Detailed Office Action
Applicant’s amendments and argument dated 2/11/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 5, 8, and 21-22 are amended. Claims 30-31 are withdrawn from examination. Claims 25 and 33-34 are cancelled. Claim 1-24 and 26-32 remain pending.
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 Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the specification objection and claims objections and 35 USC 112(b) rejections. These objections and rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant has cancelled claim 25 and has amended its limitation in the independent claims 1 and 32. However, the arguments that this amendment overcomes the cited prior arts are not persuasive. It appears that the Applicant acknowledges the result-effective rationale that the Examiner presented for previous claim 25 and does not dispute this rationale. The Applicant argues, by referencing to the instant specification, that several calculations using a number of parameters are performed to arrive at the mixing extent and the cited prior arts are silent on these details.
The Examiner notes that the details upon which Applicant relies and argues are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Examiner maintains the 35 USC 103 rejections and reiterated them below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-16, 20-24, 26, 28, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG (CN-106239765-A and it English translation), hereinafter JIANG, in view of NADELLA (US-2006/0293457), hereinafter NADELLA. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1-6, 24, and 32 (note additional claim 32 limitations are in parenthesis), JIANG discloses A method of forming a thermoplastic vulcanizate (TPV) composition {[0002]}, the method comprising:
introducing a thermoplastic polymer to an extruder through a feed throat (at a first location) {[0009], [0042], [0046] note polypropylene is the thermoplastic polymer and main feeding port is the feed throat at a first location};
introducing an elastomeric polymer to a melt feeder and forming an elastomeric polymer melt comprising the elastomeric polymer, the melt feeder coupled to the extruder {[0045] note melt pump for the rubber of the elastomeric polymer};
introducing the elastomeric polymer melt from the melt feeder to the extruder, wherein the thermoplastic polymer and the elastomeric polymer melt are fed separately to the extruder (at a second location downstream of the first location) {[0045] note connection of melt pump to the barrel of extruder that is the second location downstream of the main feeding port or separate locations, [0009] note feeding liquid that is the melted rubber at different location than the main feed port which is located at the very beginning of the extruder}; and
mixing the thermoplastic polymer and the elastomeric polymer melt in the extruder with a plurality of screws, wherein the extruder comprises a plurality of mixing sections {[0042] note twin/multi-screw mixing extruder, [0014] note different sections of screw or plurality of mixing section}.
JIANG, however, is silent on the screws being intermeshing (claims 1 and 32), the extent of total dynamic mixing (claims 1 and 32), the extent of mixing in various sections (claims 2-6), and the extent of total effective mixing (claim 24).
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to preparation of TPV in screw extruder, NADELLA discloses intermeshing screws (claims 1 and 32) {[abstract]},
wherein the plurality of mixing sections comprises at least three mixing sections, wherein at least one of the mixing sections has a mixing intensity that is greater relative to another mixing section of the at least three mixing sections (claim 2), wherein a second mixing section has a mixing intensity that is greater relative to a mixing intensity of each of a first mixing section upstream of the second mixing section, and a third mixing section downstream of the second mixing section, of the at least three mixing sections (claim 3), wherein a mixing intensity of a mixing section located at an initial 1/2 to 3/4 length of the extruder is greater than a mixing intensity of mixing sections along other lengths of the extruder (claim 4) {[abstract] note 3-170 mixing zones, [0066], [0074] note kneaders 52 that provide extreme shearing and mixing, [FIG. 6] note 52 is located in the second zone between the first zone 50 and the downstream third zone and provides the intense mixing or higher mixing, also note that this kneading zone is located at an initial 1/2 to 3/4 length of the extruder}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of NADELLA in the method of JIANG and have used intermeshing screws with the described mixing zones. As disclosed by NADELLA the advantage of this intermeshing screws with the described mixing zone is that it can be made shorter because of the increased mixing capability of the increased number of screws, and equivalent output with smaller diameter screws provides advantages for heat transfer, mixing and degassing {[0010]}.
Regarding remainder limitation of claim 1 and 32, claims 5-6, and claim 24 limitations of “wherein the mixing is performed with a total dynamic mixing intensity of about 7,000 sec-1 to about 12,000 sec sec-1 (remainder of claims 1 and 32)”, “wherein mixing the thermoplastic polymer and the elastomeric polymer melt is performed by: operating a first section of the plurality of mixing sections at a dynamic mixing intensity of about 1000 sec-1 to about 1800 sec-1; operating a second section of the plurality of mixing sections at a dynamic mixing intensity of about 1200 sec-1 to about 2100 sec-1; operating a third section of the plurality of mixing sections at a dynamic mixing intensity of about 3100 sec-1 to about 5600 sec-1; and operating a fourth section of the plurality of mixing sections at a dynamic mixing intensity of about 1,100 sec-1 to about 1,900 sec-1, wherein each of the first, second, third and fourth sections are in sequence with one another from an upstream end to a downstream end of the extruder (claim 5)”, “wherein mixing the thermoplastic polymer and the elastomeric polymer melt is performed by: operating a first section of the plurality of mixing sections with an effective mixing intensity of about 80 to about 160; operating a second section of the plurality of mixing sections with an effective mixing intensity of about 110 to about 190; operating a third section of the plurality of mixing sections with an effective mixing intensity of about 290 to about 450; and operating a fourth section of the plurality of mixing sections with an effective mixing intensity of about 90 to about 170, wherein each of the first, second, third and fourth sections are in sequence with one another from an upstream end to a downstream end of the extruder (claim 6)”, and “wherein mixing the thermoplastic polymer and the elastomeric polymer melt in the extruder is performed with a total effective mixing intensity of about 690 to about 830 (claim 24)”, NADELLA discloses that in practice, often the rate, screw speed, barrel temperature and other process conditions are optimized to get target product properties {[0089]}. These parameters relate to the extent of mixing as described throughout NADELLA. Therefore, NADELLA recognizes the extent of mixing in different sections as result-effective variables affecting the optimization of target product properties.
It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective variables (in this case the extent of mixing on product optimization) is within the skill of one practicing in the art {see MPEP 2144.05 (ll)(B)}. At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the mixing in various zones of the extruder which is a result-effective variable through routine experimentation to have determined the mixing extent necessary to achieve an optimum product which in some cases will lead to the claims’ dynamic and effective mixing intensity of the four zones of the extruder.
Regarding claim 7 limitation of wherein the thermoplastic polymer is introduced at a first location and the elastomeric polymer melt is introduced at a second location, the second location is downstream of the first location, and the first and second location are each located at an initial 1/16 to 1/4 length of the extruder”, as discussed under claims 1 and 32 above, the primary art of JIANG discloses the two separate locations for the thermoplastic polymer and the elastomeric polymer.
Additionally, and since JIANG discloses that the primary purpose of the process is proper mixing of these two polymers {[0047]}, at the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added these two polymers at the very initial stage of the extruder (initial 1/16 to 1/4 of the length) to take advantage of the rest of the length of the extruder for proper and complete mixing.
Regarding claim 8, JIANG discloses further comprising introducing a curative to the extruder at a third location of the extruder, the third location located downstream of the first and second location, the third location located at an initial 1/3 to 2/3 length of the extruder {[0046] note vulcanizing agent is the curative and added later, [0099] note adding the liquid fraction of vulcanizing agent downstream and since the purpose of vulcanizing agent is to cure the elastomer, it is added at a third location downstream of the first and second location}.
Regarding the third location being at an initial 1/3 to 2/3 length of the extruder, JIANG discloses that these components can be added at different locations and different batches {[0009]}, which is of course for the purpose of obtaining an optimum product. Thus, JIANG recognizes the location of adding the curative as a result-effective variable.
It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective variables (in this case the location of addition of curative on product optimization) is within the skill of one practicing in the art {see MPEP 2144.05 (ll)(B)}. At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the addition location of the curative which is a result-effective variable through routine experimentation to have determined the proper location to achieve an optimum product which in some cases will lead to the location being an initial 1/3 to 2/3 length of the extruder.
Regarding claim 9, JIANG discloses further comprising introducing a powder blend comprising a curing moderator and a filler to the extruder through the feed throat {[0049] note filler and the catalysts that is the curing moderator added to the main feeding port, [0006]/[0032] note powdered form that since filler and catalyst are solid are in the powder form}.
Regarding claim 10, JIANG discloses wherein the filler comprises a material selected from the group consisting of calcium carbonate, clays, silica, talc, titanium dioxide, carbon black, a nucleating agent, mica, wood flour, inorganic nanoscopic fillers, organic nanoscopic fillers, and combinations thereof {[0038]}.
Regarding claim 11, JIANG discloses wherein the curing moderator comprises a phenolic resin {[0012]}.
Regarding claim 12, JIANG discloses wherein the thermoplastic polymer is selected from the group consisting of polypropylene homopolymer, polyethylene homopolymer, propylene ethylene copolymer, and combinations thereof {[0022]}.
Regarding claim 13, JIANG discloses wherein the elastomeric polymer comprises an ethylene propylene diene terpolymer {[0027]}.
Regarding claim 14, JIANG discloses further comprising injecting process oil at one or more locations along the extruder {[0013]}.
Regarding claim 15, JIANG discloses wherein: the process oil is a paraffinic oil, the process oil is injected through one or more liquid pumps coupled to the extruder, and the process oil is injected upstream of a curative introduced to the extruder, downstream of the curative, or upstream and downstream of the curative {[0013], [0050] note metering pump is the liquid pump since it injects oil, a liquid, [0037] note paraffin oil}.
Regarding claim 16, JIANG discloses wherein forming the elastomeric polymer melt in the melt feeder is performed at a temperature of about 90 °C to about 120 °C {[0045]}.
The Examiner notes that JIANG discloses a melt temperature range of 70-90 °C that touches the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range. Harris, 409 F.3d at 1341; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30; Also see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 20, JIANG discloses wherein the thermoplastic polymer is introduced in an amount of about 7 phr to about 100 phr to the feed throat {[0030]}.
The Examiner notes that JIANG discloses a range of 40-150 phr that partially overlaps the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range. Harris, 409 F.3d at 1341; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30; Also see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 21, JIANG discloses wherein the process oil is introduced in an amount of about 25 phr to about 41 phr {[0012]}.
The Examiner notes that JIANG discloses a range of 30-250 phr that partially overlaps the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range. Harris, 409 F.3d at 1341; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30; Also see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 22, JIANG discloses wherein the curative is introduced in an amount of about 3 phr to about 10 phr {[0012]}.
The Examiner notes that JIANG discloses a range of 2-12 phr that encompasses the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range. Harris, 409 F.3d at 1341; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30; Also see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 23, JIANG discloses further comprising providing an extrudate formed from the thermoplastic polymer and the elastomeric polymer melt from the extruder to a twin screw melt pump to form a composition and removing the composition from the twin screw melt pump {[0042] note granulation in the extruder after the extrudate is formed that reads on obtaining a composition (in this case granule) from the formed extrudate}.
Regarding claim 26, JIANG discloses wherein mixing the thermoplastic polymer and the elastomeric polymer melt in the extruder is performed at an average extruder temperature of about 160 °C to about 320 °C {[0014] note average is 171 °C}.
Regarding claim 28 limitation of “wherein the TPV composition has a head pressure drop of about 40% or less relative to a control composition made from introducing the thermoplastic polymer and elastomeric polymer simultaneously to the extruder”, the Examiner submits that this limitation is the intended results of the application of the process steps. As the combination of JIANG and NADELLA discloses the same process steps in substantially the same manner as the instant claims, and applied to substantially the same material, it is the Examiner’s position that substantially the same results will occur which is the claimed head pressure drop. Notably, the applicant’s disclosure does not specify any additional method steps that results in such reduction of head pressure drop. If applying the same method steps in substantially the same manner to substantially the same material, does not inherently result in this head pressure drop, then a question of scope of enablement and/or omitting essential method limitation can be brought for claim 28.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG, in view of NADELLA as evidenced by KERSTETTER (US-2008/00818969), hereinafter KERSTETTER.
Regarding claim 17-19, JIANG discloses further comprising introducing a powder blend comprising a curing moderator and a filler to the feed throat, wherein the powder blend is introduced in an amount of about 1 part per hundred rubber (phr) to about 4 phr (claim 17), wherein the curing moderator is introduced to the feed throat in an amount of about 0.5 phr to about 2.0 phr (claim 18), wherein the curing moderator is selected from the group consisting of stannous chloride, zinc oxide, and a combination thereof (claim 19) {note powder was established above under claim 9, [0034] note stannous chloride of 0.3-3 phr and zinc oxide of 0.5-5, [0012] the Examiner notes that filler, as indicated by its name, is added to selectively provide bulkiness, and as evidenced by KERSTETTER, its amount can be a reduced amount of 2-100 phr or 3-50 phr [0107], therefore, the powder mixture could be 2.3(2.5) to 103(105) phr}.
Regarding the powder mixture, JIANG, in view of NADELLA as evidenced by KERSTETTER, discloses a range that partially overlaps the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range. Harris, 409 F.3d at 1341; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30; Also see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding the curing moderator, JIANG discloses a range that encompasses the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range. Harris, 409 F.3d at 1341; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30; Also see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claims 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG and NADELLA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ELLUL (US-2006/0052538), hereinafter ELLUL.
Regarding claims 27 and 19, combination of JIANG and NADELLA discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent on the extrusion surface roughness (claim 27) and surface spots (claim 29) of the TPV composition.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related the TPV composition, ELLUL discloses wherein the TPV composition has an extrusion surface roughness (ESR) of about 25 µin to about 50 µin (claim 27) {[Table III] sample 10}, wherein the TPV composition comprises about 23 or less surface spots using visual observation of three strips {[Table II] samples 6 and 7}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of ELLUL in the combination method of JIANG and NADELLA and have produced the TPV composition with the claimed roughness and spots count. As mentioned above, the purpose of the method of JIANG and NADELLA is to produce an optimum TPV composition, and these values result in such product as mentioned throughout the invention of ELLUL.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748