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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1 and 23. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, and 13-23 are pending.
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, 7-11 and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyama (EP 1612234) and further in view of Silvis (US 8,981,013).
Regarding Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 16-17
Miyama teaches a composition that contains a polyester resin, such as polyethylene terephthalate (Paragraph 17), which is comprised of the aromatic dicarboxylic acid terephthalic acid and ethylene units from ethylene glycol, a two carbon aliphatic diol, in addition to the option of using other diols that meet the range of the instant claim (Paragraph 17). Miyama also teaches that this composition includes a polyolefin (Paragraph 15), as well as a compatibilizer (Paragraph 25). With regard to the specific polyolefins, Miyama notes that the composition is not particularly limited in which olefin is used, but notes the usage of several types of polyethylene, including high density, low density, and linear low density (Paragraph 22). Miyama also teaches that the incorporation amount of the polyester in the total composition is preferably between 20 and 95% by weight (Paragraph 44), the total amount of polyolefin is most preferably between 10 and 50% by weight (Paragraph 45), and the compatibilizer is preferably between 0.1 and 20% by weight (Paragraph 46). The range of the compatibilizer is contained within the range of the instant claim, while the ranges of incorporation of the polyester and polyolefin would overlap with the range of the instant claim. Miyama notes that the level of incorporation of the polyolefin and polyester affect the moldability of the composition (Paragraphs 44 and 45) and that the compatibilizer should be within the listed range for cost and moldability reasons (Paragraph 46), providing the ordinarily skilled artisan with the motivation to adjust these levels in order to obtain the desired final material properties. As such, it would have been obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges because selection of the overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Miyama does not teach that the compatibilizer contains hydroxyl functional groups or a polyester. Silvis teaches a polyolefin that has been functionalized with an alkanolamine to yield a hydroxyl functionalized compatibilizer (Column 14, Lines 7-18) and further that the compatibilizer may be reacted with a second polymer by melt reaction (Column 25, Lines 16-19) and that the polymers suitable for this use includes polyesters (Column 25, Lines 35-49). Silvis states this can improve the compatibility of polyolefins with other polymers (Column 25, Lines 26-32). Miyama notes that the compatibilizer is not particularly limited and “in the light of improvement of a function of the resin composition, it is preferable to use a compatibilizer that is suitable for increasing reactivity, affinity and the like between the polyester resin and the PO resin, compatibilizing and alloying these resins, promoting a reaction between these resins, increasing the affinity therebetween, improving their dispersibility, controlling the appropriate forms thereof, and the like.” (Paragraph 25). Silvis notes, in particular, that the compatibilizer disclosed improves the compatibility and adhesion of mixtures of polymers, including polyolefins and polyesters (Column 12, Lines 45-49), that functionalization of a polyolefin improves the adhesion to polar polymers (Column 4 Lines 57-59), and also that polyolefins functionalized with amines, hydroxyl, or imide functionality have superior adhesion properties relative to anhydride or acid functionalized polyolefins (Column 4 Line 65-Column 5 Line 4). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art, motivated to improve the compatibility of the polyolefin and polyester in order to enhance the uniformity of the polymer blend, would seek to use a compatibilizer suited for this purpose. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have combined the compatibilizer taught by Silvis with the polymer composition of Miyama to obtain the predictable result of a more homogeneous polymer blend.
With regard to the polyethylene density, Miyama teaches that the type of polyethylene is not particularly limited, as noted above. While Miyama does not specifically enumerate the densities, by the disclosure of the use of both high and low density polyethylene, it would logically follow that the composition of Miyama would allow for the use of polyethylene polymers of the densities of the instant claim. Additionally, Silvis notes that typical densities of high density polyethylene are between 0.94 and 0.97 and low density polyethylene between 0.91 and 0.94, with examples being commercially available (Column 22, Lines 44-53). As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan, seeking to obtain a polymer blend containing polyethylene, would be motivated to use a commercially available polyethylene to reduce the cost of producing the blend. As such, it would have been obvious to have used any density of commercially available polyethylene in the blend.
Regarding the use of alkanolamines grafted to a polyolefin, Silvis teaches that the compatibilizer is prepared by grafting an amine reactive group to a polyolefin followed by reaction with an alkanolamine (Column 13, Lines 43-52), with preferred alkanol amines including 2-aminoethanol (ethanolamine), 2-amino-1-propanol, 3-amino-1-propanol, 2-amino-1-butanol, and 2-aminobenzyl alcohol (Column 13, Lines 53-56) meeting the requirements of the instant claim. Silvis uses ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acids such as maleic, fumaric, and (meth)acrylic acids, a variety of alkyl acrylates such as methyl and ethyl (meth)acrylate, vinyl benzyl halides such as bromo and chloro versions, and acid anhydrides such as maleic anhydride as the amine reactive group (Column 16, Lines 38-49). As Silvis teaches compatibilizers that do not contain glycidyl methacrylate as a component, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have utilized a compatibilizer that did not contain glycidyl methacrylate.
In regard to the base polymer used to create the compatibilizer, Silvis teaches that suitable polymers to be grafted include linear low-density polyethylene (Column 22, Lines 19-26).
Further, Silvis teaches that the compatibilizer can be reacted with a second polymer by melt reaction (Column 25, Lines 16-18) and that the compatibilizer, a polyolefin, and a thermoplastic that is reactive with the compatibilizer can be prepared to improv blending (Column 25, Lines 26-34) and that thermoplastics include polyesters (Column 25, Lines 35-49).
With regard to the first and second polyesters being the same, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a polymer would be most miscible with itself and it would logically follow that using a compatibilizer with both a functionalized polyolefin segment and a more polar polymer such as a polyester, using the identical polyester in the compatibilizer to that used as the polyester component of the composition would be most likely to improve the compatibility. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used identical first (as a composition component) and second polyesters (as part of the compatibilizer) in the composition.
Finally, in regard to the ratio between the polyolefin and the compatibilizer, Miyama in view of Silvis is silent. However, based upon the allowed incorporation amounts, Miyama in view of Silvis teaches amounts of the polyolefin and compatibilizer that would allow for this ratio to be used. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to the use the compatibilizer in amounts that afforded the desired properties in the final material, especially the prevention of segregated domains of the polyester and polyolefin. As such, the ordinarily skilled artisan would use an amount of compatibilizer that accomplished this. It would therefore have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected a ratio between the polyolefin and the compatibilizer within the range of the instant application to have obtained the desired properties in the final composition, including the prevention of phase segregation.
Regarding Claim 8,
Miyama teaches that the polyester component most preferably comprises 50-95% by weight of the composition (Paragraph 44), meeting the requirements of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 9,
Miyama teaches that the polyester resin may be comprised of terephthalic acid and diols such as ethylene glycol or 1,4-butanediol which would result in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) respectively (Paragraph 17) and can additionally be mixtures, such as PET and PBT (Paragraph 17) , meeting the requirements of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 10,
Miyama teaches that polyesters from recycled material may be used, particularly PET from bottles (Paragraph 19).
Regarding Claim 11,
Miyama teaches that the polyolefin comprise most preferably between 10 and 50% by weight of the composition (Paragraph 45) which Miyama states is for reasons of moldability of the composition as well as to adjust the stiffness of the molded substance (Paragraph 45). This range overlaps with the range of the instant claim. It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used the overlapping portion of the ranges because using the overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 13,
Miyama teaches the use of low density polyethylene (LDPE) (Paragraph 22). As noted above in regard to claim 1, commercially available LDPE has a density between 0.91 and 0.94 g/cm3 (Silvis Column 22, Lines 51-53).
Regarding Claim 14,
Miyama teaches a variety of polyolefins may be used, including copolymers (Paragraph 22), but does not explicitly enumerate a copolymer of ethylene and olefins containing 4-10 carbons. However, Silvis teaches the use of a variety of these polymers, including ethylene-1-octene and ethylene-1-butene copolymers (Column 5, Line 66-Column 6 Line 18). Additionally, Silvis teaches the use of a variety of these copolymers (Engage 8200, 8400, 7086, and 8100 from Dow Chemical among them) which have densities around 0.87 g/cm3 (Column 46, Lines 7-32) meeting the requirement of the instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would note that the composition of Miyama allows for the use of polyolefin copolymers in the polyester/polyolefin composition and would also note that Silvis describes improved compatibilizers for polyolefins to incorporate them with polar polymers, such as polyesters (Column 4, Line 54 to Column 5, Line 4) and specifically mentions copolymers of ethylene and alpha-olefins (Column 5, Lines 59-65) as the polyolefin component. It would therefore have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have combined the teachings of Miyama and Silvis to obtain the predictable result of a compatibilized polyester/polyolefin composition with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 15,
Miyama in view of Silvis teaches the composition of the instant claim. The listed material requirements such as shrinkage percentage, notched impact strength, and tensile modulus would all be affected by the composition of the composite, including both the constituents as well as their amounts. The material properties would necessarily arise from the composition of the material. Thus any composition identical to that used for the instant claim would necessarily have the identical physical properties. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19,
As noted above in regard to claim 1, Miyama teaches the use of a variety of densities of polyethylene, including HDPE and LLDPE. While Miyama is silent on the density values, as noted above in regard to claim 1, the densities of the instant claims are within the range of material that is commonly commercially available for HDPE and LLDPE (Silvis Column 22, Lines 44-53).
Regarding Claim 20,
Miyama teaches that the polyester resin is not particularly limited (Paragraph 17) and discloses the use of terephthalic acid and isophthalic acid (Paragraph 17) as well as the use of diethylene glycol (Paragraph 17). Miyama further teaches that any acid and glycol components may be used alone, or in combination (Paragraph 17). As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have utilized these components in combination to form a polyester.
Regarding Claim 21,
Miyama teaches that the preferred intrinsic viscosity of the polyester should be between 0.1 and 1 dl/g (Paragraph 20) and specifically uses polyethylene terephthalate with intrinsic viscosities of 0.65 and 0.70 dl/g in the examples (Paragraph 64), meeting the requirement of the instant claim. Miyama is silent on the melt flow index of the polyester. However, as Miyama discloses the use of polymers that meet all other requirements of the instant claim, it would logically follow that the polyester would possess a melt flow index value within the range disclosed. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 22,
Miyama in view of Silvis is silent on the amount of polyester incorporated into the compatibilizer. However, Silvis does note that the incorporation of a thermoplastic such as a polyester into the compatibilizer is useful for improving the overall blend compatibility (Column 25, Lines 26-29). It would logically follow that as the function of the compatibilizer is to improve the blending of the two dissimilar polymers to prevent segregation, the ordinarily skilled artisan would adjust the percentage of the compatibilizer that is comprised of each component in order to provide the effect of improved blending. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used any incorporation amount of polyester into the compatibilizer to have achieved this effect.
Regarding Claim 23,
Miyama teaches that the compatibilizer preferably comprises between 0.1 and 20% by weight of the composition (Paragraph 46), which is contained within the range of the instant claim. Further, Miyama teaches that the polyolefin comprises 10 to 50% by weight (Paragraph 45) and that the polyester comprises 50 to 95% by weight (Paragraph 44). Finally, Miyama teaches that additives may comprise as little as 1% by weight of the composition (Paragraph 47), which it would logically follow that the polymeric components would comprise up to 99% by weight, a range that overlaps with the range of the instant claim. Because of this, Miyama discloses a composition in which the combination of the polyester and polyolefin would total at least 77% by weight of the composition. Further, Miyama notes that the incorporation amounts of the polyester and polyolefin can be adjusted within the above ranges to adjust mechanical properties (Paragraph 44) and moldability (Paragraph 45) of the composition, affording the ordinarily skilled artisan the motivation to optimize their incorporation amounts within the stated ranges. It would therefore have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have set the total amount of the polyester and polyolefin to be greater than 77% by weight and it would further have been obvious to have selected the overlapping portions of the ranges because the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.1.
The ratio between the polyolefin and the compatibilizer is discussed above in regard to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
On page 7, the applicant states that Miyama does not teach the smaller range of the amended claims nor the ratio of polyolefin to compatibilizer and further states that Miyama “teaches away” from the use compatibilizers that do not contain glycidyl groups. The examiner disagrees. While Miyama does teach a broader range and does indeed prefer a higher incorporation level of the compatibilizer, Miyama still teaches amounts of compatibilizer down to 0.1% by weight and notes that the mechanical properties of the composition and moldability are the reasons for staying within the stated range. As the lower bound of the applicant’s range is within the range taught by Miyama, it would still have been obvious to have utilized any amount within the range, including the applicant’s narrowed range. While the applicant states that Miyama prefers glycidyl containing compatibilizers, the examiner points to paragraph 25 which states that “The compatibilizer used in the present invention is not limited particularly, and compatibilizers with any kinds of any structures can be used” which is not as limiting as the applicant’s statement suggests. The examiner notes that references must be considered for the totality of their teachings and not simply based upon exemplified examples or preferences. While Miyama does state preferences, the statement from paragraph 25 leaves open the possibility of using non-preferred compatibilizers and further Miyama lists other types of compatibilizers that do not utilize glycidyl methacrylates. Additionally, as Silvis was published several years after Miyama, the state-of-the-art for compatibilizers would have advanced, and the statements in paragraph 25 of Miyama would allow for the incorporation of these improved compounds in the composition. Furthermore, Miyama notes that compatibilizers can also include hydrogenated compounds such as a variety of polyolefins that can be “denatured” with acid anhydride groups (Paragraph 32), which form the basis of the compatibilizers taught by Silvis. As such, it would have been obvious to have substituted these compatibilizers for the improvements they provide.
On page 8, the applicant argues that Silvis includes glycidyl methacrylate as an option and thus does not teach its absence nor the ratios of the amended claims. The examiner does not disagree that Silvis does note that glycidyl methacrylate can be used. However, Silvis points to the use of hydroxyl and amine group containing modifications to the compatibilizer as improving the interactions of the polyolefin to more polar polymers with no mention of glycidyl methacrylate (Column 4, Lines 54-59), which would effectively serve to teach towards the use of these types of compatibilizer.
Finally, the applicant appears to be pointing towards unexpected results such as improvements in shrinkage. The examiner notes that this does not appear as a limitation in the claims and further that the table indicating these results does not seem to show a marked difference between the applicant’s exemplified examples and the comparative examples.
In summary, while the applicant has narrowed the range of incorporation of the compatibilizer and set a ratio between it and the polyolefin component, these changes still fall within the ranges taught in the prior art and while the applicant points towards preferences in Miyama, these preferences do not negate the totality of the teachings of the reference, which are not as limiting as the applicant suggests and do not prevent nor teach away from the use of compatibilizers that were subsequently developed by Silvis for the same purposes. As a result, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BERRO whose telephone number is (703)756-1283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/A.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1765
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights