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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 because:
Claim 4 sets forth a molecular weight range but does not specify the units. For purposes of examination the units will be interpreted as g/mol.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2010/0314813 to Wojtowicki et al. in view of US2018/0134931 to Sasaki et al.
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 16, Wojtowicki teaches a composition comprising a) a first thermoplastic elastomer having a first glass transition temperature and b) a second thermoplastic elastomer having a second glass transition temperature (claim 1), wherein the first thermoplastic elastomer and/or the second thermoplastic elastomer are selected from hydrogenated styrene/isoprene block copolymers (claim 2). The styrene block copolymer of the second thermoplastic elastomer of Wojtowicki thereby reads on the component (x) that is a hydrogenated product (X) of a block copolymer having a polymer block (A-1) containing a structural unit derived from an aromatic vinyl compound and the isoprene block copolymer of the first thermoplastic elastomer of Wojtowicki thereby reads on the polymer block (B-1) containing a structural unit derived from a conjugated diene compound. The styrene block copolymer of the first thermoplastic elastomer of Wojtowicki thereby reads on the component (y) that is a block copolymer (Y0) having a polymer block (A-2) containing a structural unit derived from an aromatic vinyl compound. The isoprene block copolymer of the second thermoplastic elastomer of Wojtowicki thereby reads on the polymer block (B-2) containing a structural unit derived from a conjugated diene compound or a hydrogenate (Y) thereof.
Wojtowicki teaches the first thermoplastic elastomer a) has a glass transition temperature in the range from -25 to 0 °C (claim 3) thereby reading on the [1] a glass transition temperature of the component (x) is -400C or higher.
Wojtowicki further teaches the resin composition comprises from 3 to 40% by weight of the first thermoplastic elastomer [0028] and from 3 to 40% by weight of the second thermoplastic elastomer [0029] thereby reading on the ratio Mx/My of a mass Mx of the component (x) to a mass My of the component (y) in the resin composition is 1/99 to 99/1.
Wojtowicki does not particularly teach [2] a glass transition temperature of the component (y) is lower than -500C and is further silent regarding the full width at half maximum of the resin composition relative to a peak intensity of tan δ.
However, Wojtowicki teaches the feature of using two different thermoplastic elastomers the glass transition temperatures of which differ by at least 10 °C is based on the observation that the desired high values for the loss factor tan δ (at least higher than 0.5, desirably higher than 0.8, more desirably higher than 1) can be obtained over a broader range of temperatures than by using one thermoplastic elastomer alone. The absolute values of the glass transition temperatures which are to be selected depend from the range of typical working temperatures for the device to be damped. If the device is, for example, a passenger car, the temperature range in which most efficient damping is desired is outside ambient temperature, especially the temperature range from -25 to + 45 °C. In this case, the glass transition temperatures of the two different thermoplastic elastomers should both lie within this temperature range. If, on the other hand, machine parts should be damped which become hot during use, e.g. with temperatures in the range of 50 to 100 °C, the glass transition temperatures of the two different thermoplastic elastomers should both lie within this higher temperature range [0062]. As such, the glass transition temperatures of the thermoplastic elastomers, the full width and the serial temperature range will affect the damping properties of the final product. Therefore, the glass transition temperatures of the thermoplastic elastomers, the full width and the serial temperature range can be optimized to reach the desired damping properties via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the glass transition temperatures including a range of lower than -50 °C, the full width and the serial temperature range for the intended application via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Wojtowicki does not particularly teach the polymer block (B-2) contains a structural unit derived from β-farnesene.
However, Sasaki teaches a block copolymer (A) comprising polymer block (a) of aromatic vinyl compounds and polymer block (b) wherein polymer block (b) comprises 1-100% by mass farnesene and conjugated diene other than farnesene [Sasaki, 0016] wherein farnesene as β-farnesene is preferred [Sasaki, 0021]. Wojtowicki and Sasaki are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely compositions comprising styrene and diene block copolymers.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add 1-100% mass% of β-farnesene to the diene block component of Wojtowicki’s block copolymer (y), thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation to modify Wojtowicki with Sasaki is that farnesene contributes molding processability, flexibility, adhesiveness, sound insulation properties, and vibration-damping properties [Sasaki, 0023].
Regarding Claims 2 and 8, Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki teaches the resin composition of claim 1, where Wojtowicki teaches the styrene content of thermoplastic elastomers a) and b) is in the range of 15 to 25% by weight [0065] thereby reading on polymer block (A-1) of 23% by mass or less of claim 2 and a polymer block (A-2) content of 35% by mass or less of claim 8.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki teaches the thermoplastic elastomers (a) and (b) are fully hydrogenated [0065] and thereby interpreted as 100 mol% hydrogenated, thereby reading on the claimed range of 85 mol% or more.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki teaches the resin composition of claim 1, as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki does not particularly teach the melt flow rate of the component (x).
However, the melt flow rate relates to the ease of the flow of the polymer. Wojtowicki teaches the vibration damping composition is transformed into a viscoelastic material capable of flowing onto the external surface of an intrusion device in a desired consistency, thickness and pattern [0137]. As such, the melt flow rate will affect the flow properties of the final product. Therefore, the melt flow rate of component (x) can be optimized to reach the desired flow properties via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the relative melt flow rate for component (x) for the intended application via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki does not particularly teach the vinyl bond amount of the polymer block (B-1).
However, Wojtowicki teaches the presence of a C=C double bond is essential for the curing behavior [0066]. As such, the amount of vinyl bond in the polymer block (B-1) will affect the curing of the final product. Therefore, the vinyl bond amount of polymer block (B-1) can be optimized to reach the desired curing via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the vinyl bond amount for the polymer block (B-1) for the intended application via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki teaches the resin composition of claim 1, wherein Wojtowicki teaches the styrene content is in the range of 15 to 25% by weight [0065] thereby reading on polymer block (A-2) of 23% by weight or less.
Regarding Claim 11, Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki teaches the resin composition of claim 1, as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki does not particularly teach the melt flow rate of the component (y).
However, the melt flow rate relates to the ease of the flow of the polymer. Wojtowicki teaches the vibration damping composition is transformed into a viscoelastic material capable of flowing onto the external surface of an intrusion device in a desired consistency, thickness and pattern [0137]. As such, the melt flow rate will affect the flow properties of the final product. Therefore, the melt flow rate of component (y) can be optimized to reach the desired flow properties via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the relative melt flow rate for component (x) for the intended application via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Regarding Claim(s) 12 and 13, Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki teaches the resin composition of claim 1, comprising from 3 to 40% by weight of the first thermoplastic elastomer and from 3 to 40% by weight of the second thermoplastic elastomer [claim 1] thereby reading on the ratio Mx/My of 45/55 to 80/20 of claim 12 and the ratio Mx/My of 20/80 to 37/63 of claim 13.
Regarding Claim 15, Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki teaches the resin composition of claim 1, as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki does not particularly teach the melt flow rate of the resin composition.
However, the melt flow rate relates to the ease of the flow of the polymer. Wojtowicki teaches the vibration damping composition is transformed into a viscoelastic material capable of flowing onto the external surface of an intrusion device in a desired consistency, thickness and pattern [0137]. As such, the melt flow rate will affect the flow properties of the final product. Therefore, the melt flow rate of component (x) can be optimized to reach the desired flow properties via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the relative melt flow rate for component (x) for the intended application via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Regarding Claim 17, Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki teaches the resin composition of claim 1. When Wojtowicki is combined Sasaki in the manner proposed in claim 1, component (x) does not comprise farnesene and component (y) does comprise farnesene, thereby reading on the limitations of claim 17.
Regarding Claim 18, Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki does not particularly teach an aspect ratio of 1.0-3.0. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki, when modified in the manner proposed above, teaches a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties - i.e. aspect ratio - would implicitly be achieved in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. See In Re Spada, 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process.
Regarding Claim 19 and 20, Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki teaches the resin composition of claim 1, that is heat expandable and fills the cavity by cross-linking the door intrusion device [0134] (i.e., foamable composition), comprising component C selected from an ethylene/vinyl acetate copolymer [0066], a foaming agent and a crosslinking system [0198].
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2010/0314813 to Wojtowicki et al. in view of Sasaki as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, in further view of Wang et al. (US PG Pub 2011/0213066 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki teaches the resin composition according to claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki does not particularly teach the claimed molecular weights for the thermoplastic elastomers a) and b) which correspond to instantly component (x) or component (y).
However, Wang et al. teach polymer compositions comprising a first and a second shell block polymer, wherein the suitable block polymers are selected from conjugated diene polymers and monovinyl aromatic monomers [0087], wherein the weight average molecular weight of the block copolymers is from 40,000 g/mol to 250,000 g/mol [0034] thereby reading on the claimed range of 100,000 to 250,000. Wojtowicki and Wang are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely elastomeric compositions for damping applications.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the thermoplastic elastomers a) and b) in the resin composition of Wojtowicki with molecular weights in the range disclosed by Wang, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation would have been that it has been held that it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); and MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, Wang shows that a block copolymer molecular weight from 40,000 g/mol to 250,000 g/mol is known in the art to be suitable for damping applications.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2014/0148624 to Ohler et al.
Regarding Claim 14, Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki teaches the resin composition of claim 1, comprising up to 95 parts polymer block (b) [Sasaki, 0017] that comprises 1-100% farnesene [Sasaki, 0023].
Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki does not explicitly state the resin composition has a biobased content of 1-80% by mass.
However, Ohler teaches olefinic feedstocks [title] used to replace or supplement olefinic feedstocks derived from fossil fuels [0003] wherein farnesene is derived from a renewable carbon source using genetically modified microbial cells [0066] and “renewable” and “biobased” are used interchangeably [0066] thereby reading on 1-80% by mass biobased content. Wojtowicki and Ohler are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely feedstocks of conjugated dienes.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a bio-based farnesene as taught by Ohler in Wojtowicki in view of Sasaki’s resin composition in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
The motivation would have been that there is a need for renewable olefinic feedstocks that are not derived from fossil fuels [0005] and that olefins produced from petroleum can contain sulfur and aromatic compounds which are environmentally undesirable impurities [0004].
Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US2019/0284362 to Morishita et al. teaches a molded foam body comprising a block copolymer comprising an aromatic vinyl compound and another block, further comprising an EPDM, a crosslinking agent, and a foaming agent [Morishita, abstract].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Devin Darling whose telephone number is (703) 756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached on (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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights