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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 09, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 7-13 remain pending in the application. Claims 12-13 are withdrawn
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.
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, 4, 5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (WO2019/245222, English version based on US 2021/0252752).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 8, Lim discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3 (A-C), 4 (A-C), 5, process for the production of a shaped object (for example, as shown from Fig. 4A to 4C and Fig. 5), wherein the process comprises the steps in this order of:
(a) providing a mould (e.g., item 110 in Fig. 2 ([0037], lines 4-5)) comprising a cavity formed to produce an object of a desired shape;
(b) heating the mould to a temperature of > 145 C (e.g., step S11 in Fig. 5; [0064], lines 7-9 (i.e., when the binder is made of HDPE, and heated at a temperature of about 130 C to about 250 C (overlapping the calcined range of >= 165 C or between 165 C and 180 C));
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Lim et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
(c) supplying a quantity of an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) material into the mould (e.g., step 12 in Fig. 5 ([0066]); [0050], line 1-4 from bottom (i.e., UHMWPE as a binder); it is noticed that, the material may include a powdered or fibrous activated carbon and a binder ([0050], lines 1-2; [0026, [0027]]) (related to claim 4); it is noticed that, in [0015], [0016] and [0017], the particle sizes of UHMWPE (as a binder) is about 50 meshes (i.e., 297 microns) to about 325 meshes (i.e., 44 microns));
(d) closing the mould with a counterpart punch (items 142, 143 (140) in Fig. 4 [0052]) having such shape as to fit together with the mould cavity to form the shape of the desired object (e.g., step 13 in Fig. 5 ([0069]));
(e) applying a compaction pressure ([0069]) through the punch to the material that is present in the mould, whilst maintaining the mould temperature (e.g., [0094] (i.e., after mold is heated once, the temperature is maintained with a predetermined range while the following processes are performed (lines 1-3)) (related to claim 8)), for such a compaction time that the material fuses to form the desired shape (as shown in Fig. 4C; e.g., the step of thermally treating between step 13 and step 14 in Fig. 5 is about 2 minutes (see in Table 1));
(f) releasing the compaction pressure and removing the shaped object from the mould at a temperature of > 145°C ([0072] (i.e., step 14 (in Fig. 5) of separating the filter (i.e., the shaped object), and during the process, the material is naturally thermally treated by heat of the mold 111 heated as described above (i.e., about 130 C to about 250 C) (overlapping the claimed range of 145 to 180 in claim 8))); and
(g) cooling the shaped object to a temperature of below the melting temperature of the UHMWPE material (it is noticed that, when the filter/part is ready after the step 14 in Fig. 5, the filter is cooled (e.g., at a room temperature) well below he melting temperature of the UHMWPE material).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Lim overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, it is noticed that, in [0015], [0016] and [0017] of the teachings of Lim, the particle sizes of UHMWPE (as a binder) is about 50 meshes (i.e., 297 microns) to about 325 meshes (i.e., 44 microns) (overlapping the claimed range of <250 microns).
Lim do not explicitly disclose to measure the powder sizes under ISO 13320:2009. However, since The Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to conduct experimentation in order to determine whether Applicant’s measuring approach differs and, if so, to what extent, from the discussed references. Therefore, with the showing of the references, the burden of establishing non-obviousness by objective evidence is shifted to the Applicants.
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Lim et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 2-3, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (WO2019/245222, English version based on US 2021/0252752) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Feng et al. (Properties of compression molded UHMWPE … (published in Polym Int 2019, 68, 862-870)).
Regarding claims 2, 3, Lim does not explicitly disclose the properties of UHMWPE such as its molecular weight and its elongational stress of the molded part. In the same field of endeavor, properties of compression molded UHMWPE …, Feng discloses that, UHMWPE has its molecular weight greater than 1.5X106 g/mol (page 862, Introduction, lines 1-3 (left col.)) (overlapping the claimed range >=500,000 g/mol). As illustrated in Fig. 9 (page 870), the elongation stress of the compression molded UHMWPE is under 0.12 MPa (overlapping the claimed range of < 0.5 MPa) (related to claim 3). Feng discloses that, the elongation stress measurements is based on ISO 11542-1:2001 (page 864, Elongation stress measurements, lines 1-3 (right col.)).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Feng et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Lim to have UHMWPE to make the molded object as Feng discloses that it is known to have UHMWPE with the molecular weight greater than 500,000 g/mol and less than 0.5 MPa of the elongation stress for the molded product made of the UHMWPE. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, Lim does not explicitly disclose the compaction time being between 1.0 and 15.0 minutes. Feng discloses that, the resulting extruded UHMWPE was then compression molded into rectangular sheets with approximate dimensions 150X80X1 mm3 under a pressure of 15 MPa at 200 C for 5 minutes (page 863, Sample preparation, lines 9-11 (right col.)) (overlapping the claimed range of between 1.0 and 15.0 minutes).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Feng et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Lim to have UHMWPE to make the molded object as Feng discloses that it is known to have the compaction time being between 1.0 and 15.0 minutes for the molded product made of the UHMWPE. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 6, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (WO2019/245222, English version based on US 2021/0252752) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Olsson et al. (US 2004/0164448).
Regarding claim 6, Lim does not disclose the pressing/compacting pressure being > 1.0 MPa. In the same field of endeavor, producing polymer body, Olsson discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, a device for deformation of a material in the form of a powder, pellets, grains and the like ([0015]). Olsson discloses that, for UHMWPE the material may be pre-compacted with a pressure of at least about 0.25X108 Pa (or 25.0 MPa) ([0025], lines 8-10) (overlaying the claimed range of > 1.0 MPa).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Olsson et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim to incorporate the teachings of Olsson to provide the pressing/compacting pressure being > 1.0 MPa. Doing so would be possible to emit sufficient energy at sufficient speed for coalescence to be achieved, as recognized by Olsson ([0013], lines 1-10).
Regarding claims 10, 11, Lim does not disclose either the UHMWPE powder being supplied to the mould at room temperature or at a temperature between 70 C and 190 C. Olsson discloses that, to get improved relative density it is also possible to pre-process the material before the process. The powder could be pre-heated to e.g., ~ 50-300 C ([0049], lines 1-3) (overlapping the claimed range of 70 C and 190 C) (related to claim 11).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Olsson et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim to incorporate the teachings of Olsson to provide either the UHMWPE powder being supplied to the mould at room temperature or at a temperature between 70 C and 190 C. Doing so would be possible to improve the relative density of the product, as recognized by Olsson ([0049]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that the amended rang of a well-fused compaction of UHMWPE is of 165 to 180 C, none of the cited references teach the criticality of the range, it is not persuasive.
Specifically, for example, step S11 in Fig. 5 ([0064], lines 7-9) in the teachings of the base reference Lim, when the binder is made of HDPE, and heated at a temperature of about 130 C to about 250 C (overlapping the claimed range of >= 165 C or between 165 C and 180 C).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Lim et al. (heated at a temperature of about 130 C to about 250 C) overlap the instantly claimed ranges (between 165 to 180 C) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shibin Liang whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on (571)270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights