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 .
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.
3. Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rys-Sikora (GB 2,127,417, of record) in view of Waki (US 4,797,426, of record) and Sheldon (GB 1,331,473, of record).
Rys-Sikora is directed to a foamable composition comprising 5-95 parts of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and 5-95 parts of an ethylene terpolymer (ethylene-butyl acrylate-carbon monoxide) (Page 1, Lines 58-79). In such an instance, said terpolymer corresponds with the claimed carrier resin. Rys-Sikora further teaches the inclusion of known processing aids (Page 2, Lines 64-71). In such an instance, though, Rys-Sikora (a) fails to disclose the specific inclusion of processing aids having high molecular weights (defined by Applicant as being at least 500,000) and furthermore, (b) fails to disclose the composition as being in the form of particles having a particle size of at least 2 mm.
Regarding (a), high molecular weight processing aids are extremely well known and conventional in the manufacture of PVC based foams, as shown for example by Waki (Abstract and Column 8, Lines 32-42). Waki further states that super high molecular weight processing aids provide, for example, improvements in moldability (Column 8, Lines 5-20). Waki teaches the inclusion of super high molecular weight processing aids having a weight of at least 1,500,000. This disclosure encompasses processing aids having molecular wights of at least 5,000,000 and more preferably, at least 10,000,000 (claim 7). It is emphasized that such molecular weights are consistent with conventional processing aids used in PVBC-based compositions. Lastly, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed molecular weights.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a well-known and conventional processing aid in PVC-containing foams as the processing aid taught by Rys-Sikora for the benefits detailed above.
Additionally, Waki teaches the inclusion of 2-15 phr of said processing aid (Column 9, Lines 5+) and such would satisfy the claimed loading relationship given that the carrier resin of Rys-Sikora (ethylene terpolymer) can be included at loadings as small as 5 parts in relation to the blend of PVC and said terpolymer.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, it is generally well known that large amounts of waste are associated with the manufacture of PVC-based foams. This is exemplified by Sheldon (Page 1, Lines 9-12). More particularly, Sheldon teaches a method of reprocessing waste foam (PVC foam) and a first step in such a method is forming said foam into particles having a particle size between 3 mm and 15 mm (Page 1, Lines 56+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to carry out the reprocessing method of Sheldon with the PVC-based foam of Rys-Sikora in order to reduce or eliminate the quantity of waste foam.
With respect to claims 2-5, Waki discloses exemplary processing aids (e.g. Metablen P-530 or P-531) and such aids are composed of methyl methacrylate and alkyl acrylate (e.g. butyl acrylate).
Regarding claim 10, the particles in the modified composition of Rys-Sikora include polyvinyl chloride, an ethylene terpolymer (claimed carrier resin), and a processing aid.
4. Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN 102382395, of record) in view of Waki and optionally in view of Sheldon.
Huang is directed to a composition comprising virgin polyvinyl chloride resin (30-40 parts), recycled polyvinyl chloride (60-70 parts), an acrylic acid ester impact resistant modifier (2-3 parts based on the chloride blend), and titanium white (3-5 parts based on the chloride blend). In such an instance, said modifier corresponds with the claimed processing aid. Also, titanium white can be viewed as a passive carrier resin in the same manner that Applicant defines a variety of inorganic materials as passive carrier resins. More particularly, when a modifier loading is 3 parts, any titanium white loading would result in a quantitative relationship that satisfies the claimed invention (smallest percentage of the modifier would be approximately 37% or 3/8). In such an instance, though, Huang fails to specifically describe said modifier as having a high molecular weight.
Waki is similarly directed to PVC-based compositions and teaches the general order of molecular weights associated with “usual” acrylic resins (modifiers) and “super high” acrylic resins (Column 8, Lines 32+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use conventional acrylic resins as the acrylic resins taught by Huang and such resins have molecular weights in accordance to the claimed invention (and thus define high molecular weight processing aids as required by the claimed invention).
Lastly, regarding claims 10, 14, and 15, the claims fail to require that the “composition” is in a particle form having a particle size of at least 2 mm. More particularly, the claims simply require that a specific combination of compositional elements are present, those being a polyvinyl chloride resin, a processing aid, and a carrier resin (for example, a particle can be melted during mixing and processing and the compositional elements of a particle would still be present). It is emphasized that claims 10 and 15 are directed to a composition, as opposed to a method of manufacturing a composition. There is no evidence that a materially different article results when the PVC resin is in the form of particles or when a processing aid compositions is provided in the form of particles and has a specific relationship with the PVC particles- these limitations appear to be associated with the method of manufacture as opposed to limiting the structural makeup of the claimed composition. Sheldon is optionally applied to evidence a composition including recycled PVC (as is the case in Huang) and such is incorporated into a further composition in a particulate form with a size greater than 2 mm.
Regarding claim 14, all of the ingredients are mixed together and such is seen to satisfy the claimed method.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed June 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the cited prior art references teach or suggest Applicant’s claimed processing aid with a molecular weight of at least 5,000,000 g/mol. It is emphasized that Waki specifically states that super high molecular weight acrylic resin base processing aids used in foamable PVC compositions are responsible, for example, for facilitation of foam extrusion, improvements to secondary formability of moldability, improvements to injection moldability, and prevention of gumming upon extrusion forming (Column 8, Lines 5+). Waki also states that preferred processing aids have a molecular weight of at least 1,500,000. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of processing aids having a molecular weight consistent with the disclosure of Waki and such includes those having a molecular weight of at least 5,000,000. More particularly, the claimed molecular weights appears to be nothing more than those associated with commercially available processing aids (see Paragraph 17 in the originally filed specification) and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed molecular weights (Table 1 simply includes 7 potential inventive examples without providing comparative examples and additionally, the original specification fails to identify the molecular weight of the processing aid used in Table 1).
Applicant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had an objective reason to modify Waki to arrive at the claimed processing aid having a molecular weight of at least 5,000,000. As detailed above, Waki specifically states that processing aids having a molecular weight of at least 1,500,000 provide a multitude of benefits and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been amply motivated to select processing aids having a molecular weight of at least 1,500,000 in the composition of Rys-Sikora. Additionally, the disclosure of processing aids having a molecular weight of at least 1,500,000 fully encompasses the claimed disclosure of molecular weights of at least 5,000,000 and Applicant has not provided any experimental data that demonstrates a criticality for the claimed molecular weights.
Applicant further argues that the Examples of the present application demonstrate an unexpected result associated with the claimed processing aid, specifically that high molecular weight processing aids are susceptible to degradation during processing, particularly under conditions involving elevated heat and shear. First, Waki specifically motivates one having ordinary skill in the art to select processing aids having molecular weights greater 1,500,000 as detailed above. Second, it is not required for a reference to specifically disclose purported benefits set forth by Applicant. Third, Table 1 fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed molecular weights since (a) the original disclosure fails to identify the molecular weight of SURECELTM 21607-XP and thus, it is unclear if Examples 1-7 are inventive and (b) the original disclosure is completely devoid of a comparison between inventive and non-inventive (comparative) examples.
Applicant also contends that the cited references are entirely silent regarding coordination of a processing aid composition relative to the particle size of PVC resin particles. It is emphasized that the claims as currently drafted are directed to a resin compositions as opposed to a method of manufacturing a resin composition. It appears that the particle size of the PVC resin composition and the processing aid composition are directed to the method of manufacture and such limitations fail to further define the structure of the claimed composition (for example, a particle can be melted during mixing and processing and the compositional elements of a particle would still be present).
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 June 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights