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 Status
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, and 16-23 are pending. Claims 4, 12, and 14-15 were previously cancelled. Claim 9 has been previously withdrawn. No claims have been amended, and no new matter has been introduced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 9-10, filed 05/21/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-11, 20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hjertberg et. al. (EP 2690115 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection over Hjertberg has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see p. 7-9, filed 05/21/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-11, and 16-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Naumovitz et. al. (US 2013/0233383 A1), in view of Kazuo et al (US 4,732,939 A) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Naumovitz teaches a composition comprising silane grafted ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymers and sterically hindered phenol stabilizers [p. 0183]. Naumovitz teaches the composition is pelletized and fed into a film extruder for film casting, wherein the prepared film is stored in an aluminum bag to avoid UV-radiation and moisture [p. 0186]. Naumovitz is silent with respect to transferring polymer pellets to a container with at least one barrier layer.
Kazuo teaches silane-grafted ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymers, when stored as a material, are required to be kept in a bag having an aluminum lining, in order to prevent undesirable crosslinking before use due to water absorption [c. 9, ll. 27-30]. Kazuo exemplifies storing pellets of the copolymers in sealed aluminum-laminated bags, prior to the compounding the copolymers with hydrated metal compounds.
The examiner disagrees with applicants arguments that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not look to Kazuo because Kazuo teaches a composition that is not transparent. Kazuo is directed toward a similar composition as the one taught by Naumovitz, and Kazuo is relied upon for the teaching that silane-grafted ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymers need to be stored in a bag having aluminum lining to prevent premature crosslinking. In light of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to store pellets (or films) of such copolymers in aluminum lined bags as avoiding premature crosslinking is obviously beneficial.
Applicants argue that there is no suggestion in Kazuo that the pellets were stored for at least 8 days or transported in bags, as they are intermediates that would be expected to be used shortly after production. The examiner agrees that the copolymers are the base resins for a variety of compositions prepared by Kazuo. However, the examiner disagrees that the copolymer ‘intermediates’ would be expected to be used shortly after production. Kazuo teaches the materials should be stored in sealed aluminum bags and does not place a limitation on length of storage [c. 9, ll. 27-30]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to store pellets of the composition of Naumovitz in aluminum-lined bags for transport or an extended length of time.
Applicants argue, “The Examples in the present application demonstrate that there is an unexpected technical effect associated with the specific combination of the two stabilizing measures according to claim 1, namely a barrier layer and a stabilizer: measure by itself does not provide long-term stabilization of the polymer composition claimed; when both measures are present, there is an over-additive effect on the long-term stability of the composition.
The skilled person would not expect this surprising technical effect from Naumovitz and Kazuo: in Naumovitz, pellets comprising a sterically hindered phenol are not placed in a lined container; in Kazuo, the compositions placed in a lined container do not comprise a sterically hindered phenol. The cooperative effect demonstrated by the present application could not have been predicted from the cited prior art.”
Applicants argue that the application demonstrates an unexpected synergistic effect from combining both stabilizing measures according to claim 1. Applicants recite, “As disclosed in the specification, Table 3 shows that with stabilizer alone (e.g., CE4 or CE5) in an LDPE bag, MFR loss is 45% and 29% after 15 days, respectively. Table 4 shows that with a barrier layer alone (CE3b), MFR loss is 14% after 35 days. However, for both measures (IE1 and IE2), MFR loss is essentially zero after 53 days.” Applicants examples IE1 and IE2 were both stored in aluminum-lined bags. IE1 comprises 0.95 wt. % alkyltrialkoxysilane (Hexadecyltrimethoxysilane; HDTMS) stabilizer, and IE2 comprises 0.1 wt. % of a sterically hindered phenol stabilizer (Pentaerythritol tetrakis(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyhydrocinnamate); Irganox 1010; AO1). After 53 days, the MFR of IE1 is unchanged (0.49 g/10 min) and the MFR increases 14.3% (0.49 to 0.56 g/10 min) [table 1, 2, and 4]. Applicants showing is not commensurate in scope with the claimed stabilizers as there is no showing to support a composition comprising an alkenyltrialkoxysilane undergoing no MFR loss over 53 days. Furthermore, applicants showing only provides evidence for compositions stored in aluminum lined bags, a species of containers with a metal barrier layer, and does not support all of the barrier layers of claim 1. Therefore, the results applicant provide, which appear unexpected for the limited example(s), do not correspond to the full scope of the claims. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." See MPEP 716.02(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-11, and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Naumovitz et. al. (US 2013/0233383 A1), in view of Kazuo et al (US 4,732,939 A).
Naumovitz et. al. teaches a method of preparing a polymer composition from peroxide-initiated grafting of vinyl trimethoxysilane to copolymers prepared from ethylene and 1-octene [instant claims 1, 5, 11, 19 & 20; p. 0162, 0168, table 1, p. 0183].
The ethylene-octene copolymers taught by Naumovitz et. al. have a melt index of 0.5 to 4.3 g/ 10 min (190°C / 2.16 kg) and a density of 868 to 876 kg/ m3, which lies within the ranges of claims 1, 17, and 18 [table 1]. Naumovitz et. al. exemplifies the preparation of a silane-grafted copolymer composition having a final silane content of 1.6% by weight, which lies within the ranges of claims 7 and 22 [p. 0202]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The polymer composition taught by Naumovitz et. al. comprise stabilizers, including sterically hindered phenols such as Irganox 1076 and Irganox 1010 (Irganox 1010 = Pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)propionate); Irganox 1076 = Octadecyl 3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)propionate) [instant claims 1 & 6; p. 0183, 0153].
Naumovitz teaches the composition is pelletized and fed into a film extruder for film casting, wherein the prepared film is stored in an aluminum bag to avoid UV-radiation and moisture [claims 1, 2, 3 & 16; p. 0186]. Naumovitz is silent with respect to transferring polymer pellets to a container with at least one barrier layer.
Kazuo teaches a flame-retardant olefin composition consisting mainly of a silane-grafted ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymer, having an average density of 0.890 to 0.915 g/cm-3 [abstract]. Kazuo teaches silane-grafted polymers, when stored as a material, are required to be kept in a bag having an aluminum lining, in order to prevent undesirable crosslinking before use due to water absorption; wherein the composition has been sealed in a dry container for three months with no problems [c. 9, ll. 27-30]. Kazuo further exemplifies the silane grafted ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymers being extruded into pellets and stored separately in a sealed aluminum-laminated bag to isolate from external moisture. They were taken out from the respective bags, when necessary, in required amounts [c. 10, ll. 50-55].
In light of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to store the polymer pellets of Naumovitz in sealed aluminum laminated bags in order to prevent undesirable crosslinking from water absorption, as Kazuo teaches this method of storage allows polymer pellets of a similar composition to be stored for up to 3 months without a degradation in polymer properties.
Regarding claim 8; Naumovitz et. al. exemplifies the use of 0.01 wt. % Irganox 1076 and 97.34 wt. % of ethylene-octene copolymer to prepare silane-grafted copolymers (Irganox 1076 = Octadecyl 3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)propionate) [p. 0183, example 6, table 6]. Although the Irganox 1076 and copolymer are included in amounts that anticipate their respective claimed ranges, the composition of Naumovitz et. al. includes additional stabilizers [table 6], whereas the claimed invention limits the composition to comprising only A and B, as the total amount of A and B must equal 100 wt. %.
Naumovitz et. al. teaches phenolic antioxidants, including Irganox 1010, may comprise 0.02 to 0.06 wt. % of the compounded polymeric composition and the polymeric composition may comprise less than 10 percent by the combined weight of one or more such additives, based on the weight of the ethylenic polymer [p. 0153]. In addition, Naumovitz et. al. teaches residual peroxide, after chemical crosslinking, can promote oxidation and degradation of polymers, and antioxidants can help stabilize the polymers [p. 0006, 0009].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the phenolic antioxidant in the ranges taught by Naumovitz et. al. to deter oxidation and degradation of a polymeric composition prepared by peroxide-initiated grafting of a vinyl trimethoxysilane to an ethylenic polymer .
Claim 21 only limits claim 6 when the stabilizer is alkyltrialkoxysilane. The applicants elected the sterically hindered phenol stabilizer in the reply filed on December 19, 2024.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naumovitz et. al. (US 2013/0233383 A1), in view of Kazuo et al (US 4,732,939 A), and further in view of Allerman (US 7,153,571 B2).
As discussed above, Naumovitz et. al. teaches phenolic stabilizers, including Irganox 1076 and Irganox 1010, may comprise 0.01 to 10 wt. % of the polymeric composition, which reads over the claimed range for component (B) [p. 0153, 0183, and table 6]. Naumovitz et. al. also discloses the storage of the polymeric composition in an aluminum bag to avoid UV-radiation and moisture [p. 0186]. Naumovitz et. al. discloses melt indices of prepared ethylene-octene copolymers range from 0.5 to 4.3 g/ 10 min (190°C / 2.16 kg) and density ranges from 868 to 876 kg/ m3 [table 1]. However, Naumovitz et. al. is silent with respect to the melt indices of the copolymers after grafting with vinyl trimethoxysilane.
Allerman teaches the peroxide-initiated grafting of vinyl trimethoxysilane to ethylenic polymers in the presence of Irganox 1706 [c. 24, lines 30-40]. Allerman teaches the melt indices of ethylenic polymers are minimally impacted by silane grafting as exemplified by: 1.0 to 1.0, 2.0 to 1.96, and 2.3 to 2.31 (g/ 10 min); before and after grafting, respectively, as measured at 190°C / 2.16 kg [c. 22, lines 45-55; table 6; table 11].
In light of this, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the copolymers of Naumovitz et. al. would satisfy the claimed range of 0.1 to 20.0 g/ 10 min as, prior to grafting, the copolymers of Naumovitz et. al. ranged from 0.5 to 4.3 g/ 10 min and Allerman demonstrated the minimal impact of vinyl trimethoxy silane grafting on melt indices of ethylenic polymers.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLEY GRACE HESTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM -5:00PM.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571) 272-1302. 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.
/HOLLEY GRACE HESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights