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 .
Response to Arguments
In view of applicant’s response, 112 1st paragraph rejection is withdrawn. The amendment to the claims dated 12/5/2025 incorporates limitation “wherein antiblock agent(s) has been encapsulated by the slip agent using spray tower”.
The amendment does not overcome prior art of record because limitation “using a spray tower” is a process limitation, wherein patentable weight in a composition is given to the product and not process by which it was made. Consequently, rejection over Semen is maintained and incorporated here by reference.
With respect to Luers, while examples disclose 70:30 ratio, the amount of organic component can be 10-65 wt.% based on the weight of the entire composition (col. 1, l. 55-60). The examiner would like to note that examples do not in any way limit the teachings of the prior art to only examples, and entirety of the prior art should be considered. However, the reference will be withdrawn because Luers does not disclose range for silica and when amounts from the examples is used, that amount does not meet the claimed ratio.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Semen (WO 2008/103560).
With respect to claims 1 and 2, Semen discloses polymer additive granules formed by mixing silica powder (antiblocking agent) and fatty component (slip agent) to form a preblend. The preblend is combined with at least one polymer additive to form granules (Abstract).
The combination of silica and slip agent form a synergistic densification of the feed powder resulting from pre-blending because fatty derivative components coats silica particles, in turn the coating densifies silica [0017]. The fatty component in the preblend is preferably 15-95 wt. % [0018]. Silica content is in a range of 15-50 wt. % [0026].
With respect to claim 3, Examples disclose use of silica Sylbloc 150 which has particle size of 150 microns before it is coated by the slip agent. As such the particle sizes of the coated silica are from 150 microns to 8 mesh [0041]. Claim 4 of Semen further states that the particle sizes and granule sizes are pre-selected, which mean one can choose the particle size that is needed. Sylbloc 250 is also a silica utilized in the instant invention and melt processed with fatty amide which is also the process of the instant invention. Combined with statement in Semen that one of ordinary skill in the art can preselect particle size the particle size of Semen will encompass particle size of the instant invention.
With respect to claim 4, slip agents are selected from primary and secondary amides [0015], wherein examples include oleamide, stearamide and erucamide (Table 1, [0036]).
With respect to claim 5, antiblocking agent is silica (see examples).
With respect to claim 6, the other components added to the additive include antioxidants, acid neutralizers, stabilizers, nucleating agents, antistatic agents, lubricants Semen’s claim 7).
With respect to claims 7 and 8, which requires use of the additive in amount of 0.05-0.5% by weight of the polymer in the composite, wherein the polymer is LLDPE, LDPE, PP and EVA. The amount in which the additive is used, is intended use and a future use and not further limiting the additive itself. The type of polymer to which the additive is added is also not limiting with respect to the additive itself. Semen does disclose that the powder formed is an additive to meant for use in manufacture of polymer parts as such the additive is added to the polymer. Consequently type of polymer and amount in which the additive is used to make polymer parts is non-limiting with respect to the additive itself.
With respect to claims 9-13 and 15-18, are directed to the physical properties of the future composition comprising polymer and the additive. These properties are not the properties of the additive itself as such claims are non-limiting. Alternatively, these properties are viewed as inherent because compounds and their properties are mutually exclusive and inseparable. Specifically, instant invention discloses use of silica and erucamide which are the same ingredients as those of the instant invention (see instant example 1). In specification as originally filed, the silica includes Sylbloc 250 which is also the same tradename utilized in Semen. The fatty amide is erucamide and the content of silica to erucamide in 50:50 ratio is also clearly envisaged. As such not only the type of slip agents and antiblocking agents are the same but also the ratio in which they are utilized. As such the properties are inherent.
With respect to claims 14 and 19, the silica powder is mixed with fatty component, wherein fatty component can be in form of solid powder or it can be melted [0015] utilizing equipment such as extruder [0021]. In fact Semen teaches away from using additive in form of a liquid. Preblend is then granulated [0023]. The formation of the granules is facilitated by using spray method to (method 3) [0021].
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 5712701046. 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.
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 January 3, 2025