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 § 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR20200064498) in view of Liang (US 4889898).
Lee ‘498 is directed to a thermoplastic resin composition comprises: 100 parts by weight of a polyester resin; 15 to 50 parts by weight of a polyolefin resin; 30 to 150 parts by weight of a glass fiber; and 10 to 40 parts by weight of a modified olefin-based copolymer, wherein the modified olefin-based copolymer includes an epoxy-modified olefin-based copolymer and a maleic anhydride-modified olefin-based copolymer, and a weight ratio of the epoxy-modified olefin-based copolymer and the maleic anhydride-modified olefin-based copolymer is 1 : 0.3 to 1 : 3. The thermoplastic resin composition has excellent metal bonding, rigidity, impact resistance, etc., as well as a low dielectric constant (ABST).
Lee ‘498 teaches a composition that overlaps the claimed range of 100 parts by weight of polyester; 30-110 parts of glass fibers claimed is within range of 30-150 parts; The claims require 3-13 parts of epoxy modified olefin and 0.2 to 10 parts of maleic anhydride modified polyolefin. Lee ‘498 teaches 10-40 parts of modified olefin copolymer combined and in Table 1 has (D1) which is the epoxy modified polyolefin and (D2) which is the maleic anhydride modified polyolefin are used at 10-12.5 part of (D1) and 10-18.8 (D2) which are in the claimed ranges of 3-13 and 0.2-10 part of epoxy modified and maleic anhydride polyolefins respectively (page 7 of the machine translation).
Lee teaches the maleic anhydride polyolefins are maleic anhydride alkylene homopolymer that can be for example, ethylene, propylene, isopropylene, butylene, iso butylene, octene can be used.
Lee ‘498 teaches the ratio of the epoxy modified polyolefin and the maleic anhydride modified polyolefin is 1:0.3 to 1:3 which overlaps the claimed range of 1:0.05 to 1:1.
Lee ‘498 does not teach a polycarbonate in the composition.
Liang is directed to a polymer blend of superior impact resistance comprises an intimate blend of a polyester resin, a polycarbonate resin and an acid-modified polyolefin. The preferred acid-modified polyolefin is a polyethylene wax which has been modified with maleic acid anhydride.
Liang teaches the primary object of the present invention to disclose novel blends of thermoplastic polyesters, polycarbonates and acid-modified polyolefins which have superior impact resistance and other properties. The compositions of the present invention broadly comprise blends of about 5 to about 95 parts by weight of a thermoplastic polyester, such as a polyalkylene terepthalate (PAT) resin; about 5 to about 95 parts by weight of a polycarbonate resin (PC); and a lesser impact resistance increasing amount of about 1 to about 20 parts by weight of an acid-modified polyolefin. The acid-modified polyolefin which has been found to be especially useful is a polyethylene wax which has been modified with maleic acid anhydride, and which has a molecular weight of approximately 8000 (col. 1, lines 27-41).
Liang teaches addition of fillers such as glass fibers are useful to reinforce the blends (col. 3, lines 10-25).
Lee ‘498 teaches the composition comprises polyester, polyolefin, modified polyolefins to provide metal bonding and rigidity. Liang teaches a composition of polyester, polycarbonate and modified polyolefin provides for improved impact resistance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a composition from polyester, polycarbonate and maleic modified polyolefin motivated to produce an adhesive and impact resistant composition.
As to claim 2, Lee ‘498 teaches the polyester can be the polyester resin is polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) and polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT), polycyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate ( PCT) (page 3 of machine translation).
As to claim 3, Lee ‘498 teaches the glass fiber can be of rectangular cross-section with an aspect ratio of 1.5 to 10 and has a short diameter of 2 to 10 micron (page 4 of machine translation).
As to claim 4, Lee ‘498 teaches the epoxy-modified olefin polymer comprises the epoxy-modified olefin-based copolymer may include a glycidyl (meth)acrylate-modified ethylene-butyl acrylate copolymer (glycidyl (meth)acrylate modified ethylene-butyl acrylate copolymer) (page 4 of machine translation).
As to claim 5, Lee ‘498 teaches the maleic-anhydride modified polyolefin wherein the the maleic anhydride-modified olefin-based copolymer may be a graft copolymerization of maleic anhydride to an olefin-based copolymer in which two or more alkylene monomers are copolymerized. As the alkylene monomer, alkylene having 2 to 10 carbon atoms may be used, for example, ethylene, propylene, isopropylene, butylene, isobutylene, octene, combinations thereof, and the like (page 5 of machine translation).
As to claim 6, Lee ‘498 teaches the thermoplastic resin composition may have a metal bonding force measured according to ISO 19095 of 20-50 MPa which overlaps the claimed range (page 6 of machine translation).
As to claim 7, Lee ‘498 teaches the izod impact strength of 10 to 30 kgf-cm/cm (page 6, machine translation). Lee ‘498 is silent with regard to the dart impact strength.
As to combination of Lee ‘498 and Liang teach the claimed composition, it is reasonable to presume that the composition inherently has the claimed tensile strength.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce the claimed combination of polymers motivated to produce an impact resistant composition.
As to claim 8, Lee ‘498 teaches the flexural modulus is 77000-122000 kgf/cm2 (page 7, machine translation) which overlaps the claimed range.
As to claim 9, Lee ‘498 teaches the tensile strength but does not measure before and after being in an oven at 310C for 3 minutes. As Lee ‘498 in view of Laing teaches the same material and structure it is reasonable to presume the property is inherent to the composition. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a composition to combine the known polymers motivated to improve the tensile strength.
As to claim 10, Lee ‘498 teaches a molded article.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR20200064498) in view of Liang (US 4889898) and in further view of Kurisuchiyanusu et al (JP H0849064).
As to claims 11-13, Lee ‘498 teaches the molded article has good bonding strength with metal and bonds the thermoplastic article to metal and measures the bonding strength and teaches the metal and thermoplastic resin composition specimens were attached to each other to measure the bonding strength.
Wherein Lee ‘498 does not explicitly teach the article is the metal and thermoplastic composition article, but merely a test specimen.
Kurisuchiyanusu is directed to a thermoplastic material which can be directly metallized without any addition of additives or extra processing steps. Kurisuchiyanusu teaches a material that is a polyester carbonate or a blend of polyester carbonate and polycarbonate. This is quite surprising since polycarbonate cannot be metallized in high quality without an extra processing step prior to the metallization step (ABST).
The article is made from polyester carbonate or a blend of polyester carbonate and aromatic polycarbonate. The polyester carbonates and blends of polyester carbonates and polycarbonates can be mixed with customary additives, so long as they do not prevent the adhesion of the thermoplastic material with the metal layer [0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to bond the polyester-polycarbonate thermoplastic to a metal layer motivated to produce a thermoplastic metal laminate.
As to claim 12, Kurisuchiyanusu does not require an adhesive.
As to claim 13, Kurisuchiyanusu teaches the metal can be aluminum [0005].
As to claim 14, Lee ‘498 teaches the bonding strength to metal is 20-50 MPa which overlaps the claimed range.
As to claim 15, Lee ‘498 teaches the izod impact strength of 10 to 30 kgf-cm/cm. Lee ’498 teaches the tensile strength is 1000-2000 kgf/cm2 but differs and does not teach the difference after heating to 310C. Lee ‘498 is silent with regard to the dart impact strength.
As Lee ‘498 in view of Laing teaches the same material and structure it is reasonable to presume the property is inherent to the composition. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce the claimed combination of polymers motivated to produce an impact resistant composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amended claim 1 to further limit the ration of epoxy-modified olefin polymer to maleic anhydride-modified polyolefin and limit the maleic anhydride-modified polyolefin to the species claimed. Applicant argues that data in Table 1 shows there is unexpectedly good properties in terms of metal adhesion, impact resistance, rigidity and thermal stability. Applicant states that in contrast substituting maleic anhydride modified polyolefin as claimed with maleic anhydride-modified olefin copolymer such as taught by Lee.
Applicants arguments are not persuasive. Lee teaches general maleic anhydride polyolefin and therefore it would have been obvious to employ them as claimed. Lee also teaches a ratio of epoxy modified polyolefin to maleic anhydride polyolefin that overlaps the claimed range. Lee teaches the maleic anhydride polyolefins are maleic anhydride alkylene homopolymer that can be for example, ethylene, propylene, isopropylene, butylene, iso butylene, octene can be used.
The arguments and evidence are not commensurate with the claims. While Applicant is arguing that the evidence shows an unexpected result by selecting the ratio and excluding the copolymer type of maleic anhydride, the evidence is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims do not limit the unexpected properties to a specific property or numerical value. While claims 6, 7 and 8 claim the properties, as Lee teaches the claimed composition materials and amounts, the invention is obvious over Lee. There is only one data point for including the maleic anhydride polyolefin copolymer. The other ratios of maleic anhydride polyolefin to epoxy modified polyolefin are also within the range of the claimed properties. Further clarification is required.
Examiner is available for interview, if Applicant wishes to discuss further.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akao; Mutsuo US 4978572 A
Kurfman; Virgil B. et al. US 4115619 A
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights