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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (CN103772796) as evidenced by PG Pub. 2005/0137342 and PG Pub. 2018/0371217.
Regarding claim 1, Zhou et al. teaches a polymer composition ultra high molecular weight polyethylene and the claimed amount of 5-50% high density polyethylene with regard with to the total weight of the polymer composition [0011].
Regarding claim 2, the polymer composition comprises ≥ 95.0 wt% of the sum of the UHMWPE and the HDPE, with regard to the total weight of the polymer composition, or wherein the polymer composition consists of the UHMWPE, the HDPE and < 1.0, preferably <0.5, wt% of additives [0011].
Regarding claim 3, the UHMWPE has a viscosity average molecular weight (Mv) of ≥
2,000,000 g/mol [0018-0022]. The Mv is not disclosed as calculated via the Margolies equation based on the intrinsic viscosity, wherein the intrinsic viscosity is determined at a temperature of 135°C in decalin as solvent, according to the method set out in ASTM D2857-95, however, even though Zhou et al. are silent regarding the claimed method of measuring the Mv, the taught Mv by Zhou et al. reads on the claimed MV and would exist even if measured by the claimed method. Further, there has not been presented any criticality to the method of measuring the Mv.
Regarding claim 4, Zhou et al. teach hdpe, but are silent regarding the density of the hdpe. However, as evidenced by PG Pub. 2005/0137342, “ Polyethylenes with densities higher than about 0.940 g/cm.sup.3 are typically referred to as high density polyethylenes (HDPEs)”, therefore it is clear that the hdpe taught by Zhou et al. possesses the claimed density.
Regarding claim 5, the HDPE has a molecular weight of > 50,000 and < 500,000 g/mol, preferably of ≥ 50,000 and ≤ 300,000 g/mol, more preferably of ≥ 75,000 and 250,000 g/mol; and/or a melt mass-flow rate of > 0.1 and ≤ 100 g/10 min, as determined at 190°C at 2.16 kg
load in accordance with ASTM D1238 [Examples].
Regarding claim 12, Zhou et al. teaches a process for production of a shaped article. Zhou et al are silent regarding compression molding. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a compression molded article or injection molded article as is known in the art as evidenced by PG Pub. 2018/0371217.
Further, Although Zhou et al. does not disclose the claimed compression molding process, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed compression molding process and given that Zhou et al. meets the requirements of the claimed composition and molded article, Zhou et al. clearly meet the requirements of present claims composition and molded article.
Regarding claim 15, Zhou et al. teach an injection molded article comprising the polymer composition of claim 1.
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 6-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN103772796) in view of Sakakibara et al. (JP 2019142002).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou et al. teaches a polymer object, but are silent regarding the diameter and length of the pellets. However, Sakakibara et al. teach pellets with a diameter and length in the claimed range in order to improve transportability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the diameter and length of pellets taught by Sakakibara et al. in Zhou et al. in order to improve transportability and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Zhou et al. teaches heated mixing for 10 minutes, crushing and extruding. Further given, blending hdpe and uhmwpe which both have the same chemical repeat structure and are compatible, it is clear and obvious that the hdpe and uhmwpe are distributed uniformly and indistinguishably.
Regarding claims 8-9, Although Zhou et al. does not disclose the claimed process, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Zhou et al. meets the requirements of the claimed composition and polymer object, Zhou et al. clearly meet the requirements of present claims composition and polymer object.
Regarding claims 10-11, Zhou et al. teaches a process for production of a shaped article. Zhou et al are silent regarding compression molding. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a compression molded article or injection molded article as is known in the art as evidenced by PG Pub. 2018/0371217.
Further, Although Zhou et al. does not disclose the claimed process, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Zhou et al. meets the requirements of the claimed composition and polymer object, Zhou et al. clearly meet the requirements of present claims composition and polymer object.
Regarding claim 13, Zhou et al. teach a process for the production of a shaped article wherein the process included injection molding using the polymer object according to claim 6.
Regarding claim 14. Zhou et al. teaches injection molding but does not detail the process, However, given Zhou et al. teaches injection molding the claimed process steps would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, although Zhou et al. does not disclose the claimed process, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Zhou et al. meets the requirements of the claimed composition and shaped article, Zhou et al. clearly meet the requirements of present claims composition and shaped article.
Prior Art Not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 2008/0051515 teaches uhmwpe articles made into pellets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights