefin of Norfolk’s examples discussed above is 1.65 wt.%. This rounds up to 2 within the decimal precision and accuracy of the instant claim 10. The exemplified amounts of Norfolk’s functionalized polyolefin therefore anticipates the instant claim 10.
Regarding claim 12:
The above discussed compositions of Norfolk are similar to those of the instant claims and similar compositions are expected to have similar properties. It is therefore expected that the compositions of Norfolk necessarily and inherently possess the properties of the instant claim 12. See MPEP 2112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 5, 7, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 9441085 Norfolk with Devendra et al., “Rheology of Metallocene Polyethylene-based Nanocomposites: Influence of Graft Modification”, Journal of Rheology, vol. 50, No. 4, 1 July 2006, pages 415-434 being cited as evidence of the identity of the Fusabond MB226 of Norfolk.
Regarding claims 5, 7, and 14-18:
Devendra, page 417, under “II EXPERIMENT” and “A. Materials”, describes Fusabond MB 226 as maleic anhydride grafted polyethylene having 0.89% maleic anhydride, which falls within the scope of the instantly claimed functionalized polyolefin and amounts of RP02.
Norfolk exemplifies compositions containing Vicnyl 600, PA10,T/10,6, which falls within the scope of the instantly claimed polyphthalamides, Fusabond MB226, and glass fiber at column 10, lines 18-34, noting examples CE2 and E1. These examples have a functionalized polyolefin weight ratio of 2.8% and 3% respectively, which falls within the scope of the instant claims. These examples disclose the compositions falling within the scope of the instant claims except that the particulars of the instant claims 5, 7, and 14-18 are not disclosed.
Norfolk prefers phthalimide based polyamides noting column 4, lines 5-8. The higher amines, including the 1,18-diaminooctadenate of column 3, lines 61-64 give the polyamides of the instant claim 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to make the above discussed exemplified compositions of Norfolk using the polyphthalamides of Norfolk made with their higher carbon content amines so as to give the polyamides of the instant claim 5 because such compositions are encompassed by Norfolk and would have been expected to give only predictable results to the ordinary skilled artisan.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to make the above discussed exemplified compositions of Norfolk using the compatibilizers of the instant claim 7 because such compatabilizers are known, commercially available products, as evidenced by Exxon Mobil’s Exxelor PO 1015 of the instant specification, page 23, lines 4-8, are adjacent homologs of Norfolk’s compatibilizers, and would have therefore been expected to give compositions having similar properties to the exemplified compositions of Norfolk. See MPEP 2144.09 Close Structural Similarity Between Chemical Compounds (Homologs, Analogues, Isomers) [R-01.2024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to make the articles of the instant claims 14 and 16-17 from the above discussed compositions of Norfolk because Norfolk discloses making such articles from their compositions at column 9, lines 32-42 and such articles would have been expected to have the improved properties of the compositions of Norfolk.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to make the articles of Norfolk by the process limitations of the instant claim 15 because such method steps appear to be conventional for making electronic devices and would appear to be required to make common electronic devices encompassed by Norfolk, noting Norfolk, column 9, lines 30-43.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to make the above discussed exemplified compositions of Norfolk using the POf weight ratio of the instant claim 18 because the exemplified 3% weight ratio of Norfolk is close to 3.5% in that both are relatively small amounts relative to the entire composition and the slightly higher amount would have been expected to give similar results to Norfolk’s exemplified amounts with slightly more compatibilization due to the slightly higher amount of compatibilizer. See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions [R-01.2024].
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D NILAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1121. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10 to 5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert S Jones, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-7733. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/PATRICK D NILAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights