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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dunn (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0187019).
In paragraph 1 Dunn discloses coated alkaline earth metal carbonates, such as calcium carbonates. A coated alkaline earth metal carbonate is a treated inorganic particle, as recited in claim 1. In paragraph 74 Dunn discloses that the particle can have a mean particle size of about 0.1 to about 10 microns (µm), as recited in claim 1. In paragraph 16 Dunn discloses that the coating can be salt of a fatty acid, and in paragraph 19 Dunn discloses that the acid can be a diacid, as recited in claim 1. In paragraph 63 Dunn discloses that the cation in the salts can be various alkali metal and alkaline earth metals. The coating on the alkaline earth metal carbonate particles of Dunn therefore meets the limitations of the organic treatment layer of claim 1, and the coated alkaline earth metal carbonate particles meet the limitations of claim 1.
The alkaline earth metal carbonate particles of Dunn are inorganic carbonates, as recited in claim 2, and calcium carbonate is CaCO3, as recited in claim 9. In paragraph 74 Dunn discloses that the mean particle size can also be about 0.1 to about 1 micron, as recited in claim 3. A salt of a crystalline diacid is a carboxylate, as recited in claim 5. IN paragraphs 23 and 71 Dunn discloses that the particle can have a separate organic coating between the alkaline earth metal carbonate and the carboxylic acid salt coating, meeting the limitations of the second organic treatment layer of claim 8. In paragraph 25 Dunn discloses that the mass ratio of the calcium carbonate to the coating can range from 500:1 to 10:1, indicating a coating concentration of about 0.2 to about 9.1% by weight, within the range recited in claim 10.
In paragraphs 31, 79-81, and 88 Dunn discloses that the coated particles can be used as fillers in polymers, and that the polymers can be polypropylene and polyethylene homopolymers or copolymers (lines 3-4 of paragraph 81), as well as polyesters (line 6 of paragraph 81), all as recited in claim 11. The polymers of Dunn therefore meet the limitations of the polymer composition of claim 11, as well as claims 12-13, 15, and 18-20, which are analogous to claims 2-3, 5, and 8-10 discussed above.
In light of the above, claims 1-3, 5, 8-13, 15, and 18-20 are anticipated by Dunn.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavalier ‘301 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,324,301) in view of Cavalier ‘002 (U.S. Pat. No. 7,847,002).
In column 1 lines 6-9 Cavalier ‘301 discloses alkaline earth metal carbonate particles having improved resistance to acids and which are suitable as additives in polymeric compositions. The alkaline earth metal carbonate is preferably calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Alkaline earth metal carbonate particles are inorganic particles, as recited in claim 1. In column 5 lines 4-21 Cavalier ‘301 discloses that the mean particle size of the calcium carbonate particles is more preferably higher than or equal to 0.01 µm and preferably lower than or equal to 10 µm, meeting the limitations of claim 1 regarding particle size. In column 5 lines 55-59 Cavalier ‘301 discloses that the particles comprise a first coating agent which can be a salt of various acids. In column 9 lines 34-62 Cavalier ‘301 discloses a polymer composition comprising the particles, and discloses polypropylene, polyethylene, and polyesters as suitable polymers, as recited in claim 11.
The alkaline earth metal carbonate particles of Cavalier ‘301 are inorganic carbonates, as recited in claims 2 and 12, and calcium carbonate is CaCO3, as recited in claims 9 and 19. The mean particle size ranges disclosed in column 5 lines 4-21 of Cavalier ‘301 overlap the ranges recited in claims 3 and 13. In column 4 lines 56-66 Cavalier ‘301 discloses that the particles have a BET surface area in ranges overlapping or within the ranges recited in claims 6 and 16. In column 7 lines 4-17 Cavalier ‘301 discloses that the particles preferably contain at higher than or equal to 0.01% and lower than or equal to 10% by weight of the particles, overlapping the ranges recited in claims 10 and 20.
In column 9 lines 36-45 Cavalier ‘301 discloses that the polymer compositions most preferably comprise the particles in an amount of higher than or equal to 5.0% by weight and lower than or equal to 50% by weight, within the range recited in claim 21 and implying a polymer content within or overlapping the range recited in claim 21.
In column 5 lines 55-59 Cavalier ‘301 discloses that the coating can be a salt of a sulfonic acid, but does not disclose a specific salt meeting the limitations of the organic treatment layer of claims 1 and 11.
Cavalier ‘002, in column 1 lines 7-11, discloses coated particles of an alkaline earth metal carbonate, preferably calcium carbonate, similar to Cavalier ‘301. In column 3 lines 5-8 and 51-56, Cavalier ’002 discloses that preferred coating agents include salts of arylsulfonic acids and alkylarylsulfonic acids, which are aromatic acids as recited in claims 1 and 11. In column 5 lines 16-19 Cavalier ‘002 discloses that the most preferred coating agents include salts of benzenesulfonic acid and toluenesulfonic acid, which are also aromatic monoacids as recited in claims 4 and 14. In column 6 lines 56-60 (Example 1) Cavalier ‘002 discloses that the salt can be a sodium salt, meeting the limitations of the alkali metal salt of claims 1 and 11. The salt of benzenesulfonic acid and/or toluenesulfonic acid is a sulfonate, as recited in claims 5 and 15. In column 6 lines 45-47 Cavalier ‘002 teaches that the coated particles are useful as fillers in polymeric compositions. The use of the sodium salts of benzenesulfonic acid and/or toluenesulfonic acid of Cavalier ‘002 as the sulfonic acid salt in the coating of Cavalier ‘301, therefore leads to a particle and polymer composition meeting the limitations of claims 1-6, 9-16, and 19-21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the sodium salts of benzenesulfonic acid and/or toluenesulfonic acid of Cavalier ‘002 as the sulfonic acid salt in the coating of Cavalier ‘301, since Cavalier ‘002 teaches that they are suitable and preferred sulfonic acid salts for use in coating alkaline earth metal carbonate particles useful in polymeric compositions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The Dunn, Cavalier ‘301, and Cavalier ‘002 references disclosed above do not disclose the inclusion of a metal oxide, metal hydroxide, or metal carbonate layer between the calcium carbonate particle and the organic treatment layer. The prior art also does not provide any motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to include such a layer. Hosoi (KR 10-2005-0043892 A), an English-language machine translation of which is attached, discloses calcium carbonates useful as fillers for polymers, where the calcium carbonates are coated with a silica (silicon dioxide) layer and then an organic acid layer, but silicon is not a metal, and there is no motivation to replace the silica layer of Hosoi with a metal oxide.
Chen (CN 109453723), an English-language machine translation of which is attached, discloses metal oxide particles coated with an inorganic coating agent followed by an organic coating agent, where the organic coating agent can be sodium dodeylbenzenesulfonate, but the inorganic coating agents disclosed by Chen are metal alkoxides rather than oxides, hydroxides, or carbonates, and the particles of Chen have a maximum size of 0.04 µm (40 nm), outside the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights