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, 7, 9-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hallden-Abberton et al. (US Pat. 5,344,868).
Considering Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 16-18: Hallden-Abberton et al. teaches a polymer composition comprising a polymer matrix comprising a polymethylmethacrylimide polymer (¶2:19-25) and glass fibers/reinforcing fiber (2:32-35), where the polymethylmethacrylimide comprises 76.5 mole percent of N-methyl dimethylglutarimide units/Formula I, 19.5 mole percent of methyl methacrylate/Formula II and 5 mole percent of methacrylic acid/Formula IV and methacrylic anhydride/Formula III (6:55-61), and teaches the amount of methacrylic acid and methacrylic anhydride as being up to 10 weight percent of the polymer (2:36-49).
Considering Claim 2: Hallden-Abberton et al. teaches the amount of polymethylmethacrylimide polymer as being 80 to 99.5 percent of the polymer component, and 10 to 50, preferably 20 to 30 weight percent of the glass fiber (2:19-35). Hallden-Abberton et al. teaches examples comprising 67.2 weight percent of the polymer and 30 weight percent of the glass fibers (Table 4).
Considering Claim 3: Hallden-Abberton et al. teaches the amount of polymethylmethacrylimide polymer as being 80 to 99.5 percent of the polymer component (2:19-35).
Considering Claim 9: Hallden-Abberton et al. teaches the composition as comprising a hydroxybenzotriazole/UV absorber (4:46-60).
Considering Claim 10: Hallden-Abberton et al. teaches a Vicat softening temperature of 224 ºC (7:12-20).
Considering Claim 11: Hallden-Abberton et al. teaches mixing the components of the polymer composition (5:14-40).
Considering Claims 12 and 13: Hallden-Abberton et al. teaches forming articles from the composition, including pump and valve parts (4:20-30).
Considering Claim 14: Hallden-Abberton et al. teaches forming articles from the composition, through injection molding.
Claims 1-5, 9-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoes et al. (DE 10320317). Note: A machine translation is being used for DE 10320317.
Considering Claims 1, 4, 5, and 16-18: Hoes et al. teaches a polymer composition comprising a polymethyl methacrylamide and spherical plastic particles/organic particulate filler (pg. 3), where the polymethylmethacrylamide comprises 30 to 98% by weight of N-methylmethacrylamide units/Formula I, methyl methacrylate units/Formula II, acrylic acid/Formula III and methacrylic amine IV (pg. 4), where the polymer comprises less than 20 weight percent of the anhydride comonomer (pg. 4) and the remaining methyl methacrylate.
Considering Claim 2: Hoes et al. teaches the composition as comprising greater than 60 weight percent of the polymer matrix and 0.01 to 20 weight percent of the polymer particles (pg. 3).
Considering Claim 3: Hoes et al. teaches the polymethylmethacrylimide as being the sole polymer in the matrix.
Considering Claim 9: Hoes et al. teaches the composition as comprising weathering agents/impact modifiers (pg. 6).
Considering Claim 10: Hoes et al. teaches the polymer as having a softening point of 165 ºC (pg. 9).
Considering Claim 11: Hoes et al. teaches mixing the components of the composition (pg. 9).
Considering Claim 12: Hoes et al. teaches a molded article made from the composition (pg. 7).
Considering Claim 13: Claim 13 is a statement of intended use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Considering Claim 14: Hoes et al. teaches injection molding or extrusion molding the article (pg. 8).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoes et al. (DE 10320317) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zia et al. (US Pat. 10,538,717).
Considering Claim 6: Hoes et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as shown above. Hoes et al. teaches the particles as being substantially spherical/aspect ratio of around 1, and a having a particle size of 1 to 20 microns (pg. 3).
Hoes et al. does not teach or suggest the claimed polymer species for the additive. However, Zia et al. teaches replacing silicone particles with polytetrafluoroethylene particles (7:13-61). Hoes et al. and Patel are analogous art as they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely modifying polymer matrixes with polymer granules. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the polytetrafluoroethylene of Zia et al. for the silicone of Hoes et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Zia et al. suggests, it provides more predictable results in the polymer matrix (1:49-56).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallden-Abberton et al. (US Pat. 5,344,868) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deckers et al. (US Pat. 5,346,945).
Considering Claim 8: Hallden-Abberton et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as shown above.
Hallden-Abberton et al. teaches the composition as comprising a lubricant. Deckers et al. teaches using silicone oil as a lubricant for a polymethylmethacrylimide composition (4:56-5:5). Hallden-Abberton et al. and Deckers et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polymethylmetharcylimide compositions. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the silicone oil of Deckers et al. as the lubricant of Hallden-Abberton et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Deckers et al. suggests, it is a conventional lubricant for polymethylmethacrylimide compositions.
Hallden-Abberton et al. is silent towards the amount of lubricant. However, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of lubricant through routine experimentation, and the motivation to do so would have been to control the processability of the composition during molding.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoes et al. (DE 10320317) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deckers et al. (US Pat. 5,346,945).
Considering Claim 8: Hoes et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as shown above.
Hoes et al. teaches the composition as comprising a lubricant. Deckers et al. teaches using silicone oil as a lubricant for a polymethylmethacrylimide composition (4:56-5:5). Hoes et al. and Deckers et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polymethylmetharcylimide compositions. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the silicone oil of Deckers et al. as the lubricant of Hoes et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Deckers et al. suggests, it is a conventional lubricant for polymethylmethacrylimide compositions.
Hoes et al. is silent towards the amount of lubricant. However, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of lubricant through routine experimentation, and the motivation to do so would have been to control the processability of the composition during molding.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallden-Abberton et al. (US Pat. 5,344,868) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Manseri et al. (Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol.118, 1867–1871 (2010)).
Considering Claim 15: Hallden-Abberton et al. teaches the process of claim 1 as shown above.
Hallden-Abberton et al. does not teach crosslinking the composition. However, Manseri et al. teaches crosslinking a polymethylmethacrylimide with UV light (pg. 1870). Hallden-Abberton et al. and Manseri et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polymethylmethacrylimide polymers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have crosslinked the polymer of Hallden-Abberton et al., as in Manseri et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, to provide increased mechanical properties to the molded article.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoes et al. (DE 10320317) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Manseri et al. (Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol.118, 1867–1871 (2010)).
Considering Claim 15: Hoes et al. teaches the process of claim 1 as shown above.
Hoes et al. does not teach crosslinking the composition. However, Manseri et al. teaches crosslinking a polymethylmethacrylimide with UV light (pg. 1870). Hoes et al. and Manseri et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polymethylmethacrylimide polymers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have crosslinked the polymer of Hoes et al., as in Manseri et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, to provide increased mechanical properties to the molded article.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sasaki et al. (US Pat. 4,908,402) teaches a composition comprising a polymethylmethacrylimide and carbon fibers (Abstract).
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