CTNF 18/804,597 CTNF 87427 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2017/0342176 A1) . Regarding claims 1-2 and 9-16 , Wang teaches a hinged component and a method of making a hinged component via compression or injection molding comprising a high density polyethylene composition having a density of a density in the range of from about 0.940 to about 0.962 g/cm 3 , a melt index of ≦ 1.5 g/10 min, a weight average molecular weight (mW) from about 90,000 to about 300,000 (g/mol), and a molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) of from about 5.0 to about 16.0. ( para 10-14, 40, 41, 83, 88 ). These ranges substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Wang, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness ( MPEP § 2144.05 ). Regarding claims 6-8, 17, and 18 , Wang gives examples of Mz being greater than 900,000 ( table 1 ) which lie within the ranges of claims 6, 7 , and 17. Furthermore, the Examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have known that adjusting the high portion (Mz) of the molecular weight adjusts the melt viscosity and therein the processability of the polymeric composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the Mz of the polymeric composition of Wang to optimize its processability. Regarding claims 3-5, 19, and 20 , Wang suggests or would have otherwise rendered obvious the structure, composition, and method of making the hinged component of the instant claims, so it is deemed to possess the elongation at break, hinge life, and chemical resistance of the instant claims. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). ( MPEP § 2112.01 I ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm. 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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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. NATHAN VAN SELL Primary Examiner Art Unit 1783 /NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/804,597 Page 2 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/804,597 Page 3 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/804,597 Page 4 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/804,597 Page 5 Art Unit: 1783
Prosecution Insights