Mitsui Chemicals, Inc. produces and markets variations of chemical products. The Company’s products include ethylene, propylene, and other petrochemicals, basic chemicals, synthetic resins, and fine chemicals. The Company operates worldwide.
In India, the chemical business of Mitsui Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. is focused on Ethylene copolymer compositions, Electronic frames comprising electrical conductors, Electrochromic materials, and optical systems employing the same, and Catalyst composition and process for producing aromatic hydrocarbon using the catalyst composition.
Mitsui Chemicals, Inc. filed patent application numbered 201717034724 that is titled as CROSSLINKED BODY AND DAMPING MATERIAL. The patent has been filed in the field of POLYMER TECHNOLOGY. This Patent Application has been granted as Patent Number 343711.
This invention covers a composition comprising 100 parts by mass of (A) an ethylene/ α-olefin/non-conjugated polyene copolymer having one or more peaks of tanδ in the temperature range of -50 to -30º C, the tanδ being determined by dynamic viscoelasticity measurement, 50 to 500 parts by mass of (B) an olefin-based copolymer having one or more peaks of tanδ in the temperature of 0 to 40º C, the tanδ being determined by dynamic viscoelasticity measurement, 5 to 300 parts by mass of (C) a softener, 10 to 300 parts by mass of (D) a reinforcing filler, and 0.1 to 10 parts by mass of (E) a vulcanizing agent, the composition having a content ratio by mass ((C)/(D)) of (C)the softener to (D)the reinforcing filler of 0.3to 1.5.
During the patent examination, the patent examiner raised objections under Section 3(e) and 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act. Firstly, under Section 3(e) the objection indicated that the subject matter asserted in the claims do not contain synergistic ratios of the constituents and consequently, certain claims fall within the scope of section 3(d).
As a response, the Applicant submitted that the invention as claimed does not fall within the prohibition of 3(e) of the Act and additionally that the Controller did not elaborate the reasons for raising objections under section 3(d). The technical arguments in the claims prove the synergistic effect necessary to evade these objections.
Advocate Rahul Dev is a Patent Attorney & International Business Lawyer practicing Technology, Intellectual Property & Corporate Laws. He is reachable at rd (at) patentbusinesslawyer (dot) com & @rdpatentlawyer on Twitter.
Quoted in and contributed to 50+ national & international publications (Bloomberg, FirstPost, SwissInfo, Outlook Money, Yahoo News, Times of India, Economic Times, Business Standard, Quartz, Global Legal Post, International Bar Association, LawAsia, BioSpectrum Asia, Digital News Asia, e27, Leaders Speak, Entrepreneur India, VCCircle, AutoTech).
Regularly invited to speak at international & national platforms (conferences, TV channels, seminars, corporate trainings, government workshops) on technology, patents, business strategy, legal developments, leadership & management.
