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.
Claims 6-7 are 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 6 recites the limitation "the units a2” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 does not previously recite units a2. It is thus unclear as to what is being referred to as a2. For purposes of examination, claim 6 is interpreted such that the units a2 are the units based on ethylene as supported by the instant specification Par. 0042.
Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, since these claims depend from the claims rejected above and do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata et al. (JP 2006328195 A; herein English machine translation used for all citations).
Regarding claim 1, Miyata teaches a polymer alloying having a fluorinated copolymer (A) having a carbonyl group-containing group having a melting point of 120-210°C (Miyata, Par. 0005-0008, 0018-0021, and 0037), which lies within the claimed range of 250°C or lower and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. Miyata teaches particles of the fluorinated copolymer are dispersed in a thermoplastic polymer (B) that is an ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer, and thus is immiscible with the fluorinated copolymer (Miyata, Par. 0005-0006, 0009, 0013, 0046-0047, and 0052-0054). Miyata teaches the ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer can be melt kneaded at a temperature of 220°C and thus has a melting temperature lower than 220°C (Miyata, Par. 0051, 0072, and 0074) which lies within the claimed range of 250°C or less and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. Miyata teaches the proportion of the fluorinated copolymer (A) to the total mass of the polymer alloy is 5-50 mass%, and teaches examples where the proportion is 20 mass% or 40 mass% (Miyata, Par. 0052, 0057, 0074, and Table 1), which lie within the claimed range of 10-40 mass% and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. Miyata teaches the fluorinated copolymer has an average particle size of 5 µm or less (Miyata, Par. 0013, 0053, and 0055), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.001 to 10 µm and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claims 2 and 8-16, Miyata teaches a polymer alloy that is identical or substantially identical to the claimed invention, comprising an identical fluorinated copolymer and an identical thermoplastic polymer as stated above for claim 1 and below for claims 3-7. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01, I. 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), see MPEP 2112.01, II. Miyata teaches a polymer alloy comprising the fluorinated copolymer and thermoplastic polymer in an amount that is the same as the instant invention as stated above for claim 1. Miyata teaches the same fluorinated copolymer units as stated above for claim 1 and below for claim 6. Miyata teaches the fluorinated copolymer has a melt temperature that is the same as the instant invention as stated above for claim 1. Miyata teaches an amount of the carbonyl group-containing group that is the same as the instant invention as stated below for claim 3. Miyata teaches the same carbonyl group containing group as stated below for claims 4 and 7. Miyata teaches the fluorinated copolymer has a particle size that is dispersed in the thermoplastic polymer that is the same as the instant invention per the instant claim 1. Miyata further teaches a ratio of TFE units to E units of 20/80 to 90/10, (Miyata, Par. 0029), which renders obvious that of the instant invention per the instant specification Par. 0134. Miyata further teaches the thermoplastic polymer is EVOH with an amount of ethylene units of 20-50 mol.% (Miyata, Par. 0047), which is the same as the instant invention per the instant specification Par. 0064. Miyata further teaches melt kneading at a temperature of 150-350°C (Miyata, Par. 0037, 0051, and 0074), which renders obvious the temperature of the instant invention per the instant specification Par. 0096. Miyata thus teaches a polymer alloy, fluorinated copolymer, and thermoplastic polymer that are identical or substantially identical to the claimed invention as stated above. Therefore, absent objective evidence to the contrary, the polymer alloy, fluorinated polymer, and thermoplastic polymer would have inherently exhibited the claimed properties such as strain hardening (claim 2), flexural modulus (claim 8), Izod impact resistance (claim 8), brittle temperature (claim 8), ductile fracturing (claim 8), hydrogen gas permeability (claims 9-10), water absorption (claim 11), free volume (claim 12), hydrogen exposure degradation index (Claim 13), tensile break strength (Claims 14-15), and decomposition of half-life (claim 16), see MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 3, Miyata teaches the content of the carbonyl group-containing group is from 3 to 1000, including 10 to 300 groups per 1 x106 carbon atoms in the main chain of the fluorinated copolymer (Miyata, Par. 0024), which lies within the claimed range of 10-60,000 groups per 1x106 and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 4, Miyata teaches the carbonyl group-containing group is a carboxy group or an acid anhydride residue (see anhydrous carboxyl group) (Miyata, Par. 0008, 0017-0018, and 0021).
Regarding claim 5, Miyata teaches the fluorinated copolymer comprises has reactive functional groups and thus can have multiple functional groups, including a hydroxy group (Miyata, Par. 0007-0008 and 0018).
Regarding claim 6, Miyata teaches the fluorinated copolymer has units a1 based on tetrafluoroethylene, a2 units based on ethylene, and units a3 based on a monomer copolymerized with ethylene and tetrafluoroethylene having no carbonyl group-containing group, at least part of the a3 units are based on CH2=CX1(CF2)nX2 wherein X1 and X2 are each independently a hydrogen atom or a fluorine atom, and n is an integer from 2 to 10 (Miyata, Par. 0011, 0025-0026, and Claim 6 – see general formula (3)), which overlaps the claimed range of 2 to 8 and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Miyata teaches the fluorinated copolymer may comprise the units a1-a3 and the carbonyl group-containing units, which are present in an amount of from 3 to 1000, including 10 to 300 groups per 1 x106 carbon atoms in the main chain of the fluorinated copolymer (Miyata, Par. 0011 and 0024-0026), which would result in less than 10% of the fluorinated copolymer units being not the units a1-a3. This would result in at least 90 mol% of all units constituting the fluorinated copolymer being the units a1, a2, and a3, satisfying the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03 & 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 7, Miyata teaches the carbonyl group is an acid anhydride residue (see anhydrous carboxyl group) and thus the fluorinated copolymer has units a4 that are based on a non-fluorinated monomer having the acid anhydride residue (Miyata, Par. 0008, 0017-0018, and 0021).
Regarding claim 17, Miyata teaches a high-pressure gas hose using the polymer alloy (Miyata, Par. 0063).
Regarding claim 19, Miyata teaches a high-pressure gas storage container using the polymer alloy (Miyata, Par. 0063).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ozawa et al. (US 20200157301 A1).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Miyata teaches a high-pressure gas hose or a high-pressure gas storage container using the polymer alloy (Miyata, Par. 0063).
Miyata is silent regarding a fiber-reinforced resin layer containing the polymer alloy and reinforcing fibers.
Ozawa teaches a high pressure gas hose or a high pressure gas storage container comprising a fiber-reinforced resin layer comprising a thermoplastic polymer and a fluorinated copolymer comprising a carbonyl group-containing group (Ozawa, Abstract, Par. 0013-0015, and 0172).
Miyata and Ozawa are analogous art as they both teach high-pressure gas hoses or high-pressure gas storage containers comprising a layer comprising a thermoplastic polymer and a fluorinated copolymer comprising a carbonyl group-containing group. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reinforce the polymer alloy with reinforcing fibers to form a fiber-reinforced resin layer containing the polymer alloy. This would allow for a reinforced material (Ozawa, Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights