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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9 are currently pending.
Claim 9 is withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 01/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 01/09/2026.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (US 5,314,733 A) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 112373161 A; machine translation).
Regarding claim 1,
Saito teaches a multi-layer sheet (Saito: abstract; col. 9, lin. 27-63) comprising: a layer C (corresponds to a substrate) comprising polyphenylene ether; layer B (described as an adhesive layer) comprising an acid-modified polyolefin resin (Saito: abstract; disclosure throughout).
Saito is silent towards the explicit mention of a tie layer comprising a polyolefin/polyphenylene ether-based alloy. However, Saito does desire a strong bond between the layer C and layer B (Saito: col. 10, lin. 14-25).
Zhang teaches polyolefin-based multilayered laminates and desires high strength and impact resistance with an intermediate layer (a tie layer) composed of alloys of adjacent layers and a compatibilizer to improve adhesion between said adjacent layers (Zhang: abstract; pg. 3, par. 3-10; pg. 4, par. 4). Thus, it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a tie layer between two polymer layers that is composed of an alloy and a compatibilizer to provide improved adhesion/bonding between the two polymer layers.
Saito and Zhang are in the corresponding field of multilayer polyolefin-based laminates which both desire increased impact strength and bonding between adjacent polymer layers. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct a tie layer between the polyolefin adhesive layer and the polyphenylene ether substrate layer of Saito that is composed of an alloy of polyolefin/polyphenylene ether and a compatibilizer to provide improved bonding as taught by Zhang between the substrate and adhesive layer.
Regarding claim 2,
Saito and Zhang teach the multilayer sheet required by claim 1. Saito further teaches the layer C (the substrate layer) comprises 10 to 60 parts by weight of polyphenylene ether (PPE), which overlaps with the claimed 40 to 99.9%, may comprise up to 50% of a styrene, which is within the claimed range of 0 to 59.9%, and may have a polymer different from the PPE or styrene (Saito: col. 4, lin. 8-40 and col. 5, lin. 54-59). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 3,
Saito and Zhang teach the multilayer sheet required by claim 1. Saito is silent towards the substrate having a softening point in the claimed range. However, Saito further teacher Poly(2,6dimethyl-1,4-phenylene)ether is used in the substrate layer which matches a polyphenylene ether in the specification and is present in overlapping amounts along with overlapping amounts of polystyrene (Saito: Table 2; Applicant’s specification: par. 0018). As such, it is expected for the substrate layer of Saito to comprise a softening point of 175°C or higher. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 4,
Saito and Zhang teach the multilayer sheet required by claim 1. Saito is silent towards the substrate layer having a storage modulus in the claimed range. However, Saito further teacher Poly(2,6dimethyl-1,4-phenylene)ether is used in the substrate layer which matches a polyphenylene ether in the specification and is present in overlapping amounts along with overlapping amounts of polystyrene (Saito: Table 2; Applicant’s specification: par. 0018). The substrate layer also has overlapping thickness with that required by the claims of from 40 µm to 3 mm, which overlaps with the claimed 50 µm to 300 µm (Saito: claim 11). As such, it is expected for the substrate layer of Saito to comprise modulus at 160°C of 500 MPa or more. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 5,
Saito and Zhang teach the multilayer sheet required by claim 1. Saito further teaches the acid-modified polyolefin is a maleic anhydride-modified polyolefin (Saito: col. 3, lin. 30-68).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Zhang and in further view of Tada et al. (US 2019/0027286 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 7,
Saito and Zhang teach the multilayer sheet required by claim 1. Saito and Zhang are silent towards the tie layer comprising the claimed ratio of polyolefin to polyphenylene ether and towards the compatibilizer being a styrene-diene block copolymer, a hydrogenated product of a styrene-diene block copolymer, or polystyrene.
Tada teaches a polyphenylene ether/polyolefin alloy resin with a compatibilizer that may be a hydrogenated butadiene/styrene copolymer styrene-diene block copolymers to provide improved miscibility with acid-modified olefins and improve compatibility (Tada: par. 0038-0040). The polyolefin may be present from 10 to 20% by mass and the polyphenylene ether may be present from 50% to 70% by mass, which overlaps with the claimed proportion of polyolefin to polyphenylene ether being form 15/18 to 80/20 (Tada: par. 0039). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Saito and Tada are in the corresponding field of multilayered laminates of polyolefins and polyphenylene ether for use in automobiles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a tie layer comprising a polyolefin/polyphenylene ether-based alloy in the claimed proportions with a compatibilizer comprising the claimed composition in the tie layer of Saito and Zhang to provide improved compatibility as taught by Tada between the two layers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Zhang and in further view of Brebion et al. (US 2004/0013862 A1).
Regarding claim 8,
Saito and Zhang teach the multilayer sheet required by claim 1. Saito further teaches the substrate layer (layer C) may have a thickness from 40 µm to 3 mm, which overlaps with the claimed 50 to 300 µm (Saito: claim 11). The adhesive layer (layer B) may have a thickness of from 4 µm to 2 mm which overlaps with the claimed 10 to 100 µm (Saito: claim 11).
Saito and Zhang are silent towards the thickness of the tie layer being from 2 to 50 µm.
Brebion teaches multilayer sheet comprising acid modified polyolefins and polyphenylene ether layers and tie layers that may comprise styrene compatibilizers to improve adhesion to adjacent layers (Brebion: abstract; par. 0030, 0039, and 0047). The tie layers are shown to have a thickness of 8 to 10% of the total thickness of the film in the Examples (Brebion: par. 0077-0160). In the context of Saito and Zhang this would result in an overlapping thickness with the claimed 2 to 50 µm. For example, if 50 and 40 µm are utilized for the substrate and adhesive layer, respectively, that would result in a thickness of 9 µm for the tie layer.
Saito and Brebion are in the corresponding field of polyolefin/polyphenylene ether laminates which desire improved adhesion. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the tie layer Saito and Zhang to be within the claimed range to improve adhesion between adjacent layers as taught by Brebion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783