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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment to claims filed 3-2-26 is acknowledged. Currently, claims 1 and 4-16 are pending. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 2-3 and 17-19 are cancelled. Claims 14-16 are withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovranich et al. (English translation of EP2995436) in view of Soliman et al. (2017/0137616) and Burkhardt (2006/0245294).
Regarding claim 1, Lovranich et al. discloses a process for producing a polypropylene composition (see para 12) using a compounding extruder 1 comprising:
A melting section
ai) a first elongated cylindrical tube 10 having
an end portion having a first inlet port 11 configured to receive, in operation, a propylene-based polymer and
an end portion having a first outlet port 12 configured to discharge, in operation, a first melt composition 2 of the propylene-based polymer and
aii) a first screw arranged in the first elongated cylindrical tube and having a first length, a first outer screw diameter and a first inner screw diameter configured to, in operation, convey the propylene-based polymer to the first outlet port (see fig. 1-2) an
A mixing section comprising
bi) a second elongated cylindrical tube 20 having
an end portion having a second inlet port 26 configured to receive, in operation, the first melt composition 4 from the first outlet port,
an end portion 25 having a second outlet port and
optionally a side inlet port 27 configured to, in operation, receive an optional further component 5,
wherein the second outlet port is configured to discharge, in operation, a second melt composition 6 comprising the first melt composition and the optional further component and
bii) a second screw 24 arranged in the second elongated cylindrical tube and having a second length L, a second outer screw diameter D and a second inner screw diameter configured to, in operation, convey the first melt composition and the optional further component to the second outlet,
wherein the first screw and the second screw are operable at different screw speeds (para 39),
wherein the process comprises the step of:
Feeding the propylene-based polymer to the first inlet and discharging the first melt composition from the first outlet, wherein the first screw is operated at a first screw speed and
Feeding the first melt composition form the first outlet to the second inlet and optionally feeding the optional further component to the side inlet and discharging the second melt composition from the second outlet and
Optionally forming the second melt composition into pellets (para 34-36, fig. 1-2, abstract, claim 1, 13).
Lovranich et al. does not teach additives comprising an elastomer of ethylene and alpha-olefin comonomer having 4 to 8 carbon atoms and wherein the second screw is operated at a second screw speed smaller than the first screw speed, wherein Do1 is 9.85 to 1.2 x Do2, and wherein elastomer has a density in the range from 0.850 to 0.915 g/cm3 and the elastomer has a melt flow index of 0.1 to 40 dg/min. However, Burkhardt teaches the first extruder 1 is driven at a higher rotational speed than the second extruder 2 (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the second screw at a smaller speed than the first screw speed since Burkhardt teaches the homogenization in the second extruder 2 takes place at a clearly lower shear rate as compared to the first extruder 1 and consequently, at a lower speed of the second screw shafts 29, 30 (para 21-23).
Soliman et al. teaches conventional additives may be added to the thermoplastic polymer composition, e.g., external elastomeric impact modifiers such as ethylene-octene copolymer, plastomer and softener (para 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lovranich et al. with the teaching of Soliman et al. in order to modify the impact strength of the molded article.
Burkhardt teaches 0.3 ≤Da/da≤0.8 (see para 24), which does not overlap but approaches the claimed range of Do1 is 0.85 to 1.0 x Do2.
Soliman et al. teaches that differences in density of components to be blended tend to lead to an uneven distribution of different components (para 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the density of the elastomer within the claimed range in order to obtain a homogeneous mixture of the polymer and the elastomer. Soliman et al. teaches that melt flow index is a result effective variable (para 3) that can be increased by adding flow improving agents (para 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the melt flow index of the elastomer within the claimed range since Soliman et al. teaches that a high melt flow index is desirable.
Regarding claim 4, Burkhardt teaches wherein Do1/Di1 is 0.8 to 1.0 x Do2/Di2 (see para 24).
Regarding claim 5, Burkhardt teaches wherein Do1/Di1 is 1.4 to 2.1 and/or Do2/Di2 is 1.4 to 2.1 (see para 24).
Regarding claim 6, Lovranich et al. discloses wherein step B) involves feeding the further component 5 to the side inlet 27 and the further component comprises glass fibers, a flame retardant, and/or fillers (see fig. 1-2, abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Lovranich et al. discloses wherein the propylene-based polymer is a propylene homopolymer (para 12).
Regarding claim 11, Soliman et al. teaches that conventional additive may also be added, e.g., a coupling agent, UV stabilizers, antioxidants, heat stabilizers, colorants, like pigments and dyes, clarifiers, surface tension modifiers, smell reducers, lubricants, surface modifiers, flame retardants, mould-release agents, flow improving agents, plasticizers, antistatic agents, blowing agents, external elastomeric impact modifiers, plastomer and softener (para 35).
Regarding claim 13, Lovranich et al. does not teach wherein the polypropylene composition has a smell value as determined by VDA270 of at most 4.00. However, Soliman et al. teaches conventional additives such as smell reducers may be added (para 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the smell value of the polypropylene composition by optimizing the amount of smell reducers.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovranich et al. in view of Burkhardt and Soliman et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lecouvet et al. (2020/0087431).
Regarding claim 8, Lovranich et al. does not teach wherein the propylene-based polymer has a melt flow index determined according to ISO1133-1:2011 of 0.1 to 100 dg/min. However, Lecouvet et al. teaches a process for manufacture of low emission homopolymer or random polypropylene. Lecouvet et al. teaches that preferably, the melt flow rate of the propylene homopolymer is in the range from 5.0 to 150 dg/min as measured according to ISO1133 (para 23-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the melt flow index of the polypropylene in Lovranich et al. since Lecouvet et al. teaches that the claimed melt flow rate is advantageous (para 24-25, 70-71).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovranich et al. in view of Burkhardt and Soliman et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Voets et al. (2020/0325319).
Regarding claim 9, Lovranich et al. does not teach wherein the propylene-based polymer has a melt flow index determined according to ISO1133-1:2011 of 0.1 to 1.0 dg/min. However, Voets et al. teaches a propylene copolymer composition comprising a propylene-ethylene copolymer, wherein the propylene-ethylene copolymer has a melt flow index in the range of 0.05 to 2.5 dg/min measured according to ISO1133 (abstract, para 13, 25-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the melt flow index in Lovranich et al. since Voets et al. teaches that the melt flow index is an indication of molecular weight distribution (para 27).
Regarding claim 10, Voets et al. teaches wherein the propylene-based polymer has a unimodal molecular weight distribution (abstract, para 17-19).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovranich et al. in view of Burkhardt and Soliman et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of van Mierloo et al. (2020/0172707).
Regarding claim 12, Lovranich et al. does not teach wherein the additives comprise an organic flame retardant. However, van Mierloo et al. teaches a polymer composition comprising a polypropylene resin and a flame-retardant composition, preferably comprising a mixture of: i) an organic phosphate compound, ii) an organic phosphoric acid, and iii) a zinc oxide (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lovranich et al. with an organic flame retardant as taught by van Mierloo et al. in order to improve the flame-retarding property of the molded article.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3-2-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the claimed range of Do1 is 0.85 to 1.0 x Do2 shows unexpected results over the prior art range of 0.3 to 0.8. However, the experiments and examples merely show unexpected results of using an extruder with Do1 = 1.0 x Do2 compared to a conventional extruder which has only one screw. Therefore, there’s no evidence of unexpected results of the claimed range Do1 is 0.85 to 1.0 x Do2 over the prior art range of 0.3 to 0.8.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5702721176. 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.
/X.H.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights