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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 14, 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, 3-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenna (US 2014/0272207 A1) in view of Stabler (CN 108025280 A, hereinafter referring to US 10,464,042 B2 as the English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, McKenna teaches an absorbent strip containing adsorbent particles and a polymer binder (Abstract). The adsorbent particles read on the claimed “zeolite crystals” because McKenna teaches that the adsorbent particles may be zeolites ([0020]), and that the zeolites comprise the crystalline component of the optional zeolite particles (col. 11, lines 30-31). McKenna does not require the zeolite crystals are in any aggregated form, and describes them as particles; therefore, the zeolite crystals of McKenna read on the claimed “free crystals.” The polymer binder reads on the claimed “polymeric compatibilizer” because the instant Specification states that the compatibilizer is a polymer (see instant Specification at [0024]). Mckenna teaches that the polymer binder may be polyethylene ([0020]), which reads on the claimed “polyolefin,” and embodiments wherein the composition contains no more than 20%, 15%, 10%, 5%, and 2% binder ([0026]), all of which anticipate the claimed range of “from 0.5% to 20% by weight.” The polyethylene of McKenna further meets the limitation in the newly-amended version of the claim, which now includes functionalized polyolefin (co)polymers but which still includes homopolymers of alpha olefins (i.e., “wherein the polymeric compatibilizer is selected from homopolymers or copolymers of alpha-olefins…”).
McKenna teaches that the (optionally zeolite) particles are also absorbent ([0006]), but differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the zeolites comprising the claimed list of specific zeolitic materials.
In the same field of endeavor, Stabler teaches an absorbent article containing zeolites and a resin (Abstract), and teaches that, inter alia, zeolites having the LTA, CHA, HEU, and FAU frameworks are advantageous (col. 3, lines 6-15). 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 the zeolite framework types described by Stabler into the formulation of McKenna as Stabler recognizes them as advantageously suitable for use in absorbent articles comprising zeolites and polymer resin. The zeolite frameworks listed above all read on the claimed list of materials.
Mckenna as modified by Stabler further differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the claimed thickness of said covering. However, Mckenna teaches the extruding of the polymeric binder with the adsorbent particles ([0006], which would result in at least part of the adsorbent material being covered on the surface at least in part by the binder). This process is substantially identical to the method described by the instant Specification at [0049], wherein the layer covering may generally by obtained by simple mixing of the two components. The product of Mckenna as modified by Stabler therefore is structurally identical to the claimed “modified Zeolite crystals,” containing all of the claimed materials in all of the claimed compositional amounts, and produced via a similar method. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed layer thickness limitation will therefore necessarily be present in Mckenna as modified by Stabler, and as applied above.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, McKenna teaches an embodiment wherein the absorbent particles may be no more than about 5 microns in size ([0020]), which anticipates the claimed ranges of “between 0.05 µm and 20 µm” and “between 0.07µm and 25 µm.”
Regarding claims 4 and 5, McKenna teaches that the polymer binder may be any suitable type or combination of materials including, but not limited to thermoplastics including, inter alia, polyethylene. However, McKenna differs from claims 4 and 5 because it is silent with regard to the incorporation of polymer binders with the claimed characteristics.
Stabler further teaches that polyacrylates, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers, ethylene copolymers, and others are all suitable polymer binders for zeolite absorbents (col. 4, lines 7-13). 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 incorporate ethylene copolymers into the formulation of McKenna as taught by Stabler, because Stabler recognizes them as suitable binders for zeolite absorbents. LOTRYL 28BA700T is a commercially available ethylene-butyl acrylate copolymer (c.f. SK Functional Polymer pp. 1-2), and LOTRYL 28BA700T, being an ethylene-butyl acrylate copolymer, is an ethylene copolymer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate LOTRYL 28BA700T within the formulation of McKenna. LOTRYL 28BA700T has a Melt Index (measured at 190°C and 2.16 Kg) of 700 g/10 min and a melting point of 84°C (see SK Functional Polymer pp. 1-2). These values fall within the claimed ranges of “more than 250 g/10 min” and “less than 150°C,” respectively, establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 7, LOTRYL 28BA700T, which would be obvious to include in the formulation of McKenna as described in the rejections of claims 4 and 5, above, is a copolymer of ethylene and butyl acrylate, which reads on the claimed “copolymer of alpha-olefins” because the instant Specification recognizes ethylene as an alpha olefin (see instant Specification at [0027]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenna (US 2014/0272207 A1) in view of Stabler (CN 108025280 A, hereinafter referring to US 10,464,042 B2 as the English language equivalent), and further in view of Flat (WO 2018138446 A1, hereinafter referring to US 2019/0367714 as the English language equivalent).
Regarding claims 9-11, McKenna as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. McKenna differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to a further polymer matrix comprising the inventive mixture
In the same field of endeavor, Flat teaches a fireproof copolymer composition (Abstract), which may contain zeolites ([0085]) as a molecular sieve. Flat teaches that a preferable polyolefin within the composition is polyethylene ([0089]), which is explicitly included as the polymer binder within at least some embodiments of the teachings of McKenna ([0024]). Furthermore, McKenna teaches that the inventive composition is suitable as an absorbent when molded into an article such as a strip (abstract). This usefulness reads similarly to that of the zeolite within the teachings of Flat wherein, as described above, the zeolite is acting as a molecular sieve (a type of absorbent material). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the formulation of McKenna into the fireproof composition of Flat; doing so reads on the claimed “filler” and “flame retardant properties” in the claimed listing of applications as well as “flame retardants” in the claimed listing of filler products.
Mckenna as modified teaches flame retardant compositions, but is silent with regard to the claimed reinforced mechanical properties and acoustic properties. Neverthless, Mckenna as modified teaches a composition containing all of the claimed components in all of the claimed compositional amounts. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed compositional properties will therefore necessarily be present in Mckenna as modified, and as applied above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed January 14, 2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC rejection of claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that none of McKenna, Stabler, and Flat teach the composition of independent claim 1; however, as described above, McKenna in view of Stabler teaches every limitation of claim 1 as currently amended, including the limitation requiring “free” zeolite crystals and including the limitations on the optional identities of the polymeric compatibilizer components, which now include functionalized polymers but which nevertheless still includes non-functionalized polymers (such as the polyethylene of McKenna).
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
Prosecution Insights