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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 12, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-4, 6-12, 14-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson (US 2006/0094802 A1) in view of Krupinski (US 2012/0021238 A1). Qiao (Journal of Polymer Research 2024, 31, 111, 1-18), and O’Dell (US 4,499,137) are cited as evidentiary references.
Regarding claim 1, Gibson teaches an extrudable reinforced resin-containing composition comprising a lubricant composition (Abstract), which reads on the claimed “additive,” wherein the lubricant composition comprises:
An oxidized polyethylene wax constituent ([0048]), which is included in the lubricant composition in amounts ranging from about 5.0 to about 50 wt.% ([0064]), which reads on the claimed “at least one functionalized polymer”
An ester wax constituent ([0052]), which is included in the lubricant composition in amounts ranging from about 6.5 to about 60 wt. % ([0064]).
An amide wax constituent ([0058]), which is preferably a bisamide ([0059]),which is included in the lubricant composition in amounts ranging from about 6.5 to about 60 wt. % ([0064]), which reads on the claimed “at least one diamide”
Gibson differs from claim 1 because, while it teaches the use of an ester wax constituent as described above, it is silent with regard to the incorporation of a hydrogenated castor oil component.
In the same field of endeavor, Krupinski teaches a polymer composition containing polymer resin particles (Abstract), and the use of polymers which are also featured in the teachings of Gibson (c.f. polyvinyl chloride and polyethylene/polybutadiene copolymers featured in both Gibson at [0004] and [0049] and Krupinski at [0037]). Krupinski also teaches the incorporation of lubricants (c.f. [0080] of Krupinski and Abstract of Gibson), and teaches that, among others, ester waxes and hydrogenated castor oil are suitable lubricants for the formulation ([0080]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute hydrogenated castor oil in place of the ester wax taught by Gibson, as Krupinski teaches the two as lubricants useful for similar polymer compositions.
Regarding claim 2, Gibson teaches that the bisamide is formed from the condensation of a diamine with fatty acids ([0059]), which are carboxylic acids. Gibson teaches the use of ethylenediamine as an example diamine ([0059]), which is a C2 aliphatic diamine. Gibson teaches the use of stearic acid as an example fatty acid ([0059]), which is a C18 saturated, linear, unsubstituted carboxylic acid.
Regarding claim 3, Gibson teaches that the bisamide is formed from the condensation of a diamine with fatty acids ([0059]), which are carboxylic acids. Gibson teaches the use of ethylenediamine as an example diamine ([0059]), which is a linear C2 aliphatic diamine
Regarding claim 4, , Gibson teaches that the bisamide is formed from the condensation of a diamine with fatty acids ([0059]), which are carboxylic acids. Gibson teaches the use of stearic acid as an example fatty acid ([0059]), which is a C18 saturated, linear, unsubstituted carboxylic acid.
Regarding claim 6, Gibson teaches that the bisamide wax is included in the lubricant composition (which reads on the claimed “additive”) in amounts ranging from about 6.5 to about 60 wt. % ([0064]), which anticipates the claimed range of “35% to 90%.”
Regarding claim 7, Gibson teaches the incorporation of the oxidized polyethylene wax ([0048]). Oxidized polyethylene wax contains oxygenated polar functional groups (c.f. Qiao, p. 1, Introduction).
Regarding claim 8, Gibson teaches that the oxidized polyethylene wax has an acid number ranging from about 7 to about 20 mg KOH/g ([0051]).
Regarding claim 9, Gibson teaches the use of an oxidized polyethylene wax ([0048]).
Regarding claim 10, Gibson teaches that the oxidized polyethylene wax constituent is included in the lubricant composition in amounts ranging from about 5.0 to about 50 wt.% ([0064]).
Regarding claim 11, Gibson teaches the use of AC 316 oxidized polyethylene ([0051]) as one of two suitable commercially available oxidized polyethylene waxes. AC 316 has a softening point of 140°C (c.f. O’Dell col. 8, lines 33-34). The teachings of Gibson therefore anticipate the claimed range of “greater than 70°C.”
Regarding claim 12, Gibson teaches the use of an ester wax ([0052]) which are synthesized from starting chemicals ([0053]), and which therefore reads on the claimed “synthetic wax.”
Regarding claim 14, Gibson teaches that the ester wax component (which reads on the claimed “component C)” is incorporated in amounts ranging from about 6.5 to about 60 wt. % ([0064]).
Regarding claim 15, Gibson teaches that the bisamide wax is included in the lubricant composition in amounts ranging from about 6.5 to about 60 wt. % ([0064]) and that the oxidized polyethylene wax is included in the lubricant composition in amounts ranging from about 5.0 to about 50 wt.% ([0064]). The weight ratio of these two components may therefore range between 0.13 (6.5% bisamide and 50% oxidized polyethylene) and 12.0 (60% bisamide and 5% oxidized polyethylene).
Regarding claim 16, Gibson teaches that the lubricant composition may be formed by mixing solid materials together ([0073]).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Gibson teaches the formation of a composition containing the lubricant composition as well as a processing aid and a resin ([0074]), and teaches that the composition may be extruded into molding ([0003]), which reads on the claimed “binder composition.”
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson (US 2006/0094802 A1) in view of Krupinski (US 2012/0021238 A1), and further in view of Heinrichs (US 2007/0203272 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Gibson as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Gibson as modified teaches that the bisamide is formed from the condensation of a diamine with fatty acids ([0059]), and teaches the use of ethylenediamine ([0059]). Gibson teaches the use of stearic acid, but differs from claim 5 because it is silent with regard to the use of 12-hydroxystearic acid.
In the same field of endeavor, Heinrichs teaches a wax composition useful as a processing aid for thermoplastics (Abstract), which includes an amide wax which is the reaction product of an alkylenediamine with 12-hydroxystearic acid (Abstract). Heincrichs teaches that the alkylenediamine is preferably ethylenediamine ([0017]), and teaches that the inventive waxes are compatible with other industrially-available waxes ([0024]). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant claims to incorporate 12-hydroxystearic acid, as taught by Heinrichs, into the bisamide wax of Gibson for the purpose of forming a bisamide wax suitable for improving the processability of thermoplastics.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson (US 2006/0094802 A1) in view of Krupinski (US 2012/0021238 A1), and further in view of Demir (Journal of Applied Polymer Science 2013, 1948-1961).
Regarding claim 17, Gibson as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Gibson as modified teaches the use of the inventive formulation as an additive composition for polyvinylchloride (PVC) polymers ([0114]) and teaches that any common additives for PVC can be included in the formulation ([0115]). Gibson finally teaches that the other PVC additives may be combined with the inventive formulation prior to extrusion with the PVC resin ([0116]), thereby producing a lubricating formulation which also contains other PVC additives. Plasticizers, and particularly phthalate plasticizers, are known in the art to be a very common additive for PVC polymers (c.f. Demir, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate phthalate plasticizers into the lubricant formulation of Gibson for the purpose of creating an additive package suitable for PVC extrusion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that prior art documents Gibson and Krupinski cannot be combined because they are directed towards different types of resin. Applicant argues that Krupinski is more directly related to monomers copolymerizable with ethylene while Gibson contains a vinylic polymer, in particular a polyvinyl chloride. However, Gibson specifically states that polyvinyl chloride is merely the most preferred embodiment thereof, and that the resin is a vinyl based polymer which may include homopolymers, terpolymers, copolymers, etc., and specifically points out the use of ABS, which is a styrenic copolymer ([0042]). As stated by the applicant, Krupinski involves an interpolymer comprising styrenic polymer and a polyolefin and a second polymer which can be a polyolefin or a styrenic polymer. Styrene is a vinyl-based polymer, and overlaps with the materials in Gibson, as described above. Therefore, assuming arguendo that Krupinski is not sufficiently directed towards PVC formulations, Gibson is most broadly interpreted as including compositions which are not strictly PVC-based, and which include substantial overlap with the materials of Krupinski. Furthermore, both documents are directed towards extrudable, thermoplastic compositions (c.f. [0038] of Gibson and [0003] of Krupinski), and are therefore plainly relevant to a field where lubricants are commonly used (c.f. [0034] of Gibson and [0080] of Krupinski, where lubricants are indicated as important for each of the inventive compositions).
Furthermore, assuming arguendo that Gibson and Krupinski are non-analogous to one another, the analogous art test requires prior art documents to be analogous to the claimed invention; it is not required that the references be analogous art to each other (see MPEP 2141.01(a)).
Applicant next argues that the teachings of Gibson and Krupinski would not indicate the Applicant-recognized benefit of compatibilizing claimed components “A)” and “B).” However, the motivation or reason to combine the prior art references need not be the same as that of the Applicant’s. The reason to or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what is claimed, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by the Applicant. See MPEP 2144(IV). The combination of materials/amounts described by the combination of Gibson and Krupinski therefore render obvious the claimed composition regardless of whether the prior art documents recognize the benefit described by the Applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762