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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on April 13, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 13-14, 18-19, 21-22, 24, and 27-31 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-19, 21-22, 24, 27-29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites “a masterbatch comprising between about 0.05% (w/w) and about 3% (w/w) of an alcohol ethoxylate…” It is unclear whether the masterbatch (c) comprises these amounts of the compound, or if the final concentration of the compound in the second mixture is 0.05-3wt%. For the purpose of further examination, the latter case is taken to be the correct interpretation.
Claims 19, 21-22, 24, 27-29, and 31 are indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 18.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 13, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al (US 2018/0208753 A1) in view of Sano et al (EP 2223962 A1) and Li et al (Study on styrene-assisted melt free-radical grafting of maleic anhydride onto polypropylene, 2001, Polymer, Vol 42, p. 3419-3425).
Regarding Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, and 10: Lau teaches a method of preparing a plastic article, comprising mixing a base resin such as polypropylene and chemical modifier in a melt-processing/reactive extrusion process to form a functional resin, followed by shaping the resin composition into an article by a molding process (para. 0035), wherein the chemical modifier is a non-fouling modifier such as AEO-5 (para. 0036), which para. 0169 of the instant specification indicates is an alcohol ethoxylate with an HLB value of 10-11 and a chemical formula reading on claim 5. The base polymer is present at 70-99wt%, and the non-fouling modifier is present at 0.1-5wt% (para. 0018), with a working example containing approximately 95wt% of polypropylene and 2wt% of AEO-5 (para. 0045).
Lau is silent to the modified thermoplastic resin composition (a).
Sano teaches an anti-fouling composition comprising a base polypropylene resin, an antifouling agent, and a compatibilizing agent (para. 0005), wherein the compatibilizing agent is a thermoplastic resin modified with a maleic anhydride group and is used to improve compatibility between the nonpolar polypropylene base resin and the polar groups of the anti-fouling agent (p.4, lines 45-58). The compatibilizer is present at 0.3-2wt%; this range allows for the most optimal anti-fouling performance of the composition (p.5, lines 5-10). Sano and Lau are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely anti-fouling resin compositions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add 0.3-2wt% of a modified thermoplastic resin during the blending step taught by Lau in order to improve compatibility between the non-fouling agent and the base resin.
Sano does not teach the production method of the modified thermoplastic resin.
Li teaches a maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene prepared by melt-processing a mixture of polypropylene, maleic anhydride, styrene, and a thermal free radical initiator/dicumyl peroxide in an extrusion process (p.3420, Sections 2.1-2.2), wherein the addition of a vinyl monomer such as styrene improves the grafting efficiency of the maleic anhydride onto the polypropylene and reduces the chain scission of the polypropylene during the grafting process (p.3420, col. 1, first paragraph). Li further teaches that including styrene monomer a melt-grafting preparation of a maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene increases the graft rate of the maleic anhydride (p.3420, col. 1, para. 3). Li and Sano are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely modified resins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the maleic anhydride-grafted polyolefin of Sano with the process and reactants taught by Li, prior to blending it with the composition of Lau, in order to increase the number of reactive maleic anhydride moieties in the modified resin and provide higher compatibility between the base resin and the non-fouling agent.
Regarding Claim 9: Lau teaches adding antioxidants (para. 0018).
Regarding Claim 13: Lau teaches that the plastic article is protein-repellent (para. 0018).
Regarding Claim 30: Li teaches 0.05-0.5wt% of the initiator, 1.5-7wt% of the monomers (combination of styrene and maleic anhydride), and the remainder (92.5-98.45wt%) polypropylene (p.3420, Section 2.2), wherein an initiator concentration of 0.5wt% improves the grafting efficiency of MAH in compositions containing 3% MAH and 1.5% styrene (p.3422, Fig 5(a)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al (EP 2223962 A1) in view of Li et al (Study on styrene-assisted melt free-radical grafting of maleic anhydride onto polypropylene, 2001, Polymer, Vol 42, p. 3419-3425).
Sano teaches a method for producing a plastic article comprising combining a modified thermoplastic resin, such as a maleic anhydride-modified thermoplastic (p.4, line 45-p.5, line 10), an additive/antimicrobial agent (p.5, lines 25-46), and an amphiphilic compound (p.4, lines 40-45, silicone oil having a polar group) to form a concentrated masterbatch (p.6, lines 9-14), which is then blended with neat resin. The final concentrations of ingredients are 0.2-3wt% of the modified thermoplastic resin (p.5, lines 5-10), 0.4-2wt% of the antimicrobial agent(p.5, lines 39-46), 1-10wt% of the amphiphilic compound (p.4, lines 40-45), and the remainder (85-98.4wt%) of polypropylene.
The concentration of modified thermoplastic resin is sufficiently specific that it is considered anticipated. MPEP 2131.03(II).
The content of the amphiphilic compound and base resin overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an overlapping amount of the amphiphilic compound, especially at the lower end of the range, to prevent the deterioration of rigidity and impact resistance of the plastic article (p.4, lines 40-45); adding the amphiphilic compound at the low end of the disclosed range would result in adding the base resin at the high end of the range.
Sano does not teach the production method of the modified thermoplastic resin.
Li teaches a maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene prepared by melt-processing a mixture of polypropylene, maleic anhydride, styrene, and a thermal free radical initiator/dicumyl peroxide in an extrusion process (p.3420, Sections 2.1-2.2), wherein the addition of a vinyl monomer such as styrene improves the grafting efficiency of the maleic anhydride onto the polypropylene and reduces the chain scission of the polypropylene during the grafting process (p.3420, col. 1, first paragraph). Li further teaches that including styrene monomer a melt-grafting preparation of a maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene increases the graft rate of the maleic anhydride (p.3420, col. 1, para. 3). Li and Sano are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely modified resins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the maleic anhydride-grafted polyolefin of Sano with the process and reactants taught by Li in order to increase the number of reactive maleic anhydride moieties in the modified resin and provide higher compatibility between the base resin and the non-fouling agent.
Claims 18-19, 21-22, 24, 27-29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al (US 2018/0208753 A1) in view of Sano et al (EP 2223962 A1) and Li et al (Study on styrene-assisted melt free-radical grafting of maleic anhydride onto polypropylene, 2001, Polymer, Vol 42, p. 3419-3425).
Regarding Claims 18-19, 21-22, 24, and 27-28: Lau teaches a method of preparing a plastic article, comprising mixing a base resin such as polypropylene and chemical modifier in a melt-processing/reactive extrusion process to form a functional resin, followed by shaping the resin composition into an article by a molding process (para. 0035), wherein the chemical modifier is a non-fouling modifier such as AEO-5 (para. 0036), which para. 0169 of the instant specification indicates is an alcohol ethoxylate with an HLB value of 10-11 and a chemical formula reading on claim 22. The base polymer is present at 70-99wt%, and the non-fouling modifier is present at 0.1-5wt% (para. 0018), with a working example containing approximately 95wt% of polypropylene and 2wt% of AEO-5 (para. 0045). The composition may be prepared as a masterbatch containing the non-fouling compound (para. 0018), which is then mixed with neat resin (para. 0045).
Lau is silent to the modified thermoplastic resin composition (a).
Sano teaches an anti-fouling composition comprising a base polypropylene resin, an antifouling agent, and a compatibilizing agent (para. 0005), wherein the compatibilizing agent is a thermoplastic resin modified with a maleic anhydride group and is used to improve compatibility between the nonpolar polypropylene base resin and the polar groups of the anti-fouling agent (p.4, lines 45-58). The compatibilizer is present at 0.3-2wt%; this range allows for the most optimal anti-fouling performance of the composition (p.5, lines 5-10). Sano and Lau are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely anti-fouling resin compositions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add 0.3-2wt% of a modified thermoplastic resin during the blending step taught by Lau in order to improve compatibility between the non-fouling agent and the base resin.
Sano does not teach the production method of the modified thermoplastic resin.
Li teaches a maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene prepared by melt-processing a mixture of polypropylene, maleic anhydride, styrene, and a thermal free radical initiator/dicumyl peroxide in an extrusion process (p.3420, Sections 2.1-2.2), wherein the addition of a vinyl monomer such as styrene improves the grafting efficiency of the maleic anhydride onto the polypropylene and reduces the chain scission of the polypropylene during the grafting process (p.3420, col. 1, first paragraph). Li further teaches that including styrene monomer a melt-grafting preparation of a maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene increases the graft rate of the maleic anhydride (p.3420, col. 1, para. 3). Li and Sano are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely modified resins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the maleic anhydride-grafted polyolefin of Sano with the process and reactants taught by Li, prior to blending it with the composition of Lau, in order to increase the number of reactive maleic anhydride moieties in the modified resin and provide higher compatibility between the base resin and the non-fouling agent.
Regarding Claim 29: Li does not teach surfactants.
Regarding Claim 31: Li teaches 0.05-0.5wt% of the initiator, 1.5-7wt% of the monomers (combination of styrene and maleic anhydride), and the remainder (92.5-98.45wt%) polypropylene (p.3420, Section 2.2), wherein an initiator concentration of 0.5wt% improves the grafting efficiency of MAH in compositions containing 3% MAH and 1.5% styrene (p.3422, Fig 5(a)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that Li teaches away from using 0.5wt% of an initiator: Although Li teaches that 0.5wt% of the initiator is inappropriate in some cases (i.e. when the ratio of styrene to MAH is 1:1), the effects of initiator content vary with the monomer concentration as well. For instance, with an excess of MAH, increasing initiator content continues to improve the MAH grafting efficiency; with an excess of styrene, the MFR is barely affected by initiator concentration. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to experiment within the parameters taught by Li to obtain the optimal combination of properties.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights