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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 20, 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 5, 2005.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 1-10 and 18-20 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.
Claims 1 and 18 recite “(ASTM D1238 at 230°C, 2.16 kg)” making it unclear if it is being positively claimed. In each of claims 1 and 19, the Examiner suggests the following amendments: “, wherein melt index is according to [[(]] ASTM D1238 at 230°C, 2.16 kg [[)]]”.
Claims not listed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
For further Examination purposes, the scope of the claims are viewed in light of the suggested Examiner amendments.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 does not further limit claim 1, upon which claim 8 depends, because claim 8 recites limitations already recited in claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 4554779 in view of CN 104626516.
JP 4554779 discloses a method for the startup of an extruder 20, comprising:
initiating feed of a polymer resin (synthetic resin material) to the extruder 20 using a volumetric feeder 12a-12d such that the volumetric feeder is operated at a volumetric feeder speed;
the method further comprising modifying the speed of the volumetric feeder
by at least 5% and repeating the method if the startup of the extruder fails (see English translation; fig. 3, [0002]-[0010], when the extruder is started, the operation speed is gradually increased until steady state operation is achieved, the discharge amount (defined by a volumetric feeder speed) from the feeder is gradually increased in accordance with the increase of operating speed of the extruder until state operation is achieved; and thus if the feeder speed does not achieve steady state (i.e., startup failure), the feeder speed is gradually increased (i.e., increased/repeatedly increased) until steady state is achieved; as to the “at least 5%” limitations, such limitations would have been found in finding operable increases/repeated increases of feeder speeder to achieve steady state in view of such feeder speed increase teachings by JP 4554779).
However, JP 4554779 does not disclose:
initiating feed of a polymer resin to the extruder using a volumetric feeder such that, where the melt index of the polymer resin is less than 10 g/10 min (ASTM D1238 at 230°C, 2.16 kg), the volumetric feeder is operated at a first volumetric feeder speed; or
initiating feed of a polymer resin to the extruder using the volumetric feeder such that, where the melt index of the polymer resin is 10 g/10 min or greater, the volumetric feeder is operated at a second volumetric feeder speed greater than the first volumetric feeder speed.
CN 104626516 discloses a method for the startup of an extruder, initiating feed of a polymer
resin to the extruder, wherein when the melt index of the polymer resin is 10 g/10 min or greater
(greater than 400g/10min) the extruder has high flow rates [004]. In other words, CN 104626516
discloses that the higher the melt index, the higher the flow rate in the extruder. Note that flow rates are inherently dependent upon feeder rates, e.g., a higher feed rate is required to accommodate the higher flow rate. Thus, It would have been further obvious that a higher melt flow index (i.e., 10 g/10 min or greater) would require a higher feeder speed (a second volumetric feeder speed) to achieve the higher flow rate, and that a lower melt flow index (i.e., less than 10g/10 min) would require a lower feeder speed (a first volumetric speed) to achieve the lower flow rate, wherein the higher feeder speed (the second volumetric speed) is greater than the lower feeder speed (the first volumetric speed).
As to the melt index being according to ASTM D1238 at 230°C, 2.16 kg, such standard is known in the art, and it would have been further obvious that any known standard in the art could be used in order to provide a standard measurement/understanding of the melt index numbers.
As to claim 18, CN 104626516 further discloses the method including obtaining a polymer resin
having a melt index ((0004], greater than 400 g/10 min). In view of the prior art combination above, it
would have been further obvious to determine a calibrated feeder speed for feeding the polymer resin
to the extruder via the volumetric feeder, the calibrated feeder speed based at least in part upon the melt index of the polymer resin because, as mentioned above, it is known in the art that the extruder flow rate is dependent upon the melt index (i.e., higher melt index, higher flow rate) and because the
extruder flow rate is dependent upon the feeder speed. In other words, it would have been further obvious that a feeder speed for a higher melt index would have a higher (calibrated to be higher) feeder speed (corresponding to a higher flow rate), than for a lower melt index which would have a lower (calibrated to be lower) feeder speed (corresponding to a lower flow rate).
Claim(s) 2-3, 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 4554779 in view of CN 104626516 as applied to claims 1, 8 and 18 above, and further in view of KR 10-2009-0073178.
JP 4554779 and CN 104626516 do not disclose the limitations of claims 2-3 and 7.
KR 10-2009-0073178 discloses a method of supplying polymer resin to an extruder using a
volumetric feeder ([129], rotary feeders, screw feeders, vibratory feeders or belted feeders). Note that
it is inherent that the feeder operates at a feeder speed to establish a flow rate of the extruder.
As to claim 7, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the volumetric feeder with a volumetric feeder, as disclosed by KR 10-2009-0073178, because such a modification is known in the art and would provide alternative configurations for the volumetric feeder known to be operable in the art.
As to claims 2-3 and 19, it is inherent that a volumetric feeder, such as a rotary feeder (mentioned above), would have a volumetric feeder maximum speed. Applicant appears to admit such inherency in paragraph [0021] of the instant specification. As mentioned above, a calibrated feeder speed dependent upon melt index would be obvious. A feeder speed for a higher melt index would have a higher (calibrated to be higher) feeder speed (corresponding to a higher flow rate), than for a lower melt index which would have a lower (calibrated to be lower) feeder speed (corresponding to a lower flow rate). It is inherent that a feeder speed correlates to a percentage (%) of the volumetric feeder maximum speed, wherein a higher feeder speed would correlate to a higher percentage (%) and a lower feeder speed would correlate to a lower percentage (%). As to the specific percentages (%) recited in claims 2-3 and 19, such percentages (%) would have been found depending on the melt index of the specific polymer resin actually used in the method in view of the teachings of the prior art as mentioned above. In other words, for a specific polymer resin having a specific melt index, a calibrated feeder speed is correlated for the specific melt index (e.g., higher melt index, higher flow rate, higher feeder speed, as mentioned above). And such calibrated feeder speed would correlate to a specific percentage (%) which would enable the feeder to operate at the calibrated feeder speed (e.g., higher melt index, higher flow rate, higher feeder speed, higher percentage (%)).
Claim(s) 4-6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 4554779 in view of CN 104626516 as applied to claims 1, 8 and 18 above, and further in view of
Comerford et al. (US 2022/0340744).
JP 4554779 and CN 104626516 do not disclose the limitations of claims 4-6 and 20.
Comerford et al. (US 2022/0340744) disclose a method of extruding a polymer resin from an
extruder [0042], [0075],
(Claims 4 and 20) wherein the polymer resin comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, polybutene-1, poly-3-methylbutene-1, poly-4- methylpentane-1, ethylene-propylene, ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber, ethylene/butylene copolymer, ethylene/vinyl acetate copolymer, ethylene/ethyl acrylate copolymer, propylene/4- methylpentene-1 copolymer, poly(tetramethylene ether)glycol, polystyrene, polystyrene polyphenylene
oxide blends, polyesters, polyamides, aromatic-aliphatic copolyamides, polycarbonates, polyvinyl fluoride, copolymers of ethylene and vinylidene fluoride or vinyl fluoride, polysulfides, polyetherketones, polyetheretherketones, polyetherketoneketones, polyetherimides, acrylontirile-1, 3-
butadinene-styrene copolymers, (meth)acrylic polymers, and chlorinated polymers (abstract);
(Claim 5) wherein the polymer resin comprises an ethylene homopolymer or copolymer
comprising 80wt% or more units derived from ethylene and 20wt% or less of units derived from a C₃ to
C₁₂ a-olefin (abstract; an ethylene C₄ to C₁₀ a-olefin copolymer having an ethylene content ranging from
65 to 85 wt% (and thus 15 to 35 wt% of C₄ to C₁₀ a-olefin)); and
(Claim 6) wherein the polymer resin comprises a blend of two or more polymer resins (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the polymer resin to be a polymer resin, as disclosed by Comerford et al. (US
2022/0340744), because such a modification is known in the extrusion art and would provide an
alternative configuration for the polymer resin known to be operable for extrusion.
Claim(s) 4, 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 4554779 in view of CN 104626516 as applied to claims 1, 8 and 18 above, and further in view of Hoffmann et al. (US 4,812,267).
JP 4554779 and CN 104626516 do not disclose the limitations of claims 4, 6 and 20.
Hoffmann et al. (US 4,812,267) disclose a method of extruding a polymer resin,
(Claims 4 and 20) wherein the polymer resin comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, polybutene-1, poly-3-methylbutene-1, poly-4- methylpentane-1, ethylene-propylene, ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber, ethylene/butylene copolymer, ethylene/vinyl acetate copolymer, ethylene/ethyl acrylate copolymer, propylene/4- methylpentene-1 copolymer, poly(tetramethylene ether)glycol, polystyrene, polystyrene polyphenylene
oxide blends, polyesters, polyamides, aromatic-aliphatic copolyamides, polycarbonates, polyvinyl fluoride, copolymers of ethylene and vinylidene fluoride or vinyl fluoride, polysulfides, polyetherketones, polyetheretherketones, polyetherketoneketones, polyetherimides, acrylontirile-1, 3-
butadinene-styrene copolymers, (meth)acrylic polymers, and chlorinated polymers (col. 1, line 52, to col. 2, line 40); and
(Claim 6) wherein the polymer resin comprises a blend of two or more polymer resins (col. 1, line 52, to col. 2, line 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the polymer resin to be a polymer resin, as disclosed by Hoffmann et al. (US 4,812,267), because such a modification is known in the extrusion art and would provide an
alternative configuration for the polymer resin known to be operable for extrusion.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 4554779 in view of CN 104626516 as applied to claims 1, 8 and 18 above, and further in view of Bobbett et al. (US 2008/0282579).
JP 4554779 and CN 104626516 do not disclose the limitations of claims 9-10.
Bobbett et al. (US 2008/0282579) discloses an extrusion method wherein the melt index of a polymer resin (polyurethane or polyurea) extrusion material can be adjusted to a desired higher melt index by modifying the polymer resin by combining the polymer resin with a second polymer resin having a different melt index or modifying the polymer resin by combining the polymer resin with an additive selected from a flow aid, lubricant, or solvent ([0047]-[0048], increasing the melt index of the material by adding moisture (solvent), flow additives (flow aid), lubricants, or other thermoplastic materials (a second polymer resin) having a higher melt index).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the method by modifying the polymer resin by combining the polymer resin with a second polymer resin having a different melt index OR by modifying the polymer resin by combining the polymer resin with an additive selected from a flow aid, lubricant, or solvent, as disclosed by Bobbett et al. (US 2008/0282579), because such a modification is known in the art and would enable adjusting the extrusion material to have a higher melt index as desired.
As mentioned above, it is known in the art to gradually increase feeder speed (increasing flow rate) until steady state (and steady state flow rate) is achieved/found, which defines a successful startup (versus a flow rate which does not achieve steady state, which defines a startup failure). Note that adjusting melt index would also adjust the flow rate which is dependent upon melt index (e.g., higher melt index, higher flow rate). Thus, it would have been further obvious that such increasing flow rate to achieve steady state could alternatively be achieved by adjusted to a desired higher melt index, as disclosed by Bobbett et al. (US 2008/0282579) (e.g., higher melt index, higher flow rate). In view of the teachings above of increasing flow rates until steady state is achieved, if the increased flow rate does not achieve steady state (i.e., startup failure), the melt index would be increased/repeatedly increased (which increases/repeatedly increases the flow rate) until steady state is achieved.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of the previous final rejection does not disclose the method further comprising modifying the speed of the volumetric feeder by at least 5% and repeating the method if the startup of the extruder fails.
The Examiner agrees. However, such limitations are disclosed in newly found prior art, as disclosed by the rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S LEYSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 5712705343. 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.
/J.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744