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 .
DETAILED ACTION
All the references cited in the International Search Report have been considered. None is anticipatory or meet the claims.
Election/Restrictions
The applicant has elected Group I (claims 1-6) without traverse.
This restriction is made FINAL. See previous action for the reasons of applying restriction.
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 of this title, 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) 1-2 and 4-6 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cree et al. (US 6803417) and evidenced by Van Houcke et al. (US 20170342248) and ZHANG at al. (US 20170269290).
As to claims , Cree (abs., examples, claims) discloses a powder (Ex.1) having a mean particle size below 250 mm (overlapping with the claimed ranges of instant claims 1 and 4-5) of a crosslinked ethylene-octene copolymer (Mw=49k, falling within the claimed range of instant claim 2) having a gel content of ≥10% (claim 1), overlapping with the claimed range of instant claims 1 and 4. It has been found that where claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists - see MPEP 2144.05. Ethylene-octene copolymer is a polyolefin elastomer known to one of ordinary skill in the art, as evidenced by Zhang (39). The disclosed mean particle size is commonly referred to D50, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art and evidenced by Van Houcke (0019).
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Houcke (US 20170342248) in view of Ishio et al. (US 4985188) and evidenced by Jang et al. (US 20220033633).
As to claims 1 and 3-6, Van Houcke (abs., examples, claims) discloses a film (1, 135) comprising HDPE with gel content having particle size (D50) of 300-750 mm (17-19), overlapping with the claimed ranges of instant claims 1 and 4-5. It has been found that where claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists - see MPEP 2144.05. The particle size is achieved via grinding (25).
Van Houcke is silent on the claimed particles.
In the same area of producing films comprising polyolefin, Ishio (abs., examples, claims) discloses a film (abs., 1:10-15) comprising a crosslinked ethylene- a-olefin copolymer with improved heat resistance, oil resistance and drawing ability (8:30-50) having a gel fraction of 20-70% (3:20-25) or exemplary 30%, 36%, 40% , etc. (Table4 6-A, 10), a density of 0.923 or 0.88-0.93, and melting point of 122 °C or 110-130 °C (44:40-60, claim 6). It has been found that where claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists - see MPEP 2144.05. Ethylene-a-olefin copolymer is known as an elastomer that embraces ethylene propylene elastomer, as evidenced by Jang (67).
Ishio is silent on the claimed tensile strength and elongation. Accordingly, the examiner recognizes that not all of the claimed effects or physical properties are positively stated by the references. However, the references teach a composition containing the claimed components in the claimed amounts prepared by substantially similar components. In this case, Ishio’s ethylene-a-olefin copolymer meets the claimed crosslinked polyolefin, the claimed gel content, the claimed melting point, and the claimed gravity. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation that the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. tensile strength and elongation, would necessarily flow from a composition containing all of the claimed components in the claimed amounts prepared by a substantially similar process. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also MPEP § 2112.01(I)-(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) applicant must provide evidence to support the applicant’s position, and (2) it would be the examiner’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure on how to obtain the claimed effects or properties with only the claimed components in the claimed amounts by the disclosed or claimed process.
Therefore, as to claims 1 and 3-6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the film disclosed by Van Houcke and replaced HDPE with the crosslinked ethylene- a-olefin having the claimed gel content in view of Ishio, because the resultant film would yield improved heat resistance, oil resistance and drawing ability. The claimed power would meet the claimed gel content and the claimed size would be achieved via Van Houcke’s processing method of grinding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7378. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs. 8am-6pm. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571.572.1302. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHANE FANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights