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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (WO2018214208- Machine translation provided herein), and further in view of Tabor et al. (US5342884).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a method of making a foamed article (Abstract: “A composition for a foaming material with high rebound resilience and a preparation method”), comprising:
mixing a first ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer and a thermoplastic polyurethane to form a composite (“Preparation of base material: TPU particles are produced by a one-step method well known in the art, and TPU particles and EVA-1, EVA grafted maleic anhydride are mixed in a high-mixer and then added to a twin-screw extruder to control extrusion. The temperature of the screw is 100-190 ° C, the temperature of the die is controlled to 150 ° C, and the base material 1 is obtained by extrusion granulation”- see pg. 6);
mixing the composite, a second EVA copolymer (“the base material 1 and EVA-2 are mixed by a high mixer and then added to a twin screw or an internal mixer. Medium, after uniform mixing, extrusion granulation, to obtain the final base 2”- see pg. 6-7), a compatibilizer (“Then, the primary base material and the remaining part of the olefin polymer, the compatibilizer, and other auxiliary agents are processed by one or more of an extruder or a form of grinding or compacting, and then granulated to obtain a base material”- see pg. 5), and a foaming agent to form a mixture (“2) The base material is uniformly mixed with the foaming agent, the crosslinking agent and the auxiliary crosslinking agent, and a high resilience foaming product is obtained by using one of the following production processes:”- see pg. 5 and “2) Preparation of high resilience foaming material: base material 2, 1.5 parts of azodicarbonamide prepared in step 1), 0.1 part of DCP are uniformly mixed by high-mixer”- see pg. 7); and
forming the foamed article from the mixture (“and then put into a product mold, and the temperature of the flat vulcanizing machine is 100. °C, molded and foamed for 1 minute, and then the mold was cooled to 5 ° C to obtain a final high resilience foamed article material”- see pg. 7),
wherein a compression set of the foamed article is 28-43% lower than a compression set of a foamed article made by a same method but without the polyurethane polymer (see compression set of foams measured by GB/T6669-2008 method for Examples 1-3 in Table 1 which have compression set values of 20-25 versus a foam without polyurethane having a compression set of 35).
However, Wang fails to teach the polyurethane is a thermoset polyurethane.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to polyurethane and EVA composites, Tabor teaches a thermoset polyurethane and EVA composite used to form molded articles (col 3 line 10-16). Thermoset polyurethane is a common scrap material (col 1 line 40-53) that can be incorporated into mold articles to reduce final composite costs and waste generation (col 2 line 8-14 and col 8 line 47-52).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermoplastic polyurethane of Wang with a thermoset polyurethane, as taught by Tabor, for the benefit of forming composite foams that reduce waste generation at a reduced cost.
Regarding claim 2, Wang modified with Tabor teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Tabor teaches processing the thermoset polyurethane polymer prior to the mixing with the first EVA copolymer by at least one of mechanical grinding, cryogenic grinding, and waterjet powdering (col 8 line 3-9).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermoplastic polyurethane of Wang with a thermoset polyurethane, as taught by Tabor, such that the thermoset polyurethane polymer is processed by at least one of mechanical grinding, cryogenic grinding, and waterjet powdering, for the benefit of forming composite foams that reduce waste generation at a reduced cost.
Regarding claim 3, Wang modified with Tabor teaches the method of claim 1.
Tabor teaches processing the thermoset polyurethane polymer prior to the mixing with the first EVA copolymer by grinding, milling, cutting, sawing, crushing, pulverizing, or other size reduction techniques (col 8 line 3-8). While Tabor fails to explicitly teach the milling is a two-roll milling technique, Tabor does teach blending using a two-roll mill (col 9 line 15-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the milling process of Wang modified with Tabor be a two-roll milling technique, as taught by Tabor, to achieve the predictable result of processing the thermoset polyurethane to a desired size before forming the composite. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the thermoset polyurethane of Wang modified with Tabor to be milled by a two-rolling milling process, since Tabor teaches the thermoset polyurethane is milled prior to blending with EVA and further teaches a two-roll milling technique as a milling technique example.
Regarding claim 4, Wang modified with Tabor teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Tabor teaches wherein a particle size of the thermoset polyurethane polymer is 0.1 to 13,000 microns (col 8 line 9-12).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermoplastic polyurethane of Wang with a thermoset polyurethane, as taught by Tabor, such that a particle size of the thermoset polyurethane polymer microns is less than 5 mm, for the benefit of forming composite foams that reduce waste generation at a reduced cost.
Regarding claim 5, Wang modified with Tabor teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Tabor teaches wherein the thermoset polyurethane polymer is a flexible crosslinked polyurethane foam (see col 3 line 10-14).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermoplastic polyurethane of Wang with a thermoset polyurethane, as taught by Tabor, such that the thermoset polyurethane polymer is a flexible crosslinked polyurethane foam, for the benefit of forming composite foams that reduce waste generation at a reduced cost.
Regarding claim 6, Wang modified with Tabor teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Wang teaches an example wherein the mixture comprises 43 parts of the composite relative to 100 parts of the second EVA copolymer (Example 1 on pg. 6-7 teaches 25 parts EVA-1 and 5 parts TPU to yield 30 parts of composite relative to 70 parts of EVA-2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the mixture of Wang modified with Tabor to comprise 1-60 parts of the composite relative to 100 parts of the second EVA copolymer, by routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05.II). The varying polyurethane and EVA concentrations result in varying mechanical properties, compression set and wear resistance (“It can be seen from the comparison of the data in Tables 1 to 8 that the products prepared by the invention are superior to the existing foam in the market in terms of falling ball resilience not less than 45%, mechanical properties, compression set and wear resistance. Material and foam density is lower”- see pg. 11), such that one of ordinary skill would look to optimizing the polyurethane and EVA concentrations to yield desired wear resistance and mechanical properties that improve the resilience of the foamed materials.
Regarding claim 7, Wang modified with Tabor teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Wang teaches wherein the compatibilizer is at least a grafted polyolefin (“the compatibilizer refers to EVA grafted maleic anhydride, SEBS grafted maleic anhydride, POE grafted maleic anhydride”- see pg. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Wang modified with Tabor teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Wang teaches an example wherein the mixture comprises 14 parts by weight of the compatibilizer relative to 100 parts of the second EVA copolymer (see Example 1 where compatibilizer is 10 parts by weight relative to 70 parts by weight of EVA-2), 20 parts by weight of the compatibilizer relative to 100 parts of the second EVA copolymer (see Example 2 where compatibilizer is 10 parts by weight relative to 50 parts by weight of EVA-2), and 30 parts by weight of the compatibilizer relative to 100 parts of the second EVA copolymer (see Example 3 where compatibilizer is 15 parts by weight relative to 50 parts by weight of EVA-2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the mixture of Wang modified with Tabor to comprise 1-30 parts by weight of the compatibilizer relative to 100 parts of the second EVA copolymer, by routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05.II). The varying compatibilizer concentrations promote the compatibility and dispersion of the EVA polymer and polyurethane (“The main reason is that we use compatibilizer to compatibilize, promote the compatibility and dispersion of olefin polymer and TPU polymer, form olefin/TPU interpenetrating network structure (IPN)”- see pg. 11), such that one of ordinary skill would look to optimizing the compatibilizer concentration to increase the compatibility and dispersion of the EVA polymer and polyurethane.
Regarding claim 9, Wang modified with Tabor teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Tabor teaches wherein a composition further comprises a reactive surfactant (col 5 line 57-68). Reactive surfactants improve the homogenization of the starting components, and which also regulate cell structure (col 5 line 65-68).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the mixture of Wang modified with Tabor to further comprise a reactive surfactant, as taught by Tabor, for the benefit of improving the homogenization of the starting components, and which also regulate cell structure.
Regarding claim 13, Wang modified with Tabor teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Wang teaches wherein the forming is by at least one of injection molding (“B: adding the mixture to the EVA injection foaming machine, performing injection foaming at 100-220 ° C, and obtaining a high rebound foamed product after cooling and setting”- see pg. 13) and compression molding (“2) Preparation of high resilience foaming material: the base prepared in step 1), 5 parts of azobisisobutyronitrile, 3 parts of BPO, 2 parts by weight of triallyl cyanurate are mixed by high mixing machine After evenly, it was put into a product mold, the plate vulcanizer was heated at 150 ° C, molded and foamed for 20 minutes, and then the mold was cooled to 5 ° C to obtain a final high resilience foamed product material”- see pg. 9).
Regarding claim 14, Wang modified with Tabor teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Wang teaches wherein the polyurethane polymer forms a co-continuous polymer phase with the second EVA copolymer in the foamed article (“The main reason is that we use compatibilizer to compatibilize, promote the compatibility and dispersion of olefin polymer and TPU polymer, form olefin/TPU interpenetrating network structure (IPN)”- see pg. 11). The co-continuous polymer phase forms an interpenetrating network structure that results in excellent resilience, wear resistance, and mechanical properties (“use TPU on the other side. Excellent resilience, wear resistance, mechanical properties, greatly improve the resilience of the foamed olefinic materials, compression and other properties, simplify the process, and reduce production costs”- see pg. 11).
Further, Tabor teaches the compatibilizer is added to increase adhesion between the thermoset polyurethane and EVA such that physical properties of the composite material are improved (col 7 line 25-29).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the thermoset polyurethane polymer of Wang modified with Tabor form a co-continuous polymer phase with the second EVA copolymer in the foamed article, as suggested by Wang and as taught by Tabor, for the benefit of forming an interpenetrating network structure that results in excellent resilience, wear resistance, and mechanical properties.
Regarding claim 15, Wang modified with Tabor teaches the method of claim 1.
Wang teaches further comprising heating the mixture to a temperature at which the foaming agent decomposes thereby producing a foam.
Further, Tabor teaches mixing by melt blending such that the thermoplastic polymer is melted as it is blended with the other materials (col 9 line 6-9 and col 10 line 10-12).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the mixture of Wang modified with Tabor heated to a temperature at which the second EVA copolymer melts and the foaming agent decomposes thereby producing a foam, as taught by Wang and Tabor, to achieve the predictable result of homogeneously blending the second EVA copolymer into the mixture and producing a foam. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success, since Wang teaches compatibility and dispersion of the polymeric components results in the excellent resilience, wear resistance, and mechanical properties that is desired (“we use compatibilizer to compatibilize, promote the compatibility and dispersion of olefin polymer and TPU polymer, form olefin/TPU interpenetrating network structure (IPN)”- see pg.), and that the mixture is heated to temperatures that result in foam product.
Regarding claim 16, Wang modified with Tabor teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Tabor teaches wherein the thermoset polyurethane polymer is waste from injection molding processes (col 3 line 17-23).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermoplastic polyurethane of Wang with a thermoset polyurethane, as taught by Tabor, such that the thermoset polyurethane polymer is waste from injection molding processes, for the benefit of forming composite foams that reduce waste generation at a reduced cost.
Regarding claim 17, Wang modified with Tabor teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Wang teaches wherein a resiliency of the foamed article is 38-55% larger than a resiliency of a foamed article made by a same method but without the polyurethane polymer (see ISO8307 in Table 1 where Examples 1-3 have a resiliency of 55-62% in comparison to example without polyurethane which has a resiliency of 40%).
Regarding claim 18, Wang modified with Tabor teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Wang teaches wherein an elongation at break of the foamed article is 33-50% larger than an elongation at break of a foamed article made by a same method but without the thermoset polyurethane polymer (see ISO1798-2008 in Table 1 where Examples 1-3 have an elongation break of 400- 450% in comparison to example without polyurethane which has an elongation break of 300%).
Regarding claim 19, Wang modified with Tabor teaches a foamed article produced by the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art is Wang et al. (WO2018214208- Machine translation provided herein), Tabor et al. (US5342884), Hao (WO2013053189- Machine translation provided herein), and Kwon (KR20230070648A- Machine translation provided herein).
Regarding claim 10, Wang modified with Tabor teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Wang teaches EVA copolymers with a vinyl acetate content of 15% or more (“In the case of copolymer (EVA), EVA having a VA content of 15% or more is preferable. When an EVA mixture having a different VA content is selected, it is preferable to contain an EVA polymer having a VA content of more than 25%, and this EVA accounts for the total amount of the EVA mixture”- see pg. 4). However, the vinyl acetate content is based on the total amount of EVA in the mixture, and not based on a total weight of the second EVA copolymer.
Further, Hao teaches an ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer with a molecular weight of 400-4000 g/mol, but with a vinyl acetate content of 10-21% (“Wherein, the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer has a number average molecular weight of 400-4000, preferably 800-2000, and the ethylene ethyl acetate copolymer has a mass percentage of ethyl acetate (VA) of 10-21%. Preferably 16-19%; the polyolefin elastomer has a number average molecular weight of 400-4000, preferably 600-2000”- see pg. 2).
Kwon teaches an ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer with a vinyl acetate content of 30 to 60%, but with a molecular weight of between 15,000- 25,000 g/mol (“Here, the ethylene vinyl acetate has a vinyl acetate content of 30 to 60% by weight, a melt index (MI) of 10 g / 10 min or less, measured according to ASTM D1238 at 190 ° C and a load of 2.16 kg, and a molecular weight distribution (PDI , Mw/Mn) of 10 or less can be used. In addition, the number average molecular weight (Mn) of the ethylene vinyl acetate may be about 15,000 g/mol or more and about 25,000 g/mol or less”- see pg. 3).
Therefore, Wang, Tabor, Hao, and Kwon, either alone or in combination, fail to teach the limitation of “the first EVA copolymer has a molecular weight of 500-3,000 g/mol and a vinyl acetate content of 30 to 45 wt %, based on a total weight of the second EVA copolymer”.
Claims 11 and 12 depend from claim 10 and are, therefore, allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights