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 § 102/103
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.
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 1-2, 4, 6, 8 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laurin et al. (WO 2018/017573) or in the alternative rejected under 35 USC 103 over Laurin et al. (WO 2018/017573).
Regarding claims 1 and 19-20, Laurin et al. teaches a thermoformed article [0106] made by melt mixing and extruding pellets [taught in Laurin and WO 2009/080821 which is incorporated in Laurin et al.] and a further propylene based polymer (can be construed as the propylene based thermoplastic sheath or second propylene based polymer taught) [0086 and 0090] to obtain a sheet and thermoforming the sheet [0106]. The pellets are pellets of glass reinforced thermoplastic polymer composition (glass multifilaments are taught) comprising a sheath continuous multifilament strand comprising a core that extends in the longitudinal direction and a polymer sheath that intimately surrounds the core [0010, 0015, 0019, 0063, 0065, 0073, 0079 and WO 2009/080821 which is incorporated in Laurin et al.]. The core comprises at least one continuous glass multifilament strand (0015). The polymer sheath consists of a thermoplastic polymer composition comprising polyolefin and having a melt flow index in the claimed range measured by the same standard ( The polypropylene compound typically has a melt flow index (MFI) that is significantly lower as compared to polypropylene compounds used in pultrusion processes. As such the melt flow index of the polypropylene compound may be 5-100 grams per 10 minutes (g/10 min) (as measured at 230 °C under 2.16 kg force according to ISO 1 133 ) or 10-100 g/10 min, or 10-80 g/10 min, or even 20-80 g/10 min.) [0050]. Laurin et al. teaches incorporation of either a low flow grade thermoplastic polymer by itself with a melt flow of 20 dg/min or less or low and high flow grade thermoplastic polymer blend with a melt flow rate of 14-18 dg/min. Laurin et al. states “As an example, a blend of Bapolene® 4042 low flow PP and Bapolene® 4082 high flow PP may be mixed (with or without other[0022] components additives) to result in a polypropylene with a MFR of between 14 and 18 g/10 minutes when measured at a temperature of 210 °C and under a 5 kg load.” in 0021. Therefore, it is abundantly clear Laurin et al. teaches the claimed melt flow. The length of the glass filaments in the pellets is substantially the same size of the pellets [0065]. 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).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, the thermoplastic polymer composition comprises an organic flame retardant which comprises melamine phosphate, piperazine pyrophosphate and optionally zinc oxide [0006 and 0051-0056]. The polypropylene compound typically has a melt flow index (MFI) that is significantly lower as compared to polypropylene compounds used in pultrusion processes. As such the melt flow index of the polypropylene compound may be 5-100 grams per 10 minutes (g/10 min) (as measured at 230 °C under 2.16 kg force according to ISO 1 133 ). or 10-100 g/10 min, or 10-80 g/10 min, or even 20-80 g/10 min. The amount of the organic flame retardant with respect to the thermoplastic polymer composition (The amount of flame retardant composition can be 10-35 % by total weight of the flame retardant fiber-reinforced polypropylene composition.) [0058].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).
Regarding claim 4, the polyolefin comprises propylene based polymer including propylene homopolymer [0004 and 0016].
Regarding claims 6 and 8, the amount of glass filaments is taught in the claimed range (greater than 0% to about 70% is taught) with respect to the sheathed multifilaments continuous strand and with respect to the thermoformed article [0007 and 0019].
Regarding claim 13, the sheet is obtained by melt mixing and extruding the pellets without the additions of the further polyolefin [0006].
Regarding claim 14, the thermoplastic polyolefin composition has a melt flow index in the claimed range as 5-100 grams per 10 minutes (g/10 min) (as measured at 230 °C under 2.16 kg force according to ISO 1 133 ). or 10-100 g/10 min, or 10-80 g/10 min, or even 20-80 g/10 min. is taught.
Regarding claim 15, a process for processing thermoformed article according to claim 1 comprising melt mixing and extruding the pellets and optional further propylene based polymer to obtain the sheet and further thermoforming the sheet [0106]. Although Laurin et al. does not disclose the claimed processing temperature, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process temperature and given that Laurin et al. meets the requirements of the claimed article, Laurin et al. clearly meet the requirements of present claims article.
Regarding claims 16-17, the amount of the organic flame retardant with respect the thermoplastic polymer composition is in the claimed range [0101].
Regarding claim 21, Laurin et al. teaches the polyolefin comprises a random propylene copolymer that comprises a comonomer of ethylene. Laurin et al. states at 0062 “ The polypropylene can be a propylene homopolymer. a propylene-a-olefin copolymer, such as a propylene-ethylene random copolymer, an impact propylene copolymer, sometimes referred to as a heterophasic propylene copolymer, or a propylene block-copolymer.”.
Regarding claim 23, Laurin teaches the polyolefin comprises a propylene homopolymer and a propylene random copolymer. Laurin at 0036 states “Aspect 1 : An enclosure formed from a thermoplastic composition comprising: a) a homopolymer component comprising polypropylene, a copolymer component comprising polypropylene, or a combination thereof;…”.
Claims 3, 5 and 9-12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laurin et al. (WO 2018/017573).
Regarding claim 3, Laurin et al. are silent regarding the amount of polyethylene wax with respect to the sheathed multifilament continuous strand. However, Laurin et al. teach varying the amount of polyethylene wax (impregnating agent) based on the thermoplastic matrix and size of the fiber (The amount of impregnating agent applied to the glass multifilament strand depends on the thermoplastic matrix, on the size (diameter) of the filaments forming the continuous strand). Therefore, Laurin et al. teach the amount of polyethylene wax as a results effective variable and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed amount of polyethylene wax in order to affect the homogeneity of the dispersion and the mechanical properties [WO 2009/080821 which is incorporated in Laurin et al.].
Regarding claim 5, Laurin teaches “The polypropylene can be a propylene homopolymer. a propylene-a-olefin copolymer, such as a propylene-ethylene random copolymer, an impact propylene copolymer, sometimes referred to as a heterophasic propylene copolymer, or a propylene block-copolymer. Mixtures of more than one polypropylene are also possible. Which type of polypropylene is used depends on the intended application. In some aspects it may be desirable to use either a polypropylene homopolymer for applications requiring high stiffness or a heterophasic propylene copolymer for applications that require good stiffness in combination with good impact properties.”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to blend propylene homopolymer with heterophasic propylene copolymer with melt flow indices in the claimed range as Laurin et al. teaches blending of the two with melt flow indices in the claimed range and teaches the blend and melt flow indices as results effective variables and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed combination and melt flow indices through routine experimentation in order to attain good stiffness and good impact properties.
Regarding claim 9-11, Laurin et al. teach inclusion of a first and second polypropylene which may be the same or different which mean the taught melt flow index of the second would have the same range as taught for the first polypropylene and is therefore taught in the claimed range. Further, Laurin et al. teaches “As a particular example, blends of materials may be used to result in MFI of 10- 18 g/10 min.”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the further propylene based polymer in the claimed range in order to meet this taught melt flow index of the blend.
Regarding claim 12, Laurin et al. teaches “As a particular example, blends of materials may be used to result in MFI of 10- 18 g/10 min.”.
Regarding claim 22, Laurin et al. teaches the propylene ethylene random copolymer, but is silent regarding the claimed amount of ethylene. However, Laurin et al. teaches improved stiffness and impact properties are important. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have easily arrived at the claimed amount of ethylene in order to improve stiffness and impact properties given it is known in the art that lower amounts of ethylene in a propylene ethylene random copolymer would improve stiffness and impact properties.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laurin et al. (WO 2018/017573) in Junghan et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0036282).
Regarding claim 7, Laurin et al. are silent regarding the claimed top cover. However, Junghans et al. teaches a top cover in an article for covering battery components in a prime mover (electric vehicle) battery pack wherein the top cover has an outer major surface and an inner major surface that is shaped to conform the major battery components in order to fit the battery and provide protection [0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the top cover as taught by Junghans et al. in Laurin et al. in order to fit the battery and provide protection and arrive at the claimed invention.
Art Not Cited but Relevant
PG Pub. 2020/0087498 teaches a pellet compromising a thermoplastic polymer sheath surrounding glass filaments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Laurin does not teach all the claimed features of claim 1 and hindsight reasoning was used. Laurin explicitly teaches extrusion of sheets and thermoforming and also teaches the combinations of the two [0125]. Further, even if Laurin did not disclose the claimed process, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Laurin meets the requirements of the claimed article, Laurin clearly meet the requirements of present claims article.
Applicant argues laurin does not teach the claimed MFI. Laurin teaches the melt flow index of the polypropylene compound may be 5-100 grams per 10 minutes (g/10 min) (as measured at 230 °C under 2.16 kg force according to ISO 1 133 ) or 10-100 g/10 min, or 10-80 g/10 min, or even 20-80 g/10 min.) [0050]. Laurin et al. teaches incorporation of either a low flow grade thermoplastic polymer by itself with a melt flow of 20 dg/min or less or low and high flow grade thermoplastic polymer blend with a melt flow rate of 14-18 dg/min. Laurin et al. states “As an example, a blend of Bapolene® 4042 low flow PP and Bapolene® 4082 high flow PP may be mixed (with or without other [0022] components additives) to result in a polypropylene with a MFR of between 14 and 18 g/10 minutes when measured at a temperature of 210 °C and under a 5 kg load.” in 0021. Therefore, it is abundantly clear Laurin et al. teaches the claimed melt flow.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
.
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 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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights