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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 8, 14, and 17 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.
Claim 8 recites “a content of the constitutional unit derived from an aromatic hydrocarbon in the first compatibilizer” and “a content of the constitutional unit derived from an unsaturated aliphatic hydrocarbon in the second compatibilizer”. The claim is indefinite because neither the claim nor any parent claim establishes such constitutional units of the first or second compatibilizer despite the use of a definite article (“the”). Parent claim 7, however, does describe “a constitutional unit derived from an aromatic hydrocarbon” and “a constitutional unit derived from an unsaturated aliphatic hydrocarbon”. Therefore, it is not clear if the noted limitations of claim 8 were instead intended to limit the units defined in claim 7.
Similarly, claim 14 recites “a content of the constitutional unit derived from an aromatic hydrocarbon in the first compatibilizer” and “a content of the constitutional unit derived from an unsaturated aliphatic hydrocarbon in the second compatibilizer”. The claim is indefinite because neither the claim nor any parent claim establishes such constitutional units of the first or second compatibilizer despite the use of a definite article (“the”). Parent claim 13, however, does describe “a constitutional unit derived from an aromatic hydrocarbon” and “a constitutional unit derived from an unsaturated aliphatic hydrocarbon”. Therefore, it is not clear if the noted limitations of claim 14 were instead intended to limit the units defined in claim 13.
Independent claim 15 recites “a core portion that comprises a cured product of a resin A;
a shell portion that comprises a cured product of a resin B and that covers at least a part of the core portion; and…wherein concentrations of the resin A and the resin B each have a distribution that continuously changes from the core portion toward the shell portion.” Dependent claim 17 further specifies “the shell portion has a thickness of 300 μm or less.” The scope of claim 17 is indefinite because it is not clear how to define the thickness of the shell when there is “a distribution that continuously changes” between the core and the shell. There is no standard described to determine where the shell ends and becomes either the intermediate portion or the core portion. For examination purposes, the thickness is considered and arbitrary designation of what is considered the shell.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lieberman (US 6,870,005).
Regarding claim 15:
Lieberman discloses a polymeric composition and an injection molding method using the same, wherein the composition comprises an olefinic polymer component and a non-olefinic thermoplastic polymer component (abstract; 1:11+; 3:25-4:25). Lieberman further teaches the use of compatibilizers (10:40+). One of the polymers has a high melt viscosity and the other has a low melt viscosity to provide a dispersion (14:54+).
Lieberman further teaches the molded product comprises a polyolefin-rich core and a non-polyolefin-rich outer skin with a gradient (a continuous distribution of concentrations) between the two regions, and wherein the compatibilizer is present throughout (which provides an intermediate portion between the core and skin/shell) (1:25+; 11:20+; 17:55+).
Regarding claim 16:
Lieberman teaches multiple compatibilizers (11:4+; 11:53+).
Regarding claim 17:
The present claim is indefinite as described in the rejection under 35 USC 112. In view of the interpretation of the claim as an arbitrary designation of the shell, the examiner submits Lieberman’s skin can also meet the arbitrary designation requirement.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamaguchi et al. (JP 2003-128059).
Note: citations refer to the machine translation of JP ‘059 provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 15:
Hamaguchi discloses a multilayer container comprising a barrier layer comprising a resin composition comprising (a) a polyolefin resin and (b) a polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) resin [abstract; 0001; 0007-0008]. Hamaguchi further teaches the use of compatibilizers [0039]. The barrier layer is formed via injection molding, and the resins have different melt viscosities depending on shear rate (i.e., different apparent viscosities) to provide areas of the molding where resin (a) is the continuous phase and areas where resin (b) is the continuous phase [0048].
Hamaguchi teaches the dispersed phase (sea-island) structure is formed in the central portion of the barrier layer, but preferably is not formed outside the central portion (i.e., the phase is not found in the surface layer/shell portion), which thus provides a continuous distribution of concentrations of the resin between the two portions [0043]. The compatibilizer would be present throughout (which provides an intermediate portion between the core and shell).
Regarding claim 16:
Hamaguchi teaches the use of two or more compatibilizers [0039]. Given that the compatibilizers improve compatibility between both resins, the examiner considers both compatibilizers to be compatible with each resin.
Regarding claim 17:
Hamaguchi provides a barrier layer having a surface layer of 0.1-0.2 mm (100-200 µm) [0075].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieberman (US 6,870,005).
Regarding claim 1:
Lieberman discloses a polymeric composition and an injection molding method using the same, wherein the composition comprises an olefinic polymer component and a non-olefinic thermoplastic polymer component (abstract; 1:11+; 3:25-4:25). Lieberman further teaches the use of compatibilizers (10:40+). One of the polymers has a high melt viscosity and the other has a low melt viscosity to provide a dispersion (14:54+).
Although Lieberman is silent with regard to the apparent viscosities of the polymers at 230°C, the reference suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide differing apparent viscosities to form the desired dispersion. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use polymers having different apparent viscosities at any temperature, including 230°C, to provide such a dispersion, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17:
The present claim is indefinite as described in the rejection under 35 USC 112. In view of the interpretation of the claim as an arbitrary designation of the shell, the examiner submits Lieberman’s skin can also meet the arbitrary designation requirement.
Alternatively, the examiner submits it would have been obvious to vary the thickness of the skin region, including over values falling within the presently claimed range, to provide the desired degree of properties of the non-olefinic polymer on the surface of the molded component.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi et al. (JP 2003-128059).
Note: citations refer to the machine translation of JP ‘059 provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1:
Hamaguchi discloses a multilayer container comprising a barrier layer comprising a resin composition comprising (a) a polyolefin resin and (b) a polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) resin [abstract; 0001; 0007-0008]. Hamaguchi further teaches the use of compatibilizers [0039]. The barrier layer is formed via injection molding, and the resins have different melt viscosities depending on shear rate (i.e., different apparent viscosities) to provide areas of the molding where resin (a) is the continuous phase and areas where resin (b) is the continuous phase [0048].
Although Hamaguchi is silent with regard to the apparent viscosities of the polymers at 230°C, the reference suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide differing apparent viscosities to form the desired dispersion. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use polymers having different apparent viscosities at any temperature, including 230°C, to provide such a dispersion, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 9-10:
Hamaguchi teaches the ratio of the melt viscosity of the PPS resin to the melt viscosity of the polyolefin resin is 0.5 or less to provide a PPS continuous phase, or a ratio of 0.6 or more to provide a polyolefin continuous phase, wherein the ratios can be arbitrarily adjusted [0048-0049]. Hamaguchi further teaches the viscosity of the PPS is not limited, but 50-20,000 poise at 320°C can be set [0030].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the difference in apparent viscosity at 230°C between the two resins, including wherein the smallest difference falls within the claimed range, to provide the difference needed to provide the desired continuous phase, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Additionally, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the ratio of the apparent viscosities at 230°C of the two resins, including over ratios falling within the claimed range, to provide the difference needed to provide the desired continuous phase, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 11:
Hamaguchi teaches the use of two or more compatibilizers [0039]. Given that the compatibilizers improve compatibility between both resins, the examiner considers both compatibilizers to be compatible with each resin.
Regarding claim 5:
Hamaguchi teaches a ratio of 20-80% by weight of PPS and 20-80% by weight of polyolefin, and further teaches 0.5-50% by weight of compatibilizer relative to 100 parts of the resin [0038; 0040]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the weight amount of each component, including over values falling within the claimed ranges, as suggested by Hamaguchi to provide the properties desired for a given end use.
Regarding claims 6 and 12:
Hamaguchi discloses organic compatibilizers [0039].
Regarding claims 7 and 13:
PPS comprises an aromatic hydrocarbon unit. Hamaguchi teaches polyolefins include polyethylene, polypropylene, etc. [0014-0017].
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi et al. (JP 2003-128059) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2015/0183991).
Note: citations refer to the machine translation of JP ‘059 provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claims 8 and 14:
The present claims are indefinite as explained in the rejections under 35 USC 112. Hamaguchi teaches an injection molded article as previously explained. The reference teaches the use of two or more compatibilizers, including copolymers as compatibilizing agents, including polyolefin copolymers [0039]. An example copolymer comprises ethylene-glycidyl methacrylate with 10% by weight of glycidyl methacrylate [0077].
Hamaguchi is silent with regard to a compatibilizer containing an aromatic hydrocarbon in ab amount of 50% by mass of all constitutional units.
Such compatibilizers were known in the art to have utility. For example, Yamamoto discloses a mold article comprising a thermoplastic resin composition comprising a polyolefin and a PPS, and a compatibilizing agent [abstract; 0001; 0019]. The agent preferably comprises copolymer comprising at least 65% by mass or more of styrene to provide improved compatibilizing property with the PPS [0193].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use two copolymers as compatibilizers, including those falling within the scope of the present claims, to provide compatibilizing properties as known in the art, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11-8PM EST.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN D FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787