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 I, Claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 03/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/19/2026.
Examiner’s Note
Claim 3 recites that layer (A) is “composed of” polyphenylene sulfide. MPEP 2111.03 states the transitional phrase "composed of" has been interpreted in the same manner as either "consisting of" or "consisting essentially of," depending on the facts of the particular case. Based on paragraphs 0018 (“layer (A) consists of polyphenylene sulfide”) and 0039 (“layer (A)….is preferably a layer composed (only) of PPS”) of the present specification, “composed of” in claim 3 is interpreted as “consisting of” for examination purposes.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiga et al. (US 2018/0334593 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Shiga discloses a laminate comprising: a layer (A) and an adhesive layer (B) being at least in partial contact with the layer (A), the adhesive layer (B) comprising a composition for adhesion, wherein the composition for adhesion satisfies the following requirements (i) to (iii): (i) comprising a polyolefin being a product of reaction between polyolefin (a) having a group that reacts with a carbodiimide group and a carbodiimide group-containing compound (b); (ii) comprising a carbodiimide group in an amount of 0.1 to 50 mmol per 100 g of the composition for adhesion; and (iii) having a density of 0.870 to 0.940 g/cm3 (Abstract). The polyolefin (a) is modified by graft-copolymerization (para 0075). The carbodiimide group-containing compound (b) may be a carbodiimide group-containing compound having 5 or more carbodiimide groups in one molecule (para 0023) (i.e. one corresponding to the claimed carbodiimide group and another corresponding to the polymerizable double bond).
The layer (A) may comprise polyphenylene sulfide (paras 0021-0022).
In light of the overlap between the claimed laminate and that disclosed by Shiga, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a laminate that is both disclosed by Shiga and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 3, Shiga discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Shiga further discloses the layer (A), comprises 80% by mass or more (i.e. 100%) polar resin such as polyphenylene sulfide (para 0064)
Regarding Claim 4, Shiga discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Shiga further discloses the laminate is obtained by co-extrusion molding, laminate molding, blow molding, or co-injection molding (para 0024).
Claim 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiga as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wakana (JP 2005/048127 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Shiga discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Shiga further discloses the carbodiimide group-containing compound (b) may comprise units of the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
32
112
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein R1 represents a divalent organic group having 2 to 40 carbon atoms (para 0090).
Shiga does not disclose the specific carbodiimide monomer as claimed.
Wakana discloses a carbodiimide compound of the following formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
120
354
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein R1 represents a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group, R2 represents an optionally substituted alkyl or aryl group, and l represents an integer of 2 to 6 (para 0009). The carbodiimide compound may be used in a (co)polymer to suppress deterioration of the resin and prevent acceleration of hydrolysis reactions, and to give desirable mechanical strength, transparency, chargeability, and ion conductivity (para 0011-0012, 0026-0027), and may be integrated into a polyolefin film (para 0037).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Shiga to incorporate the teachings of Wakana and use the carbodiimide compound of Wakana as the carbodiimide group-containing compound (b) of Shiga. Doing so would suppress deterioration of the resin and prevent acceleration of hydrolysis reactions and give desirable mechanical strength, transparency, chargeability, and ion conductivity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETHANY M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2109. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/BETHANY M MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights