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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 5-10 in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 01/23/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 5-10 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, ln 6, “maintains” should read --maintaining--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (CN114479245 with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) hereinafter Duan in view of “Tribological properties and lubrication mechanism of manganese phosphate trihydrate as lubricant additives” (2023) hereinafter D2.
Regarding claim 5, Duan teaches:
A preparation method for an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) anti-wear composite material (ln 42-45) comprising:
1: preparing phosphate powder (ln 73-74);
step 2: weighting UHMWPE powder and a phosphate powder (ln 156-157);
step 3: mixing the UHMWPE powder and the phosphate powder obtained in the step 2 evenly to obtain the mixed powder (ln 76-77); and
step 4: placing the mixed powder in a mold, using the hot press machine to pre-press the mixed powder in the mold, solidifying the mixed powder in the mold, and demolding after cooling, so as to obtain the UHMWPE anti-wear composite material (ln 79-80).
Duan does not teach the phosphate powder is a trihydrate manganese phosphate nanosheet powder.
However, Duan teaches that the phosphate powder is desired for its excellent lubricating properties (ln 28-29).
In art attempting to solve a similar problem of finding a material having excellent lubricating properties, D2 teaches manganese phosphate trihydrate nanosheets as achieving extraordinary friction-reducing and anti-wear performance (abstract, conclusion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the phosphate powder as taught by Duan with the manganese phosphate trihydrate nanosheets as taught by D2 and the results would have been predictable since both references teach phosphates particles having excellent lubricant properties.
Regarding claim 6, Duan in view of D2 teaches the method of claim 5.
Duan further teaches before the using the hot press machine to pre-press the mixed powder in the mold, drying the mixed powder in a drying oven at a temperature (ln 86).
Duan further teaches a range of values for the drying temperature that overlaps with the claimed range (ln 86).
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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the drying temperature as taught by Duan that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Duan in view of D2 teaches the method of claim 5.
Duan further teaches wherein in the step 4, a pre-pressing pressure of the hot press machine for the mixed powder is in a range of 20 megapascals (MPa) to 30 MPa; the mixed powder is pre-pressed for 2 times to 5 times under the pre-pressing pressure; and a duration of each time for pre-pressing the mixed powder is 3 minutes to 5 minutes (ln 88-89).
Regarding claim 8, Duan in view of D2 teaches the method of claim 7.
Duan further teaches wherein in the step 4, a temperature of the solidifying the mixed powder is in a range of 160°C to 180 °C (ln 91-92), and insulation time for the solidifying the mixed powder (ln 91-92).
Duan further teaches a range of values for the insulation time that overlaps with the claimed range (ln 91-92).
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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the insulation time as taught by Duan that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Duan in view of D2 teaches the method of claim 8.
Duan further teaches the solidifying the mixed powder in the mold, and demolding after cooling comprises: heating the mold to a preset temperature and insulating the mold for 2 hours to 3 hours when solidifying the mixed powder (ln 91-92; see rejection of claim 8 above), then stopping heating the mold; placing the mold in air for cooling; during the cooling, increasing a pressure of the hot press machine gradually as a temperature of the mold is decreased gradually until the pressure of the hot press machine is maintained in a range; when the mold is cooled to a room temperature, and depressurizing and demolding to obtain the UHMWPE anti-wear composite material (ln 94-99).
Duan further teaches a range of values for the pressure range that overlaps with the claimed range (ln 97).
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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the pressure range as taught by Duan that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Duan in view of D2 teaches the method of claim 9.
Duan further teaches wherein in the step 4, the during the cooling, increasing a pressure of the hot press machine gradually as a temperature of the mold is decreased gradually until the pressure of the hot press machine is maintained in a range of 120 MPa to 150 MPa comprises (see rejection of claim 9 above):
when a temperature displayed on a temperature controller of the hot press machine is in a range of 108 °C to 112 °C, applying a pressure on the mold and maintaining the pressure (ln 101-106);
when the temperature of the mold is cooled to 98 °C to 102 °C, applying a pressure to maintain the pressure (ln 101-106);
when the temperature of the mold is cooled to 88 °C to 92 °C, applying a pressure to maintain the pressure (ln 101-106); and
when the temperature of the mold is cooled to 78 °C to 82 °C, applying pressure to maintain the pressure until the temperature of the mold is cooled to the room temperature (ln 101-106).
Duan further teaches a range of pressures when the temperature is cooled to 108 °C to 112 °C, 88 °C to 92 °C, and 78 °C to 82 °C, respectively that overlaps with the claimed ranges (ln 101-106).
Duan does not teach when the temperature of the mold is cooled to 98 °C to 102 °C, applying a pressure of 30 MPa to 40 MPa to maintain the pressure. However, Duan teaches a range of values that is close to the claimed range (ln 103; 50-60 MPa). The examiner notes that there is no evidence that the prior art range would produce unexpected results or demonstrate criticality over the prior art range. To the contrary, Duan teaches that the prior art method results in a UHMWPE composite material having anti-wear properties.
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). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05.
Since similar ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the pressure range as taught by Duan that is similar to the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 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 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741