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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/8/2026 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
Please find attached a corrected IDS with a receipt date of 2/2/2023. The title for NPL Cite # 7 appeared to be incorrect in the original document.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/213,429 and 63/238,655, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The ‘429 and ‘655 provisionals fail to recite the various ranges of properties/characteristics corresponding to polyolefin feedstock and second polyolefin melt or do not fully support the broader ranges claimed. For example, a first molecular weight distribution of greater than 5.0, a weight average molecular weight greater than or equal to 85,000, or a melt elasticity greater than or equal to 0.5 is not found within the provisionals. Also for example, the present claims recites a ratio of densities greater than or equal to 1.0, but the provisionals do not provide written support. Therefore, the provisionals do not provide adequate written support for the subject matter claimed. Claims 2-16 depend from claim 1 and therefore contain all the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, claims 1-16 are construed as having a filing date of 6/21/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), as being anticipated by Camilo (US 2022/0153883 A1) as evidenced by Qenos (“General Properties – Technical Guide).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, and 4, Camilo teaches decreasing the viscosity of polyethylene-resins via melting and viscosity-reduction steps at temperatures greater than 350 degrees C (Abstract). Camilo teaches examples where a recycled LLDPE with a density of 0.93 g/cm3, melt index of 1.8 g/10min, Mw of 128,900, and Mw/Mn of 5.45 is provided and melted/processed within an extruder to provide a second polyethylene melt with a Mw of 13,600 and Mw/Mn of 3.13 (¶ 115, 123-126). NOTE: there is an obvious error within Tables 1 and 4 where RPE1 is labelled as HDPE and RPE2 is labelled as LLDPE; of which the labels being switched would be seen as the recognizable correction by one of ordinary skill. See for instance Examples 3-5 and Figures 20-26 which repeatedly refer to RPE1 as LLDPE. RPE1 is also clearly illustrated as having a narrower PDI than RPE2 within Figure 19, which is consistent with RPE1 being a LLDPE. The chain scission / viscosity reduction at high temperatures reads on visbreaking. The protocol of ¶ 123-126 consists of visbreaking via thermal visbreaking. The second Mw/Mn to first Mw/Mn ratio is 0.57. The second Mw to first Mw ratio is 0.11.
With respect to ER, melt elasticity for polyethylenes depends primarily on molecular weight distribution and branching (Page 16 of Qenos). Since Camilo describes the same molecular weights, molecular weight distribution, and branching characteristics (both are LLDPEs; see Page 6 of Qenos), it stands to reason the same melt elasticity characteristics are present in the absence of evidence to the contrary. While Camilo does not explicitly set forth the density change (if any), MFR change, or ER change, Camilo nevertheless describes the same protocol, using the same type of polyolefins (LLDPE), with the same molecular weight and distribution characteristics. Accordingly, the position is taken that such features are intrinsically present within the disclosure of Camilo in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 2, Camilo teaches post-consumer and post-industrial plastics (¶ 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Camilo notes a greater than 10% decrease in intrinsic viscosity (Table 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Camilo teaches withdrawing the melt product from extruder (¶ 123-125). Further processing/pelletizing is described (¶ 75-76).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camilo (US 2022/0153883 A1) as evidenced by Qenos (“General Properties – Technical Guide).
Camilo teaches decreasing the viscosity of polyethylene-resins via melting and viscosity-reduction steps at temperatures greater than 350 degrees C (Abstract). Camilo teaches examples where a recycled LLDPE with a density of 0.93 g/cm3, melt index of 1.8 g/10min, Mw of 128,900, and Mw/Mn of 5.45 is provided and melted/processed within an extruder to provide a second polyethylene melt with a Mw of 13,600 and Mw/Mn of 3.13 (¶ 115, 123-126). NOTE: there is an obvious error within Tables 1 and 4 where RPE1 is labelled as HDPE and RPE2 is labelled as LLDPE; of which the labels being switched would be seen as the recognizable correction by one of ordinary skill. See for instance Examples 3-5 and Figures 20-26 which repeatedly refer to RPE1 as LLDPE. RPE1 is also clearly illustrated as having a narrower PDI than RPE2 within Figure 19, which is consistent with RPE1 being a LLDPE. The chain scission / viscosity reduction at high temperatures reads on visbreaking. The protocol of ¶ 123-126 consists of visbreaking via thermal visbreaking. The second Mw/Mn to first Mw/Mn ratio is 0.57. The second Mw to first Mw ratio is 0.11.
With respect to ER, melt elasticity for polyethylenes depends primarily on molecular weight distribution and branching (Page 16 of Qenos). Since Camilo describes the same molecular weights, molecular weight distribution, and branching characteristics (both are LLDPEs; see Page 6 of Qenos), it stands to reason the same melt elasticity characteristics are present in the absence of evidence to the contrary. While Camilo does not explicitly set forth the density change (if any), MFR change, or ER change, Camilo nevertheless describes the same protocol, using the same type of polyolefins (HDPE), with the same molecular weight and distribution characteristics. Accordingly, the position is taken that such features are intrinsically present within the disclosure of Camilo in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Camilo teaches the process may further comprise injecting supercritical CO2 (construed as scavenging gas) with withdrawal to remove volatile low molecular weight components, such as peroxide residues or byproducts (i.e. organics), the devolatilization steps occurring during melting/visbreaking (¶ 74-75). While not quantifying the amount of VOCs prior to and after extrusion, it is nonetheless implied the relative amount of gas used is a result effective variable subject to routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art. Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover workable or optimal quantities of gas within the scope of the present claims so as to produce a desirable VOC removal, such as 10% or more.
Claim(s) 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camilo (US 2022/0153883 A1) in view of De Vogel (WO 2022/133008 A1) as evidenced by Qenos (“General Properties – Technical Guide).
The discussion regarding Camilo and Qenos within ¶ 15-17 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 9-12, Camilo teaches the resulting polyethylenes find many applications, including as an additive in polymers compositions or modifier (¶ 77-78, 84-86). Camilo differs from the subject matter claimed in that particular polyolefin compositions are not described.
De Vogel also pertains to applications pertaining to visbroken recycled polyethylenes (Abstract; Examples) and notes visbroken recycled polyethylenes can be utilized in polyolefin compositions comprising copolymer, tackifier, and optionally at least one additional polymer gives favorable increases in MFR and mechanical properties while bringing sustainable economical solutions to the market (¶ 15-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the visbroken polyolefins of Camilo into the compositions of De Vogel because doing so would achieve compositions with favorable MFR and mechanical properties while being eco-friendly as taught by De Vogel.
De Vogel teaches visbroken polymer is extruded to form product, which is then melt blended with other polyolefin blend component within an extruder to form a polyolefin product (¶ 205, 208, 211, 217). Additional polymers can be virgin materials such as HDPE (¶ 128, 213).
Regarding Claim 13, De Vogel teaches 60-96 wt% of recyclate product and 1-60 wt% of additional polymer (Abstract; ¶ 124), suggesting overlapping ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and De Vogel suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of De Vogel. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claim 14, De Vogel teaches embodiments where compounding of recyclate takes place within an extruder at 145-170 degrees C (¶ 273).
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, De Vogel teaches embodiments where additional polymers are added via masterbatches using carrier polymers such as virgin HDPE (¶ Abstract; ¶ 108-109). The masterbatches are formed via adding/melting within an extruder, withdrawing the melt to form masterbatch, and then adding masterbath to extruder with recyclate (¶ 270-273).
Double Patenting
Claims 1-4, 7, and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,976,183. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Although ‘183 does not have the same assignee, ‘183 shares common inventors (Harilaos Mavridis and Gerhardus Meier).
Specifically, claims 1-5 of ‘183 pertain to a process of thermally visibreaking polyethylenes such as recyclates within an extruder. The starting polyethylene has a density of 0.91-0.94 g/cm3, melt index of 0.1-3 g/10 min, a Mw/Mn of 4-15, a Mw from 100,000-350,000 g/mol and a ER of 1.8-8 (Claims 1, 4). The visibreaking produces a product with a density of 0.91-0.94 g/cm3, a melt index of 1 or higher, a Mw/Mn of 3-18, a Mw from 60,000-180,000, and ER of 1-4 (Claims 1 and 8). LLDPE can be used in feedstock (Claim 6). The visbreaking occurs at temperatures of 280 degrees C or more (Claim 2) and thus, the recyclate is melted. The range of values within the ‘183 claims implies overlapping ranges. With respect to claim 7, the ‘183 patent describes high load MFR ratio of 2-7 in initial polymer and greater than 1.5 within obtained polymer (Claim 1), which implies I21 ratios that overlap those claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and the ‘183 patent suggests the claimed ranges. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of the ‘183 patent. See MPEP 2123.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,976,183 in view of Camilo (US 2022/0153883 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The discussion regarding ‘183 within ¶ 27-28 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, the claims of ‘183 differ from the subject matter claimed in that removal of VOC via scavenging gas is not described. Camilo is also directed toward decreasing the viscosity of recycled polyethylene-resins via melting and viscosity-reduction / visbreaking (Abstract; Examples). Camilo teaches the process may further comprise injecting supercritical CO2 (construed as scavenging gas) with withdrawal to remove volatile low molecular weight components, such as peroxide residues or byproducts (i.e. organics), the devolatilization steps occurring during melting/visbreaking (¶ 74-75). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to inject CO2 / withdraw VOCs according the protocol of Camilo because doing so would remove organic/peroxide byproducts in accordance with the teachings of Camilo.
While not quantifying the amount of VOCs prior to and after extrusion, it is nonetheless implied the relative amount of gas used is a result effective variable subject to routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art. Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover workable or optimal quantities of gas within the scope of the present claims so as to produce a desirable VOC removal, such as 10% or more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant generally argues any properties described in the instant specification, but not set forth within the provisional are inherent. This is not found persuasive. Applicant has failed to identify any factual evidence showing all LLDPE recyclate feedstocks and/or visibroken feedstocks within the scope of the disclosure would necessarily exhibit the properties at issue. The fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic. See MPEP 2163.07(a). Mere statements that the subject matter pertains to chemical compositions is not evidence explaining why such characteristics are necessarily present within the provisionals.
The examiner has made a reasonable showing by a preponderance of evidence why a person skilled in the art would not recognize in an applicant’s disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. MPEP 2163.04. Applicant argues the examiner has failed to present evidence to support the conclusion that such properties are not inherent, but the examiner has no such burden. Rather, if it is applicant’s position that such properties are inherent to the disclosure, it is applicant’s burden to come forward with evidence showing such features are necessarily present within the provisional. Applicant’s examples regarding water and singular chemical compounds are irrelevant as the claims do not pertain to water or to singular chemical compounds.
With respect to Camilo, Applicant argues cited portions within the rejection are not set forth within Camilo’s provisionals, which render the effective date of the material relied upon to be 11/15/2021. This is not found persuasive as 11/15/2021 predates the effective filing date of the present claims: 6/21/2022 (see the “Priority” section above). Therefore, Camilo would still constitute prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(2). Moreover, Camilo remains prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as Camilo’s publication date of 5/19/2022 predates the 6/21/2022 filing date of the claims.
With respect to the presented ODP rejection, Applicant argues U.S. Pat. No. 11,976,183 is not prior art. This is not found persuasive as a double patenting reference that contains conflicting claims need not qualify as prior art. See MPEP 804.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571)272-1166. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759