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 Objections
Claims 8, 10-11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: V0.1; V100 in claims 8, 10, 11 and 13 are not defined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The V0.1 in claims 8, 10-11 and 12-13 is understood to be the complex viscosity measurement at 0.01 rad/s at 190°C, as defined in section [0189] of the published application.
The V100 in claims 8, 10-11 and 13 is understood to be the complex viscosity at 100 rad/s at 190°C, as defined in section [0198] of the published application.
The MWD in claim 14 is understood to mean the molecular weight distribution, as defined in section [0032] of the published application.
The term interpolymer, given its full BRI, is deemed to mean copolymer, as defined in section [0066] of the published application.
The term/limitation “total unsaturation” is understood to mean, the relative ratio of moles of total unsaturation to the moles of carbons in the polymers, with expression of the amount of unsaturation per 1000 Carbon (per 1000 C), wherein “unsaturation’s” is understood to mean the vinyl, vinylidene, vinylene, trisubstituted, cyclohexene groups in said polyolefin, as defined in sections [0194] – [0197] in the published application.
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 1-15 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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 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. Groups A1, L1, A2, and L2 in formula A1L1L2A2 are not defined in claims 1-2 and 5-6. Groups A1 and L1 in formula L1A1 are not defined. Formula A1L1L2A2 is required to be a telechelic polyolefin, wherein it is deemed a telechelic polymer by definition is a polymer or oligomer that has reactive end-groups at both termini, allowing the polymer or oligomer to participate in further polymerization or chemical reactions. It is unclear if applicant intends for A1 and A2 to be the same (homo-telechelic) or independently different (hemi-telechelic) reactive groups. It is unclear if A1 of A1L1L2A1 is defined as the same as or different than the A1 of A1L1. It is unclear if the L1 of A1L1L2A2 is defined the same or different than the L1 of A1L1 (claims 1-2). Does applicant intend for the to be reactive groups (required in a telechelic polymer/oligomer), such as carboxyl, hydroxyl, amine, sulfur, and the like? Does applicant intend for the reactive groups to be polymerizable reactive groups, such as vinylic, allylic, epoxide, (meth) acrylic, thiol, or the like? It is unclear if applicant intends for L1 or L2 to be independently the same or different types of polyolefin? Does applicant intend for the polyolefin linkages/backbone to be obtained from low or high olefins? Does applicant intend for the polyolefins, i.e., L1 and/or L2, to be homo-polymeric/oligomeric-olefins or co-polymeric/co-oligomeric olefins (claims 1-2)? Clarification is requested.
For examination purposes, the examiner will define A1L1L2A2 and L1A1 as found in the disclosure/published applicant in section [0031] and [0051]- [0059].
Regarding claims 8, 10-11: It is unclear if the limitations within the parathesis, e.g. RR = V0.1/V100, each at 190 °C (claims 8 and 11) and “at 190 °C” (claim 10), are intended to be a positive limitations or not. Clarification is requested.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Williamson et al (WO2017/172273).
Williamson sets forth methods for increasing the melt strength and/or low shear viscosity of a polyethylene interpolymer resin [0023], wherein said method comprises: a) providing a first polyethylene resin having a density ranging from 0.900 g/cm3 to 0.970 g/cm3 and at least 0.20 vinyl groups per 1,000 total carbons; b) providing a masterbatch composition comprising a free radical generator and a second polyethylene resin, and c) reacting the first polyethylene resin with the masterbatch composition to form a modified polyethylene resin—see abstract and [0004] to [0006]. The reacting in step c) takes place in an extruder under pressure and at temperatures of up to 280 deg. C—see [0049] and [0052]. Williamson sets forth the thermal initiator is a cyclic peroxide—see [0032] – [0035].
Regarding claim 2: Williamson sets forth modifying composition comprising 98 wt. % of a polyethylene/octene interpolymer (ethylene/a-olefin interpolymer; Dowlex 2045B having a density of 0.920 and 0.261 vinyl groups/Carbon atoms) by adding to said interpolymer 2 wt. % of a masterbatch comprising 1000 ppm of a peroxide and a second polyethylene (LLPD 4016) by heating said polyethylene above the melt in the presences of the masterbatch to modify said polyethylene interpolymer—see example 2 in Table 5 and Tables 1-4 and [0072]. Said modified polyethylene resin has a melt strength of 2.03; a complex viscosity @ 0.1 rad/s of 6.162 and a melt index of 0.274—see Table 6, Figures 1-3 and [0075]. It is deemed Williamson anticipates instant claim 2.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Munro et al (WO2020/140067) in view of Entezam et al (Rheol. Acta, 2017).
The applied reference has a common inventor and Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Munro sets forth curable components comprising (A) a polyolefin component and (B) a curing component comprising a cross-linking agent, wherein the polyolefin component comprises an unsaturated polyolefin of the formula A1L1 and a telechelic polyolefin of the formula A1L1L2A2, wherein: L1 is independently a polyolefin; A1 is selected from the group consisting of a vinyl group, a vinylidene group of the formula CH2═C(Y1)—, a vinylene group of the formula Y1CH═CH—, a mixture of a vinyl group and a vinylene group of the formula Y1CH═CH—, a mixture of a vinyl group and a vinylidene group of the formula CH2═C(Y1)—, a mixture of a vinylidene group of the formula CH2═C(Y1)— and a vinylene group of the formula Y1CH═CH—, and a mixture of a vinyl group, a vinylidene group of the formula CH2═C(Y1)—, and a vinylene group of the formula Y1CH═CH—; Y1 at each occurrence independently is a C1 to C30 hydrocarbyl group; L2 is a C1 to C32 hydrocarbylene group; and A2 is a hydrocarbyl group comprising a hindered double bond—see [0005] and [0043]-[0081].
Said polyolefin (A) of the formulas A1L1L2A2 and A1L1 have a density of from 0.850 to 0.965 g/cc—see [0086]. Munro sets forth said polyolefin (A) of the formulas A1L1 comprises a total number of unsaturation’s of equal to or greater than 0.6; and the polyolefin of the formula A1L1L2A2 comprises a total number of unsaturation’s of equal to or greater than 1.1, wherein the total number of unsaturation’s are defined as (unsaturation’s/1000C)*(1000C/chain) = (unsaturation’s/1000C)*(Mn/MCH2/1000), where unsaturation’s/1000C are measured by 1H NMR—see [0093]. Regarding claim limitation “a total unsaturation’s >= 0.20/1000C”, it can be seen in the examples the polyolefins set forth by Munro inherently have a total saturation of greater than 0.02/1000C—see Tables IC and C1-D2.
Regarding claim 1: Munro sets forth the curable formulations comprising (A) a polyolefin component; (B) a curing component; and, further, comprising a cross-linking agent may be rheology modified by curing via electron beam—see [0255]. Thus, it is deemed the process of claim 1 is sufficiently set forth in the overall teachings. The primary difference is Munro does not expressly set forth the process includes applying electron beam radiation having a dosage from 0.1 MRad to 1.5 MRad. However, it is known that the rheology of polyolefins, such as polyethylene/butene interpolymer start to modify when exposed to low energy electron beam radiation having dosages from 0.1 to 2.4 MRad (4 to 24 kGy), as evidenced by Entezam—see page 730, rt. Col, experimental/materials section and page 732, Table 1, examples B2; B4 and B7. Entezam sets forth correlations of linear and non-linear rheological properties of long-chain branching in polyethylene irradiated by electron beam at relatively low doses. Munro and Entezam are analogous art because they are concerned with problem, that is the modification of polyolefin polymers. Therefore, it would have been within the skill level of an ordinary artisan to use a known exposure dosage of electron beam particles, such as from at least 0.4 to 1.2 Mrad, as evidenced by Entezam for the e-beam exposure to modify the polyolefin compositions comprising polyolefins (A) represented by the formulas A1L1L2A2 and A1L1 having a density of from 0.850 to 0.965 g/cc and a total unsaturation of greater than or equal to 0.20/1000C, (B) a curing agent and a crosslinking agent, as set forth by Muron with a reasonable expectation of successfully modifying the rheological properties of said polyolefin in absence of evidence to the contrary and/or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3: Said polyolefin (A) of the formulas A1L1L2A2 and A1L1 have a density of from 0.850 to 0.965 g/cc—see [0086].
Regarding claims 4-6: Substituent L1 in the polyolefin (A) represented by formulas A1L1L2A2 and A1L1 can be a polyethylene-based polymer, such as an ethylene/alpha-olefin copolymer (claims 4 and 6)—see [0046] and examples.
The polyolefin component comprises an unsaturated polyolefin of the formula A1L1L2A2 and a telechelic polyolefin of the formula A1L1L2A2(claim 6), wherein: L1 is independently a polyolefin; A1 is selected from the group consisting of a vinyl group, a vinylidene group of the formula CH2═C(Y1)—, a vinylene group of the formula Y1CH═CH—, a mixture of a vinyl group and a vinylene group of the formula Y1CH═CH—, a mixture of a vinyl group and a vinylidene group of the formula CH2═C(Y1)—, a mixture of a vinylidene group of the formula CH2═C(Y1)— and a vinylene group of the formula Y1CH═CH—, and a mixture of a vinyl group, a vinylidene group of the formula CH2═C(Y1)—, and a vinylene group of the formula Y1CH═CH—; Y1 at each occurrence independently is a C1 to C30 hydrocarbyl group; L2 is a C1 to C32 hydrocarbylene group; and A2 is a hydrocarbyl group comprising a hindered double bond—[0005].
Regarding claim 7: Munro sets forth the alpha-olefin of said ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer and/or L1 may be isobutylene, 1-butene, 1-hexene, 1-pentene, 4-methyl-1-pentene, 1-heptene, 1-octene, 1-nonene, 1-decene, or the like, and wherein, L1 may be a propylene/alpha-olefin copolymer comprising units derived from propylene and either ethylene or a C4 to C30 alpha-olefin selected from the group consisting of 1-butene, 1-hexene, and 1-octene—see [0059].
Regarding claim 8: The polyolefins represented by formulas: A1L1L2A2 and A1L1 inherently have a rheology ratio (RR = V0.1/V100, each at 190 deg. C) from 1.0 to 20—see polymers MP2 and MP4 both of formula A1L1 in Table C2 and polymers TP3 and TP4 both of formula A1L1L2A2 in Table E1.
Regarding claims 9 and 15: Any polymer component and article obtained from said component, as set forth by Munro, that has been exposed to electron beam as suggested in the overall teachings is deemed to render claims 9 and 15 obvious/known.
Regarding claims 10: Munro sets forth the complex viscosity at 0.1 rad/s at 190 deg. C for polyolefin MP2 is 479 and MP4 is 1513 both of formula A1L1 in Table C2 and the complex viscosity at 0.1 rad/s at 190 deg. C for polyolefin TP3 is 490 and TP4 is 9312 both of formula A1L1L2A2 in Table E1.
Regarding claim 11: the rheology ratio of polyolefin MP2 is 1.58 and for MP4 is 2.09 and the RR for TP3 is 1.63 and for TP4 is 4.89—see Tables C2 and E1.
Regarding claim 14: Munro sets forth the Mw/Mn (MWD) of from 1 to 10—see [0085].
Regarding claims 12-13: Munro does not expressly set forth the relationships for ΔV0.1 as found in claim 12 nor the ΔRR as define in claim 13; however, it is deemed the rheology modified compositions of Munro render the instantly claim polyolefins and compositions comprising the same obvious/known for the reasons set forth above and therefore should inherently meet the instantly claimed proviso in absence of evidence to the contrary and/or unexpected results. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. 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 applicants are of the position that the prior art does not, in fact, possess the same properties as the claimed composition, the claimed composition should be amended to distinguish itself from the prior art--In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANZA L MCCLENDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1074. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Heidi Riviere-Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/SANZA L. McCLENDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
SMC
Prosecution Insights