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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-11 and the species polyolefin in the reply filed on 7/28/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/28/26.
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 9 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said polymer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase should state “said polyolefin”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Morphology of undeformed and deformed polyethylene lamellar crystals” by Galeski et al.
Galeski describes polyethylene crystals obtained by high pressure crystallization.
Regarding claim 1, Galeski demonstrates crystalline HDPE in Fig.1 which contains lamellae/multilamellar structures with no discernable amount of amorphous material. Fig.1 is replicated here:
PNG
media_image1.png
565
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The acceleration voltage of 10kV and magnification of x5,000 is close to the instant parameters, and one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect, given Galenksi’s images, that the specimen would meet “devoid of any amount of amorphous material detectable” at the claimed parameters. Although applicant has in other instances refuted images which do not have the exact SEM specifications claimed, Galeski’s use of 10kV acceleration voltage is close to the instant and Galeski demonstrates magnification larger than that claimed (e.g. Fig. 1b and 1c) with no evidence of amorphous material. Also, Galeski has etched his polyolefin to remove amorphous matter (p.5782 col 1 final paragraph-col 2 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 2, Galeski reports etching the samples which are depicted in Fig.1 (p.5782 col 1 final paragraph), i.e. the samples in the images contain even greater crystallinity than that measured by differential scanning calorimetry. Galeski reports a degree of crystallinity via DSC of 90% (p.5783 col 1 paragraph 1). See also Fig.2 which reports initial crystallinity of 94.5% (p.5784 col 2, Fig.2).
Regarding claim 4, Galeski contains figures wherein the structure, on a substrate (“first side engages a substrate”) has a free side with voids, e.g. Fig.1c. The area covers more than 10 squared micrometers (see 1 micron reference bar) and the voids depicted have an average size greater than 0.1 micrometer. The thickness of the sample is larger than 1 micron given the average lamellae thickness of 130nm (p.5783 col1 paragraph 1) and greater than 10 parallel lamellae depicted.
Regarding claim 5, the bottom lamellae may be considered the substrate, meeting the claim.
Regarding claim 6, Galeski describes gold sputtering (p.5782 col 2 paragraph 3), both partially filling and coating.
Regarding claim 7, Galeski demonstrates layers (lamellae) which are perpendicular to the substrate as well as layers which are substantially parallel layers which are on top of each other (p.5783 Fig.1(c) and (d)). , especially top right corner of Fig.1d which has a parallel lamellae on top of perpendicular lamellae. These are described as “edge on” and “flat lying” lamellae.
Regarding claim 8, Galeski’s images show lamellae which have nano-measurements, qualifying them as nano-lamellar; they contain branches (Fig.1(b)) thus read on “branched lamellar” and “branched multi-lamellar”; they are parallel reading on “twinned lamellar”; they resemble a sheet thus read on “sheaf structure”; they are connected involving some disorder reading on “disordered lamellar structure”.
Regarding claim 9, Galeski’s image is of a sample containing gold sputtering (p.5782 col 2 paragraph 3), making it a composite.
Regarding claim 10, Galeski describes the adsorption of gold onto the composition (p.5782 col 2 paragraph 3), i.e. the composition is an adsorbing material.
Regarding claim 11, Galeski describes an article, e.g. the SEM sample, which comprises the polyolefin composition in far greater than 1% in for example the volume, height, thickness, width, length, depth measurements (p.5782 col 2 paragraph 3).
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Morphologies of Microporous Polyethylene and Polypropylene Crystallized from Solution in Supercritical Propane” by Pradhan et al as evidenced by “Lamellar Structure and Organization in Polyethylene Gels Crystallized from Supercritical Solution in Propane” by Bush et al.
Pradhan describes the morphologies of crystallized polyethylene via scanning electron microscopy.
Regarding claim 1, Pradhan describes a polyethylene composition which has lamellae without amorphous material, since the composition is crystallized from a dilute solution of polyethylene. Pradhan states that the cause of gelation is the formation of a continuous crystalline network (p.1054 col 2 final paragraph), i.e. no amorphous phase is present. Pradhan supplies SEM images of the samples (p.1056 Fig.2-4; see also Fig.5-18). Fig.2-3 is reproduced here:
PNG
media_image2.png
504
755
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See also Bush, cited by Pradhan in explanation of how crystals are formed (Pradhan Introduction p.1053 col 2 superscript 4; also p.1054 col 2 paragraph 3). Bush states that the method creates continuous networks of lamellar crystals via nucleation and crystal growth, not via a liquid phase (p.1439 col 1 paragraph 1), i.e. amorphous polyethylene is not present
Regarding claim 2, since the cause of gelation is formation of continuous crystalline network (p.1054 col 2 final paragraph), i.e. precipitation crystallization, the composition is very close to 100% crystalline even without direct measurement of crystallinity, since non-crystallized polyethylene remains in solution. See also Bush, cited by Pradhan in explanation of how crystals are formed (Pradhan Introduction p.1053 col 2 superscript 4; also p.1054 col 2 paragraph 3). Bush states that the method creates continuous networks of lamellar crystals via nucleation and crystal growth, not via a liquid phase (p.1439 col 1 paragraph 1), i.e. amorphous polyethylene is not present.
Regarding claim 3, since the crystals are obtained via nucleation and crystallization, there are no etched edges.
Regarding claim 4, Pradham’s Fig.10, for example, meets the claim because a first side must rest underneath the white sections which engages the substrate. The figure is taken over an area of over 10 sq microns and the voids have an average diameter of over 0.01 micron. The thickness is above 1 micron because the crystalline network grows in all directions (“pervades the vessel” p.1054 col 2 paragraph 3), and has depth in Fig.10 (darker layers).
Regarding claim 5, the bottom lamellae may be considered the substrate, meeting the claim.
Regarding claim 6, Pradham describes gold sputtering on the polyethylene crystals (p.1055 col 1 paragraph 1), both partially filling and coating.
Regarding claim 7, Pradham’s SEM images are taken with the sample on a substrate and some amount of the lamellae are perpendicular to the substrate (e.g. Fig.5(a) deep striations) while lamellae on top of these is oriented in many different ways including parallel to the substrate (e.g. Fig.5(a) top layers). See also Fig.13 , wherein the upper right corner contains lamellar nanostructures parallel to the substrate which are on top of lamellar nanostructures perpendicular to the substrate.
Regarding claim 8, Pradham describes the lamellae as axialite (p.1056 Fig.4), which may also be described as branched, branched multi-lamellar, or dendritic (p.1057 Fig.6). Pradham also describes disordered lamellae which are interconnected (p.1058 Fig.9, p.1059 Fig.11, 12) and spherulite (“sphere like”; p.1058 Fig.7), and dendritic spherulite (p.1057 Fig.6). Pradham’s structures are epitaxially grown (p.1054 col 2 final paragraph; see also Bush).
Regarding claim 9, Pradham describes a composite via gold sputtering on the polyethylene crystals (p.1055 col 1 paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 10, Pradham’s composition is an adsorbing material as it accepts a layer of gold sputtering (p.1055 col 1 paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 11, Pradham describes an article which comprises the composition sputtered with a gold coating, i.e. largely comprising the composition in terms of length, width, height, thickness, depth, diameter, radius, weight, and volume (p.1055 col 1 paragraph 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7154. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-3:30pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 5712721302. 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.
/CHRISTINA H.W. ROSEBACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
