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 § 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. Claims 2-16 depend on claim 1 and, therefore, are also rejected.
With regards to claim 1, the claim states that the polyethylene has a molecular weight but does not specify if the molecular weight is number average or weight average.
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 1-3, 5-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (CN 104695038) in view of Qu et al (1993, Journal of applied polymer science, vol. 48, 701-709).
With regards to claims 1, 2, and 11, Guo teaches a method for fiber production that uses ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (page 1) in a solvent (page 3) and an initiator (page 3) wherein the photoinitiator includes benzophenone (page 3) solution in a spinning process (page 3). Guo teaches the amount of photoinitiator to be from 0 to 3% (page 3) and the molecular weight of the polyethylene to be 1 to 7 million (page 3).
Guo does not teach the photoinitiator to have the claimed structure.
Qu teaches a polyethylene that is crosslinked using a benzophenone including 4-chlorobenzophenone or 4,4’-dichlorobenzophenone (page 702). Qu teaches the motivation for using these photoinitiators to be because they were found to be the most effective in photocross-linking of HDPE (page 704). Guo and Qu are analogous in the art of forming polyethylene polymers. In light of the benefit above, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the benzophenone derivative of Qu as the benzophenone derivative of Guo, thereby obtaining the present invention.
With regards to claims 3 and 12, Guo teaches the weight ratio of solvent and polyethylene powder is 1:1 to 20:1 (page 3) and for the solvent to include tetrahydronaphthalene, decahydronaphthalene, n-heptane, n-hexane, cyclohexane, paraffin oil, vegetable oil, or a xylene (page 3).
With regards to claims 5 and 14, Guo teaches the addition of an antioxidant (page 3).
With regards to claim 6, Guo teaches the process of making a heat-resistant and creep-resistant polyethylene that includes multi-stage drafting the polyethylene to obtain a fiber (page 1) followed by exposing to UV radiation having an intensity of 4 Mrad (example 4) for 10 seconds (example 5).
With regards to claims 7 and 15, Guo teaches the process to be a 4-stage ultra-high heat drawing wherein the drafting ratio is 40 times (example 2).
With regards to claims 8 and 16, Guo teaches the radiation to be ultraviolet radiation (example 4) reading on a wavelength from 315 to 400 nm.
With regards to claim 9, Guo teaches the gel content of the polyethylene fiber to be 75% (table 2) but is silent on the crystallinity of the composition. However, when the composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01. Because the prior art exemplifies Applicant’s claimed composition in that the claimed components in the claimed amounts are used and the process of making is as claimed, the claimed physical properties relating to the crystallinity are inherently present in the prior art. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
With regards to claim 10, Guo does not teach the creep rate under the claimed conditions. However, when the composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01. Because the prior art exemplifies Applicant’s claimed composition in that the claimed components in the claimed amounts are used and the process of making is as claimed, the claimed physical properties relating to the creep rate at the claimed conditions are inherently present in the prior art. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (CN 104695038) in view of Dong et al (CN 112796000).
With regards to claims 1, 2, and 11, Guo teaches a method for fiber production that uses ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (page 1) in a solvent (page 3) and an initiator (page 3) wherein the photoinitiator includes benzophenone (page 3) solution in a spinning process (page 3). Guo teaches the amount of photoinitiator to be from 0 to 3% (page 3) and the molecular weight of the polyethylene to be 1 to 7 million (page 3).
Guo does not teach the photoinitiator to have the claimed structure.
Dong teaches an aliphatic polyester having a high gel content and high crystallinity (title) that includes
PNG
media_image1.png
229
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 3). Dong teaches the motivation for using this initiator to be because it has high thermal stability and when added to polyethylene, the physical properties are maintained such as quantity stability without volatilization and thermal decomposition (page 5). Dong and Guo are analogous in the art of crosslinked polyethylene. In light of the benefit above, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the benzophenone derivative of Dong as the benzophenone derivative of Guo, thereby obtaining the present invention.
With regards to claims 3 and 12, Guo teaches the weight ratio of solvent and polyethylene powder is 1:1 to 20:1 (page 3) and for the solvent to include tetrahydronaphthalene, decahydronaphthalene, n-heptane, n-hexane, cyclohexane, paraffin oil, vegetable oil, or a xylene (page 3).
With regards to claim 4 and 13, Guo does not teach the addition of an alkynyl compound.
Dong teaches the addition of an alkynyl compound such as 1,4-diphenylbutylene, 4-phtnyladkynyl phthalic anhydride, and 1,4-didynylene benzene at a concentration of 0.1 to 5% (page 4). Dong teaches the motivation for adding this compound to be because it provides a multiplicative effect with the photoinitiator under ultraviolet irradiation which greatly and rapidly promotes the cross-linking of aliphatic polyester with minimal effect on the crystallization of aliphatic polyester (page 4). Guo and Dong are analogous in the art of polyethylene fibers formed with UV radiation. In light of the benefit above, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to add the alkynyl compound of Dong to the composition of Guo, thereby obtaining the present invention.
With regards to claims 5 and 14, Guo teaches the addition of an antioxidant (page 3).
With regards to claim 6, Guo teaches the process of making a heat-resistant and creep-resistant polyethylene that includes multi-stage drafting the polyethylene to obtain a fiber (page 1) followed by exposing to UV radiation having an intensity of 4 Mrad (example 4) for 10 seconds (example 5).
With regards to claims 7 and 15, Guo teaches the process to be a 4-stage ultra-high heat drawing wherein the drafting ratio is 40 times (example 2).
With regards to claims 8 and 16, Guo teaches the radiation to be ultraviolet radiation (example 4) reading on a wavelength from 315 to 400 nm.
With regards to claim 9, Guo teaches the gel content of the polyethylene fiber to be 75% (table 2) but is silent on the crystallinity of the composition. However, when the composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01. Because the prior art exemplifies Applicant’s claimed composition in that the claimed components in the claimed amounts are used and the process of making is as claimed, the claimed physical properties relating to the crystallinity are inherently present in the prior art. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
With regards to claim 10, Guo does not teach the creep rate under the claimed conditions. However, when the composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01. Because the prior art exemplifies Applicant’s claimed composition in that the claimed components in the claimed amounts are used and the process of making is as claimed, the claimed physical properties relating to the creep rate at the claimed conditions are inherently present in the prior art. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following reference teaches the photoinitiator that reads on claimed first photoinitiator: Chin et al (2016, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 43930).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WHITELEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5203. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 5:00.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 5712721130. 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.
/JESSICA WHITELEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763