DETAILED ACTION
Pending Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arriola et al. (US Pat. No. 6,624,254) in view of Sun et al. (US 2015/0203701 A1).
Regarding claims 7-15, Arriola et al. disclose: (7) a composition that comprises: a) at least one olefin/silane interpolymer comprising at least one Si-H group (Abstract; column 2, lines 54-67); (8) wherein the olefin/silane interpolymer of component a) is an ethylene/alpha-olefin/silane interpolymer (Example 1 in column 27, line 58 through column 29, line 10; see also column 20, lines 19-38); (9) wherein the silane is derived from a silane monomer selected from Formula 1 (see claim for structural limitations) (Example 1 in column 27, line 58 through column 29, line 10: see “allyldimethylsilane”; see also column 2, lines 58-63); (10) wherein Formula 1 is selected from the following compounds s1) through s16) (see claim for structural limitations) (Example 1 in column 27, line 58 through column 29, line 10: see “allyldimethylsilane”; see also column 2, lines 58-63); and (15) an article comprising at least one component formed from the composition (column 1, lines 10-19).
Arriola et al. disclose that their interpolymers can undergo further reaction with polyfunctional linker compounds (see column 26, lines 27-45) to form derivatives of the interpolymers (see column 1, lines 10-19). These linker compounds include peroxides and alkenes (see column 26, lines 27-38), and the derivatives include crosslinked polymers (see column 26, lines 38-43). They fail to explicitly disclose:
(7) a combination of b) at least one peroxide and c) at least one crosslinking coagent;
(7) wherein the composition has a mole ratio of active oxygen atom to carbon-carbon double bond of ≥ 0.02 and ≤ 0.7, based on the active oxygen atom content of component b and the carbon-carbon double bond content of component c;
(11) wherein the composition has a weight ratio of component c to component b of ≥ 0.7; (12) wherein the composition has a weight ratio of component c to component b of ≤ 100.0;
(13) wherein the composition has a weight ratio of component a to component b ≥ 100; and (14) wherein the composition has a weight ratio of component a to component b ≤ 3000.
Sun et al. disclose a related cross-linkable polymeric composition comprising an ethylene-based polymer (see Abstract; paragraphs 0016-0025), such as ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymers (see paragraph 0018). Sun et al. demonstrate that a combination of an organic peroxide (see Abstract; paragraphs 0026-0028) and a polyallyl cross-lining coagent (see paragraphs 0029-0030) is recognized in the art as a suitable crosslinking mechanism for this type of polyolefin. In light of this, it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.07. Their materials are provided in relative amounts that correspond to the instantly claimed c:b ranges and a:b ranges (see paragraphs 0031-0032). They also disclose a molar ratio of allyl groups (having a carbon-carbon double bond) to active oxygen groups ranging from 1.6 to 16, where the inverse ranges from 0.0625 to 0.625 (see paragraph 0033). This ratio provides a cured material with excellent scorch improvement while maintaining cross-link density (see paragraph 0090).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the composition of Arriola et al. with the instantly claimed combination of b) and c) (and relative amounts thereof) and the instantly claimed mole ratio of active oxygen atom to carbon-carbon double bond (in b) and c)) because: (a) Arriola et al. disclose that their interpolymers can undergo further reaction with polyfunctional linker compounds to form derivatives of the interpolymers, where the linker compounds include peroxides and alkenes; (b) Sun et al. disclose a related cross-linkable polymeric composition comprising an ethylene-based polymer, such as ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymers, and demonstrate that a combination of an organic peroxide and a polyallyl cross-lining coagent is recognized in the art as a suitable crosslinking mechanism for this type of polyolefin; (c) it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination; (d) Sun et al. provide their materials in relative amounts that correspond to the instantly claimed c:b ranges and a:b ranges; (e) Sun et al. disclose a molar ratio of allyl groups (having a carbon-carbon double bond) to active oxygen groups ranging from 1.6 to 16, where the inverse ranges from 0.0625 to 0.625; and (f) Sun et al. disclose that this ratio provides a cured material with excellent scorch improvement while maintaining cross-link density.
Regarding claims 1-6, the combined teachings of {Arriola et al. and Sun et al.} are as set forth above and incorporated herein to obviously satisfy the material limitations of claims (1-6). The primary teachings of Arriola et al. fail to explicitly disclose that crosslinking: (1-6) comprises thermally treating the composition; (5) wherein the composition is thermally treated at a temperature ≥ 120oC. However, the supporting teachings of Sun et al. demonstrate that these curing conditions are suitable for this type of curing mechanism when curing polyolefins (see paragraph 0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cure the composition resulting from the combined teachings of {Arriola et al. and Sun et al.} with the instantly claimed thermal treatment conditions because: the supporting teachings of Sun et al. demonstrate that these curing conditions are suitable for this type of curing mechanism when curing polyolefins.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/719,657 (US 2025/0051529 A1) in view of Sun et al. (US 2015/0203701 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-10 and 15: with the exception of the instantly claimed mole ratio,
Copending claims 1-5 obviously satisfy all of the material and process limitations of claim (1);
Copending claim 2 obviously satisfies all of the material and process limitations of claim (2);
Copending claim 3 obviously satisfies all of the material and process limitations of claims (3-4);
Copending claim 6 obviously satisfies all of the material limitations of claim (6);
Copending claims 7-15 obviously satisfy all of the material limitations of claim (7);
Copending claim 8 obviously satisfies all of the material limitations of claim (8);
Copending claim 9 obviously satisfies all of the material limitations of claim (9);
Copending claim 10 obviously satisfies all of the material limitations of claim (10);
Copending claim 15 obviously satisfies all of the material limitations of claim (15).
The supporting teachings of Sun et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulae the composition of the copending claims with the instantly claimed molar ratio because: (a) Sun et al. disclose a related cross-linkable polymeric composition comprising an ethylene-based polymer, such as ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymers; (b) Sun et al. disclose a molar ratio of allyl groups (having a carbon-carbon double bond) to active oxygen groups ranging from 1.6 to 16, where the inverse ranges from 0.0625 to 0.625; and (c) Sun et al. disclose that this ratio provides a cured material with excellent scorch improvement while maintaining cross-link density.
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform thermal treatment in the copending claims at the instantly claimed temperature because: Sun et al. demonstrate that these curing conditions are suitable for this type of curing mechanism when curing polyolefins.
Regarding claims 11-14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the composition of the copending claims with the instantly claimed relative amounts of a), b), and c) because: Sun et al. provide their materials in relative amounts that correspond to the instantly claimed c:b ranges and a:b ranges.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10, 12-15, and 17-22 of copending Application No. 18/013,229 (US 2023/0272206 A1) in view of Sun et al. (US 2015/0203701 A1).
Regarding claims 1-10 and 15: with the exception of the instantly claimed mole ratio,
Copending claims 1-5, 17, 18, and 21 obviously satisfy all of the material and process limitations of claim (1);
Copending claims 2-3 obviously satisfy all of the material and process limitations of claim (2);
Copending claim 4 obviously satisfies all of the material and process limitations of claims (3-4);
Copending claim 5 obviously satisfies all of the material limitations of claim (5);
Copending claim 6 obviously satisfies all of the material limitations of claim (6);
Copending claims 7-10, 12-15, 19, 20, and 22 obviously satisfy all of the material limitations of claims (7 & 9);
Copending claim 8 obviously satisfies all of the material limitations of claim (8);
Copending claim 10 obviously satisfies all of the material limitations of claim (10);
Copending claim 15 obviously satisfies all of the material limitations of claim (15).
The supporting teachings of Sun et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulae the composition of the copending claims with the instantly claimed molar ratio because: (a) Sun et al. disclose a related cross-linkable polymeric composition comprising an ethylene-based polymer, such as ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymers; (b) Sun et al. disclose a molar ratio of allyl groups (having a carbon-carbon double bond) to active oxygen groups ranging from 1.6 to 16, where the inverse ranges from 0.0625 to 0.625; and (c) Sun et al. disclose that this ratio provides a cured material with excellent scorch improvement while maintaining cross-link density.
Regarding claims 11-14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the composition of the copending claims with the instantly claimed relative amounts of a), b), and c) because: Sun et al. provide their materials in relative amounts that correspond to the instantly claimed c:b ranges and a:b ranges.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Morikawa et al. (US 2006/0052546 A1) disclose a related composition.
International Search Report
The international search report cited four X-references. All four references have been considered. The US-equivalent of one X-reference has been applied as prior art.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FEELY whose telephone number is (571)272-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/MICHAEL J FEELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
September 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights