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 § 102
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Datta et al. (US Pat. 4,999,403).
Considering Claims 1, 5, and 8: Datta et al. teaches a composition comprising 180 parts/72 weight percent of a non-functional polypropylene, 45 parts/18 weight percent of a non-functional polyethylene 20 parts/8 weight percent of a maleated polypropylene, 5 parts/2 weight percent of an amine functionalized polyethylene (Table III, Example 10).
Considering Claim 6: Datta et al. teaches the maleated polypropylene as having a melt flow rate of 9.2 g/10 min and a maleic anhydride content of 0.22 weight percent (Example 10).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datta et al. (US Pat. 4,999,403) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sugita et al. (US Pat. 5,552,480).
Considering Claims 2 and 3: Datta et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as shown above. Datta et al. teaches the maleated polypropylene as having a melt flow rate of 9.2 g/10 min and a maleic anhydride content of 0.22 weight percent (Example 10).
Datta et al. does not teach the functionalized polyethylene as having an amine group and the polypropylene having a maleic anhydride group. However, Sugita et al. teaches that either poly propylene maleic anhydride copolymers or ethylene propylene maleic anhydride polymers can be modified by reaction with N-ethylethylenediamine (12:14-24; 13:48-54). Datta et al. and Sugita et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polypropylene compositions. As Sugita et al. teaches that both the propylene and ethylene/propylene copolymers can be modified with the amine functionality, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the maleic anhydride of the polypropylene to add the amine group, rather than the ethylene/propylene polymer, and the motivation to do so would have been, the final reacted products would be functionally equivalent.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datta et al. (US Pat. 4,999,403) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Jerabek et al. (US 2020/0277479).
Considering Claim 4: Datta et al. teaches the composition of claim 2 as shown above. Datta et al. teaches the functionalized ethylene based polymer as being an ethylene/propylene polymer (Example 1).
Datta et al. does not teach the density and melt flow rate of the functionalized ethylene polymer. However, Jerabek et al. teaches an ethylene/alpha olefin polymer having a density of 0.845 to 0.890 (¶0250) and a melt flow rate of 25 to 50 g/10 min (¶0251) for mixing with a polypropylene composition. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used an ethylene polymer with the melt flow rate and density of Jerabek et al. in the composition of Datta et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Jerabek et al. suggests, to provide a balance of stiffness and impact behavior (¶0356).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datta et al. (US Pat. 4,999,403) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Bawiskar et al. (WO 2018/071507).
Considering Claim 7: Datta et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as shown above. Datta et al. teaches the amine functional polyethylene as being an ethylene/propylene copolymer.
Datta et al. is silent towards the properties of the amine functional polyethylene copolymer. However, Bawiskar et al. teaches a functionalized polyethylene/alpha olefin copolymer (6:32-7:2) having a melt flow rate of 300 to 1500 g/10 min (12:31-13:10), an amine that is preferably N-ethylethylenediamine (19:1-7) and a density of less than 0.900 g/mol (6:12-15). Datta et al. and Bawiskar et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely functionalized polyethylene. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the functionalized ethylene of Bawiskar et al. in the composition of Datta et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Bawiskar et al. suggests, it can be produced at a high production rate (1:28-2:3).
Claims 9 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datta et al. (US Pat. 4,999,403) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Jerabek et al. (US 2020/0277479).
Considering Claim 9: Datta et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as shown above. Datta et al. teaches the non-functionalized ethylene based polymer as being an ethylene/propylene polymer (Example 1).
Datta et al. does not teach the density and melt flow rate of the non-functionalized ethylene polymer. However, Jerabek et al. teaches an ethylene/alpha olefin polymer having a density of 0.845 to 0.890 (¶0250) and a melt flow rate of 25 to 50 g/10 min (¶0251) for mixing with a polypropylene composition. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used an ethylene polymer with the melt flow rate and density of Jerabek et al. in the composition of Datta et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Jerabek et al. suggests, to provide a balance of stiffness and impact behavior (¶0356).
Considering Claim 15: Datta et al. teaches a composition comprising 180 parts/72 weight percent of a non-functional polypropylene, 45 parts/18 weight percent of a non-functional polyethylene 20 parts/8 weight percent of a maleated polypropylene, 5 parts/2 weight percent of an amine functionalized polyethylene (Table III, Example 10). Datta et al. teaches an example where the melt flow rate of the maleated polypropylene is 110 g/10 min (Example 2).
Considering Claims 16-19: The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the 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 that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Considering Claim 20: Datta et al. teaches the composition as comprising a filler (23:21-30).
Claims 9-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datta et al. (US Pat. 4,999,403) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Jerabek et al. (US 2020/0277479) and Sugita et al. (US Pat. 5,552,480).
Considering Claims 9 and 10: Datta et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as shown above. Datta et al. teaches the non-functionalized ethylene based polymer as being an ethylene/propylene polymer (Example 1). Datta et al. teaches a composition comprising 180 parts/72 weight percent of a non-functional polypropylene, 45 parts/18 weight percent of a non-functional polyethylene 20 parts/8 weight percent of a maleated polypropylene, 5 parts/2 weight percent of an amine functionalized polyethylene (Table III, Example 10).
Datta et al. does not teach the density and melt flow rate of the non-functionalized ethylene polymer. However, Jerabek et al. teaches an ethylene/alpha olefin polymer having a density of 0.845 to 0.890 (¶0250) and a melt flow rate of 25 to 50 g/10 min (¶0251) for mixing with a polypropylene composition. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used an ethylene polymer with the melt flow rate and density of Jerabek et al. in the composition of Datta et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Jerabek et al. suggests, to provide a balance of stiffness and impact behavior (¶0356).
Datta et al. does not teach the functionalized polyethylene as having an amine group and the polypropylene having a maleic anhydride group. However, Sugita et al. teaches that either poly propylene maleic anhydride copolymers or ethylene propylene maleic anhydride polymers can be modified by reaction with N-ethylethylenediamine (12:14-24; 13:48-54). Datta et al. and Sugita et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polypropylene compositions. As Sugita et al. teaches that both the propylene and ethylene/propylene copolymers can be modified with the amine functionality, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the maleic anhydride of the polypropylene to add the amine group, rather than the ethylene/propylene polymer, and the motivation to do so would have been, the final reacted products would be functionally equivalent.
Considering Claims 11-14: The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the 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 that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Considering Claim 20: Datta et al. teaches the composition as comprising a filler (23:21-30).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Iwashita et al. (US Pat. 12,031,023) teaches a composition comprising a polypropylene polymer, a polyolefin modified with an unsaturated carboxylic acid and a polyethylene polymer that can be modified with an amine group (Abstract, 10:51-67).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights