DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim(s) 1-16 are pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180362747 to Przybysz et al. in view of US2010/0317514 to Ohta et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Przybysz discloses a process to make a composition comprising a polyolefin (polyolefin A), and a compatibilizer [abstract] wherein the compatibilizer is premade [0053 – 0065] and further melt mixed with the remaining components [0088-0092]. The compatibilizer comprises a polyester [0012] (reading on polyester E), a polyolefin [0035] that is hydroxyl functionalized [0045] wherein transesterification occurs between the polyester and hydroxyl chain-end functionalized polyolefin product [0051]. Polyolefin A comprises polypropylene [0066] in an amount between 0-95 wt% [0083] (reading on 0 to 78 wt%); wherein the amount of functionalized polyolefin D is about 66% of the compatibilizer [Table 3] (reading on at least 50 wt%).
Przybysz does not particularly teach the amount of the compatibilizer bled C with respect to the resin is 40 to 88 wt%.
However, Ohta teaches a resin composition comprising polyester (A), polyolefin (B), and ingredient (C) as a capitalizing agent [Ohta, abstract] wherein component (C) is used preferably in amount of 1 to 50 wt% of the total weight of (A) and (B) [Ohta, 0057]. Ohta and Przybysz are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely compatibilized polyolefin/polyester compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of compatibilizer suggested by Ohta in Przybysz’s composition.
The motivation would have been that the amount of compatibilizer taught by Ohta is used contributes high compatibility, improved cohesive force, preferably appearance with asperities on the surface being suppressed [Ohta, 0057].
Regarding the total amount of polyolefin D with respect to the resin, and given 1-50 wt% compatibilizer [Ohta, 0057] and 66% of the compatibilizer is functionalized polyolefin D [Przybysz, Table 3] it is reasonably calculated the amount of polyolefin D is 0.66 – 33 wt% of the composition (i.e., 2 to 81 wt%).
Though the prior art range of compatibilizer blend C and polyolefin D with respect to the resin is not identical to the claimed range, it does overlap. It has been held that, where the claimed ranges of Polyester B amount, compatibilizer amount, and functionalized polyolefin D amount 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 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 2, Przybysz in view of Ohta teaches the process of claim 1 wherein additives are added to the composition [0100]. Przybysz is silent regarding when additives are added.
However, It has been held that the order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.)
Regarding Claim 4, Przybysz discloses a composition comprising a polyolefin (polyolefin A), and a compatibilizer [abstract] wherein the compatibilizer is premade [0053 – 0065] and further melt mixed with the remaining components [0088-0092]. The compatibilizer comprises a polyester [0012] (reading on polyester E), a polyolefin [0035] that is hydroxyl functionalized [0045] wherein transesterification occurs between the polyester and hydroxyl chain-end functionalized polyolefin product [0051]. Polyolefin A comprises polypropylene [0066] in an amount between 0-95 wt% [0083] (reading on 0 to 78 wt%); and the amount of functionalized polyolefin D is about 66% of the compatibilizer [Table 3] (reading on at least 50 wt%).
Przybysz does not particularly teach the amount of the compatibilizer bled C with respect to the resin is 40 to 88 wt%.
However, Ohta teaches a resin composition comprising polyester (A), polyolefin (B), and ingredient (C) as a capitalizing agent [Ohta, abstract] wherein component (C) is used preferably in amount of 1 to 50 wt% of the total weight of (A) and (B) [Ohta, 0057]. Ohta and Przybysz are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely compatibilized polyolefin/polyester compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of compatibilizer suggested by Ohta in Przybysz’s composition.
The motivation would have been that the amount of compatibilizer taught by Ohta is used contributes high compatibility, improved cohesive force, preferably appearance with asperities on the surface being suppressed [Ohta, 0057].
Regarding the total amount of polyolefin D with respect to the resin, and given 1-50 wt% compatibilizer [Ohta, 0057] and 66% of the compatibilizer is functionalized polyolefin D [Przybysz, Table 3] it is reasonably calculated the amount of polyolefin D is 0.66 – 33 wt% of the composition (i.e., 2 to 81 wt%).
Though the prior art range is not identical to the claimed range, it does overlap. It has been held that, where the claimed ranges of Polyester B amount, compatibilizer amount, and functionalized polyolefin D amount 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 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 5 and 7, Przybysz in view of Ohta teaches the composition of claim 4, wherein the obtained hydroxyl functionalized polyethylene was created using an alkanolamine such ethanolamine [0126].
Regarding Claim 8 and 9, Przybysz in view of Ohta teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein both the polyolefin block to be modified is polypropylene [0035] and the polyolefin A is polypropylene [0066].
Regarding Claim 10, Przybysz in view of Ohta teaches the process of claim 1, wherein polyester B is optional since claim language states “and/or” and “an amount of 0%” therefore any polyester will anticipate the limitation of polyester E, such as polyglycolide [0018].
Regarding Claim 11, Przybysz in view of Ohta teaches the process of claim 1 as set forth above wherein Polyolefin A is in an amount between 0-95 wt% [0083] and the total amount of functionalize polyolefin D and the quantity of polyolefin within the transesterified product in D is in an amount of up to 6.6 wt% of the resin composition thereby encompassing the claimed 80 wt%.
Though the prior art range is not identical to the claimed range, it does overlap. It has been held that, 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 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding Claim 12, Przybysz in view of Ohta teaches the process of claim 1, as set forth above wherein Polyester B comprises polycarbonate comprising ester functionalities [0080] in an amount of 95-5 wt% [0083] and amount of functionalized polyolefin E is about 33% of the compatibilizer [Table 3]. Therefore it is reasonably calculated using .01 to 10 wt% compatibilizer at 33% that the functionalized polyolefin E is in an amount of up to 3.3 wt% of the resin composition and the sum of polyester B and polyester E within the transesterified product with respect to the resin is between 5 and 98.3 wt% thereby encompassing the claimed 20 wt%.
Though the prior art range is not identical to the claimed range, it does overlap. It has been held that, 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 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding Claim 13, Przybysz in view of Ohta teaches the process of claim 1, wherein Table 5 shows Izod Impact strength of greater than 30 kJ/m2 reading on izod impact strength of at least 1.7 kJ/m2
Regarding Claim 14, Przybysz in view of Ohta teaches the process of claim 1, further teaching articles made therefrom the composition [abstract].
Regarding Claim 15, Przybysz discloses a process to make a composition comprising a polyolefin (polyolefin A), a polycarbonate (polyester B), and a compatibilizer [abstract] wherein the compatibilizer is premade [0053 – 0065] and further melt mixed with the remaining components [0088-0092]. The compatibilizer comprises a polyester [0012] (reading on polyester E), a polyolefin [0035] that is hydroxyl functionalized [0045] wherein transesterification occurs between the polyester and hydroxyl chain-end functionalized polyolefin product [0051]. Polyolefin A comprises polypropylene [0066] in an amount between 0-95 wt% [0083] (reading on 0 to 78 wt%); the polycarbonate comprising ester functionalities [0080] is in an amount of 5-95 wt% [0083] (reading on 12 to 19.92 wt% Polyester B); and the compatibilizer is in an amount from .01 to 10 wt% [0096] (reading on above 2 wt%), wherein the amount of functionalized polyolefin D is about 66% of the compatibilizer [Table 3] (reading on at least 50 wt%). Therefore it is reasonably calculated using .01 to 10 wt% compatibilizer at 66% that the functionalized polyolefin D is in an amount of up to 6.6 wt% of the resin composition (reading on 2 to 81 wt%).
Przybysz is silent regarding the polyester B is selected from PET and PBT.
However, Ohta teaches a resin composition comprising polyester (A), polyolefin (B), and ingredient (C) as a compatibilizing agent [Ohta, abstract] wherein polyester (A) is preferably PED or PBT [0039]. Ohta and Przybysz are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely compatibilized polyolefin/polyester compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polyester suggested by Ohta in Przybysz’s composition.
The motivation would have been that PET or PBT are able to copolymerization to cause the resin to have a high molecular weight, and to securely provide the resin with strength acceptable in practical use [Ohta, 0039].
Przybysz does not particularly teach the amount of the compatibilizer bled C with respect to the resin is 40 to 88 wt%.
However, Ohta teaches a resin composition comprising polyester (A), polyolefin (B), and ingredient (C) as a capitalizing agent [Ohta, abstract] wherein component (C) is used preferably in amount of 1 to 50 wt% of the total weight of (A) and (B) [Ohta, 0057]. Ohta and Przybysz are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely compatibilized polyolefin/polyester compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of compatibilizer suggested by Ohta in Przybysz’s composition.
The motivation would have been that the amount of compatibilizer taught by Ohta is used contributes high compatibility, improved cohesive force, preferably appearance with asperities on the surface being suppressed [Ohta, 0057].
Though the functionalized polyolefin D, Polyester B, and Compatibilizer blend C prior art range is not identical to the claimed range, it does overlap. It has been held that, where the claimed ranges of Polyester B amount, compatibilizer amount, and functionalized polyolefin D amount 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 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 16, Przybysz discloses a process to make a composition comprising a polyolefin (polyolefin A), and a compatibilizer [abstract] wherein the compatibilizer is premade [0053 – 0065] and further melt mixed with the remaining components [0088-0092]. The compatibilizer comprises a polyester [0012] (reading on polyester E), a polyolefin [0035] that is hydroxyl functionalized [0045] wherein transesterification occurs between the polyester and hydroxyl chain-end functionalized polyolefin product [0051]. Polyolefin A comprises polypropylene [0066] in an amount between 0-95 wt% [0083] (reading on 0 to 78 wt%); wherein the amount of functionalized polyolefin D is about 66% of the compatibilizer [Table 3] (reading on at least 50 wt%).
Przybysz does not particularly teach the amount of the functionalized polyolefin D with respect to the resin is 20 to 50.5 wt% or the amount of the compatibilizer bled C with respect to the resin is 40 to 88 wt%.
However, Ohta teaches a resin composition comprising polyester (A), polyolefin (B), and ingredient (C) as a compatibilizing agent [Ohta, abstract] wherein component (C) is used preferably in amount of 1 to 50 wt% of the total weight of (A) and (B) [Ohta, 0057]. Ohta and Przybysz are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely compatibilized polyolefin/polyester compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of compatibilizer suggested by Ohta in Przybysz’s composition.
The motivation would have been that the amount of compatibilizer taught by Ohta is used contributes high compatibility, improved cohesive force, preferably appearance with asperities on the surface being suppressed [Ohta, 0057].
Regarding the total amount of functionalized polyolefin D with respect to the resin, and given 1-50 wt% compatibilizer [Ohta, 0057] and 66% of the compatibilizer is functionalized polyolefin D [Przybysz, Table 3] it is reasonably calculated the amount of polyolefin D is 0.66 – 33 wt% of the composition (i.e., 2 to 81 wt%).
Though the prior art range of compatibilizer blend C and polyolefin D with respect to the resin is not identical to the claimed range, it does overlap. It has been held that, where the claimed ranges of Polyester B amount, compatibilizer amount, and functionalized polyolefin D amount 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 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180362747 to Przybysz et al. in view of US2010/0317514 to Ohta et al. further in view of US8981013 to Silvis et al.
Regarding Claim 3, Przybysz in view of Ohta teaches the process of claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference and further teaches the composition is extruded [0128] and notes improved compatibilisation [0130].
Przybysz is silent regarding the extrusion step producing granules or pellets.
However, Silvis teaches compositions derived from functionalized olefin polymers [title] wherein the composition is extruded to form pellets [col 56 lines 34-40]. Przybysz and Silvis are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely compatibilized resin compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make Silvis’s pellets with Przybysz’s composition, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation to combine Silvis with Przybysz’s is to be able to store the material and extrude into a sheet [col 56 lines 41-45]material to supply into the injection molding device to prepare a test piece for evaluation. [0073].
Regarding Claim 6, Przybysz in view of Ohta teaches the composition of claim 4 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Przybysz is silent regarding the amine-reactive group selected from the group of claim 6.
However, Silvis teaches an amine-reactive group [Col 16, lines 28-38] such as methacrylic acid [col 16, 48-54]. Przybysz and Silvis are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely compatibilized resin compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the amine-reactive group of Przybysz’s with Silvis’s methacrylic acid thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation would have been that it has been held that it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); and MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, Silvis shows that methacrylic acid is known in the art to be suitable for an amine-reactive group.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states it would not have been obvious to use the amount of compatibilizer suggested by Ohta in Przybysz’s composition because Ohta’s compatibilizer is significantly different as its ester bonds are optional and pendent from polymerized vinyl monomers. Furthermore applicant states one skilled in the art would consider that the proposed amounts are specifically related to the compositions and compatibilizers disclosed in Ohta.
In response, it is noted that the rejections set forth above use Przybysz to teach the specific compatibilizer blend of the instant claims, and Ohta is used only to teach the amount of compatibilizer that is ideal to compatibilize a polyester and polyolefin. Ohta and Przybysz both teach polyolefin/polyester compositions with a focus on compatibilization, and Przybysz teaches the compatibilizer range of 1-50 wt% has the advantages of high compatibility, an improved cohesive force, preferably appearance with asperities on the surface being suppressed can be obtained [Ohta, 0057]. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Ohta’s compatibilization range to compatibilize a polyester and polyolefin composition.
Applicant states one skilled in the art would be motivated to select an amount of compatibilizer within the range described as preferably, to best alight with the disclosed examples.
In response, attention is drawn to the case law as set forth above, wherein it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges (i.e. compatibilizer range) including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING whose telephone number is (703)756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764