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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102- and 35 USC § 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 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishijima et al. (US 8,513,357).
Nishijima et al. teach a composition comprising an ionomer and 1 part (about 1 wt.%) of a silane coupling agent compound in examples 1 and 2 of Table 1. The Resins (a) and (b) used in examples 1 and 2 are taught as Zn ionomer having a MFR of 5 g/10 min of an ethylene-8.5 wt.% of methacrylic acid copolymer with 23% neutralization and Zn ionomer having a MFR of 5.5 g/10 min of an ethylene-8.5 wt.% of methacrylic acid copolymer with 18% neutralization, respectively, in lines 2-9 of col. 10. The Zn ionomer meets the recited ionomer comprising E/X polymer of claim 1.
The silane coupling agent compound used in examples 1 and 2 are taught as N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropylmethyldimethoxysilane in line 26-27 of col. 10.
Nishijima et al. further teach utilization of 15 parts by mss of a silane coupling agent based on 100 parts by mass of a zinc ionomer in lines 22-26 of col. 6.
Nishijima et al. teach a molded article in lines 6-8 of col. 11 further meeting claim 10.
Thus, the instant claims 1-7 and 10 lack novelty.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meerscheidt et al. (US 2017/0369610 A1).
Meerscheidt et al. teach ionomers of ethylene acid copolymers and injection molded articles thereof in abstract. Meerscheidt et al. teach that a portion of carboxylic acid groups are neutralized to carboxylate salts in [0009].
Meerscheidt et al. teach an ionomer comprising 68 wt.% of ethylene, 22 wt.% af an acid and 10 wt.% of alkyl alkylate with 25% neutralization in Table 1 of [0069].
Meerscheidt et al. teach that a melt flow rate (MFR) of an ionomer is 25 g/10 min or less as determined in accordance with ASTM method D1238-89 at 190oC and 2.16 kg in [0073].
Meerscheidt et al. teach employing 0.025 to 2.0 wt.% of N-(2-aminoethyl-3-aminopropyl trimethoxysilane or 3-glycidoxypropyl trimethoxysilane in claim 9. Although Meerscheidt et al. teach silanes are adjuvants, they are same as the claimed silane crosslinking agents.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to utilize an ionomer having the MFR of 25 g/10 min or less with N-(2-aminoethyl-3-aminopropyl trimethoxysilane or 3-glycidoxypropyl trimethoxysilane in Meerscheidt et al. since Meerscheidt et al. teach a MFR of an ionomer is 25 g/10 min or less encompassing/overlapping the instant MFR absent showing otherwise.
In the case where the claimed ranges “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, 919F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to the applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Reference must be considered for all that it discloses and must not be limited to preferred embodiments or working examples. In re Mills, 477 F.2d 649, 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA), In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2123.
Regarding claim 2, Meerscheidt et al. teach acrylic acid or methacrylic acid in [0066].
Regarding claim 3, Meerscheidt et al. teach zinc or sodium carboxylate in [0028]. Meerscheidt et al. further teach copper, calcium and magnesium in [0036].
Regarding claim 4, Meerscheidt et al. teach N-(2-aminoethyl-3-aminopropyl trimethoxysilane in claim 9.
Regarding claim 5, trimethoxysilane of the silane compound meets the recited alkyl with 1 carbon atom.
Regarding claim 6, Meerscheidt et al. teach an ionomer comprising 68 wt.% of ethylene in Table 1 of [0069].
Regarding claim 7, Meerscheidt et al. teach employing 0.025 to 2.0 wt.% of N-(2-aminoethyl-3-aminopropyl trimethoxysilane or 3-glycidoxypropyl trimethoxysilane in claim 9. Which overlaps the recited 0.5 to 20 wt.%.
Regarding claim 8, Meerscheidt et al. teach employing catalysts such as dibutyl tin oxide which is a moisture curing catalyst inherently in [0044],
Regarding claim 10, Meerscheidt et al. teach an injection molded article in claim 13.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meerscheidt et al. (US 2017/0369610 A1) as applied to claims 1-8 and 10 above, and further in view of product brochures of DuPont Surlyn 8660 by DuPont (Copyrighted on August 27, 2015) and DuPont Surlyn 9950 by Songhan Plastic Technology Co., Ltd. (Undated).
Regarding claim 9, Meerscheidt et al. teach Surlyn ionomers from DuPont in [0066].
DuPont Surlyn ionomers having the recited density is known as taught by DuPont Surlyn 8660 by DuPont (0.95 g/cm3) and DuPont Surlyn 9950 by Songhan Plastic Technology Co., Ltd. (0.96 g/cc).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to utilize the art well known DuPont Surlyn ionomers having the instant density taught by the above cited product brochures in Meerscheidt et al. since Meerscheidt et al. teach Surlyn ionomers from DuPont absent showing otherwise.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 2017/0274251 A1) in view of product brochures of DuPont Surlyn 8660 by DuPont (Copyrighted on August 27, 2015) and DuPont Surlyn 9950 by Songhan Plastic Technology Co., Ltd (Undated).
Sullivan et al. teach an ionomer comprising E/X/Y copolymers in [0028] in which amounts of E, X and Y falling within scope of the instant claims 1-3 and 6 are further taught. Sullivan et al. teach that the ionomers neutralized Na, Mg, Ca or Zn in [003] meeting claim 3. Sullivan et al. teach and equates various silane coupling agents including those having an amino group and those having an isocyanate group meeting the recited silane crosslinking agent of claims 1, 4 and 5 in [0083-0084] and [0089].
Sullivan et al. teach Surlyn ionomers from DuPont in [0062].
Ionomers having the recited MFR of claim 1 and density of claim 9 are known as taught by DuPont Surlyn 8660 by DuPont (0.95 g/cm3 and MFR of 10 g/10 min) and DuPont Surlyn 9950 by Songhan Plastic Technology Co., Ltd. (0.96 g/cc and MFR of 5.5 g/10 min).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to obtain a composition comprising Surlyn ionomers having the instantly recited MFR and density from DuPont taught by the product brochures in a combination with silane crosslinkers taught by Sullivan et al. in Sullivan et al. since Sullivan et al. teach Surlyn ionomers from DuPont and employing the silane crosslinkers absent showing otherwise.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141.
Regarding claim 11, Sullivan et al. teach a treatment of cores (e.g., co- or ter-polymeric ionomers in [0076]) in a solution comprising one or more isocyanates to form a desired hardness gradient in [0080-0081]. Sullivan et al. teach that the solution comprising one or more isocyanates may further include silane or amino-silane crosslinker at bottom of [0080] which would make claim 11 obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE H YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/TAE H YOON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights