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
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.
Claim(s) 1-45 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USP 5580931 abstract, col. 1 line 66, col. 2 line 19, col. 3 lines 59-64, col. 4 lines 1-4, 46, and examples 1-3, 4, 9 and 11 and claims 21-25 in view of Anh Le-Tuan Pham, Changha Lee, Fiona M. Doyle, and David L. Sedlak Environmental Science & Technology 2009 43 (23), 8930-8935.
With regard to claim 1, the claim is directed to a process for modifying an olefin polymer composition, comprising:
melt mixing an olefin polymer composition with a free-radical initiator composition comprising a peroxide-modified inorganic composition prepared from:
a liquid or an aqueous hydrogen peroxide, and
ii) one or more inorganic solid particles, wherein the inorganic solid particles have affinity to the hydrogen peroxide through hydrogen bonding, wherein the peroxide-modified inorganic composition initiates a free-radical reaction of the olefin polymer composition to produce a modified olefin polymer composition.
USP5580931 discloses a process for modifying polymer compositions by melt mixing olefin polymers with peroxide-based initiator systems under conditions effective to general free radicals and modify polymer chains. The reference discloses melt mixing polyethylene and polypropylene compositions in an extruder with organic peroxides, such as dicumyl peroxide and inorganic solid material including metal oxides and metal peroxides such as calcium peroxide and magnesium oxide, thereby initiating free-radical reactions that modify the polymer compositions. (abstract, col. 1 line 66, col.
2 line 19, col. 3 lines 59-64, col. 4 lines 1-4, 46, and examples 1-3, 4, 9 and 11 and claims 21-25.
USP5580931 differs in that the reference does not disclose using a liquid or aqueous hydrogen peroxide to prepare the free-radical initiator composition.
However, USP5580931 does disclose melt mixing olefin polymers with peroxide-based free-radical initiators in the presence of inorganic solids to effect polymer modification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ hydrogen peroxides as an alternative peroxide source since it is a well-known free-radical precursor.
As shown by Pham et al, hydrogen peroxide is known in the art to interact with inorganic solid surfaces to generate reactive radical species. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized hydrogen peroxide as an alternative peroxide source capable of generating free radicals when associated with inorganic solids, making its substitution for other peroxide initiators taught by the primary reference an obvious modification with predictable results.
With regard to claim 2, the claim is directed to the process of claim 1, wherein the olefin polymer composition is a petroleum-based virgin resin, bio-based resin, recycled resin, or combinations thereof.
USP5580931 discloses modifying olefin polymer compositions including polyethylene and polypropylene and the use of biobased and recycled resins represent a known substitution of equivalent feedstock sources that does not alter the melt-mixing peroxide medication process. See col. 1 lines 60-66, col. 2 lines 46-49, col. 3 lines 24, 40-44, Examples 4,9,10 and 11.
With regard to claim 3, the claim is directed to the process of claim 2, wherein the recycled resin is post-consumer resin (PCR) or post- industrial resin (PIR).
In view of the discussion in claim 2, the use of recycled olefin resins in melt processing applications includes post-consumer resin and postindustrial resin which represent recognized subclasses of recycled resin feedstock that do not alter the melt mixing peroxide initiated medication process as taught by the reference.
With regard to claim 4, the claim is directed to the process of claim 1, wherein the olefin polymer composition comprises a propylene- based polymer, an ethylene-based polymer, an ethylene-vinyl ester polymer, a C4-C12 olefin- based polymer, a styrene-based polymer, polyacrylate, or combinations thereof.
In view of the prior discussion, olefin polymer compositions in melt processing applications includes a propylene- based polymer, an ethylene-based polymer, an ethylene-vinyl ester polymer, a C4-C12 olefin- based polymer that do not alter the melt mixing peroxide initiated medication process as taught by the reference.
With regard to claim 5, the claim is directed to the process of claim 4, wherein the olefin polymer composition further comprises a polyamide, nylon, ethylene-vinyl alcohol, polyester, or combinations thereof.
In view of the prior discussion, the use of olefin polymer compositions in melt processing applications does not exclude the presence of additional polymeric components and may also include polyamide, nylon, ethylene-vinyl alcohol, polyester, or combinations thereof that do not alter the melt mixing peroxide initiated modification process as taught by the reference.
With regard to claim 6, the claim is directed to the process of claim 1, wherein the olefin polymer composition comprises at least 51 wt% of a propylene-based polymer, an ethylene-based polymer, or a combination thereof.
In view of the disclosure in USP5580931, the reference teaches melt mixing polymer compositions in which polyethylene and polypropylene constitute the bulk polymer component, and the relative proportion of the olefin polymer may be varied without altering the peroxide initiated modification process. See abstract, col. 1 lines 60-66, col. 2 lines 46-49, col. 3 lines 24-28 and excamples4,9, and 10.
With regard to claim 7, the claim is directed to the process of claim 6, wherein the propylene-based polymer is selected from the group consisting of a homopolymer, random copolymer, heterophasic copolymer, random heterophasic copolymer, terpolymer, and combinations thereof.
USP5580931 discloses the use of polypropylene polymers in melt-mixing and peroxide-initiated modification processes without limitation on the type of polypropylene used, such that homopolymers and copolymers are suitable for use in the disclosed process. See abstract, col. 1 lines 60-66, col. 2 lines 46-49, col. 3 lines 24-28 and excamples4,9, and 10.
With regard to claim 8, the claim is directed to the process of claim 6, wherein the ethylene-based polymer is selected from the group consisting of low-density polyethylene, linear low-density polyethylene, high-density polyethylene, medium-density polyethylene, polyethylene wax, ultrahigh-molecular weight polyethylene, ethylene copolymer, and combinations thereof.
USP5580931 discloses the use of polyethylene polymers, including low density, linear low density and high density polyethylene in melt mixing and peroxide-initiated modification processes. See Examples 1-3 and 6.
With regard to claim 9, the claim is directed to the process of claim 1, wherein the inorganic solid particles are selected from the group consisting of metal oxides, metal salts, metalloids, silicon based materials, graphene or graphene oxide, inorganic persalts, clays, minerals, and combinations thereof.
USP5580931 discloses the melt mixing olefin polymers in the presence of inorganic solid materials, including metal oxides and related inorganic compound ds to initiate free-radical reactions. See abstract; col. 3 lines 59-64 and col. 4 lines 1-4.
With regard to claim 10, the claim is directed to the process of claim 1, wherein the inorganic solid particles are one or more metal oxides.
USP5580931 discloses the melt mixing olefin polymers in the presence of inorganic solid materials, including metal oxides and related inorganic compound ds to initiate free-radical reactions. See abstract; col. 3 lines 59-64 and col. 4 lines 1-4.
With regard to claim 11, the claim is directed to the process of claim 10, wherein the metal oxide is selected from the group consisting of an alkali metal oxide, an alkaline earth metal oxide, a transition metal oxide, a lanthanide metal oxide, and combinations thereof.
USP5580931 discloses the melt mixing olefin polymers in the presence of inorganic solid materials, including metal oxides and related inorganic compound ds to initiate free-radical reactions. See abstract; col. 3 lines 59-64 and col. 4 lines 1-4 and claim 5.
With regard to claim 12, the claim is directed to the process of claim 10, wherein the metal oxide is zinc oxide, titanium oxide, cerium oxide, zirconium oxide, yttrium oxide, nickel oxide, iron oxide, copper oxide, magnesium oxide, bismuth oxide, aluminum oxide, molybdenum oxide, tungsten oxide, niobium oxide, vanadium oxide, or cobalt oxide, or mixtures thereof.
USP5580931 discloses the melt mixing olefin polymers in the presence of inorganic solid materials, including metal oxides and related inorganic compound ds to initiate free-radical reactions. See abstract; col. 3 lines 59-64 and col. 4 lines 1-4 and claim 5.
With regard to claim13, the claim is directed to the process of claim 10, wherein the metal oxide is a mixed metal oxide containing more than one metallic elements in the metal oxide.
USP5580931 discloses the melt mixing olefin polymers in the presence of inorganic solid materials, including metal oxides and related inorganic compound ds to initiate free-radical reactions. See abstract; col. 3 lines 59-64 and col. 4 lines 1-4 and claim 5.
With regard to claim 14, the claim is directed to the process of claim 1, wherein the free-radical initiator composition further comprises an additional inorganic peroxide.
USP5580931 discloses peroxide-based initiator systems used in combination with f inorganic solid materials, to initiate free-radical reactions. See abstract; col. 3 lines 59-64 and col. 4 lines 1-4 and claim 5.
With regard to claim 15, the claim is directed to the process of claim 14, wherein the inorganic peroxide is a metal peroxide or metal persalt.
USP5580931 discloses peroxide-based initiator systems used in combination with f inorganic solid materials, to initiate free-radical reactions. See abstract; col. 3 lines 59-64 and col. 4 lines 1-4 and claim 5.
With regard to claim 16, the claim is directed to the process of claim 14, wherein the inorganic peroxide is a metal peroxide selected from the group consisting of an alkali metal peroxide, an alkaline earth metal peroxide, a transition metal peroxide, a lanthanide metal peroxide, and combinations thereof.
USP5580931 discloses peroxide-based initiator systems used in combination with f inorganic solid materials, to initiate free-radical reactions. See abstract; col. 3 lines 59-64 and col. 4 lines 1-4 and claim 5.
With regard to claim 17, the claim is directed to the process of claim 14, wherein the inorganic peroxide is an inorganic persalt is preferably selected from the group consisting of a metal perborate, a metal percarbonate, a metal persulfate, a metal perchlorate, a metal perphosphate, and combinations thereof.
USP5580931 discloses the use of inorganic peroxide compounds, including metal peroxide species. See col. 3 lines 59-64 and col. 4 lines 1-4 and claim 5.
With regard to claim 18, the claim is directed to the process of claim 1, wherein the free-radical initiator composition is added in an amount ranging from about 0.01 wt% to about 15 wt%.
USP5580931 discloses adding peroxide-based initiator s in controlled amounts sufficient to generate free radicals during melt mixing. See abstract; col. 2 lines 46-49col. 3 lines 59-64 and col. 4 lines 1-4 and claim 5.
With regard to claim 19, the claim is directed to the claim is directed to the process of claim 18, wherein the free-radical initiator composition is added in an amount ranging from about 0.01 wt% to about 10 wt%.
USP5580931 discloses adding peroxide-based initiator s in controlled amounts sufficient to generate free radicals during melt mixing. See abstract; col. 2 lines 46-49col. 3 lines 59-64 and col. 4 lines 1-4 and claim 5.
With regard to claim 20, the claim is directed to the process of claim 1, wherein the free-radical initiator composition further comprises an organic peroxide.
Note col. 2 lines 47-48.
With regard to claim 21, the claim is directed to the process of claim 1, wherein the process does not involve an organic peroxide.
Note col. 2 lines 47-48.
With regard to claim 22, the claim is directed to the process of claim 1, further comprising adding a metal stearate selected from the group consisting of zinc stearate, tin stearate, iron (II) stearate, iron (III) stearate, cobalt stearate, manganese stearate, and combinations thereof.
Metal salts are taught in the reference in the abstract and cols. 1-5 and Examples and claim 1.
With regard to claim 23, the claim is directed to the process of claim 1, wherein the melt mixing step is carried out at a temperature that decomposes the hydrogen peroxide on the surface of the inorganic solid particles.
See col. 4 lines 50-54.
With regard to claim 24, the claim is directed to the process of claim 1, wherein the melt mixing step is carried out at a temperature above the melting point of the olefin polymer composition.
See col. 4 lines 50-54.
With regard to claim 25, the claim is directed to the process of claim 1, wherein the melt mixing step is carried out at a temperature wherein a chain scission reaction occurs, producing the modified olefin polymer composition having a reduced melt viscosity, and/or reduced molecular weight.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971).One would have been motivated to employ particular parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such in col. 4 lines 50-54 and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
With regard to claim 26, the claim is directed to the process of claim 25, wherein: the olefin polymer composition comprises at least 51 wt% of a propylene-based polymer, an ethylene-based polymer, or a combination thereof, and the melt mixing step is carried out at a temperature at about 350 °C or greater.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971).One would have been motivated to employ particular parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such in col. 4 lines 50-54 and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
With regard to claim 27, the claim is directed to the process of claim 25, wherein: the olefin polymer composition comprises at least 51 wt% of a propylene-based polymer, and the melt mixing step is carried out at a temperature at about 170 °C or greater.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971).One would have been motivated to employ particular parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such in col. 4 lines 50-54 and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
With regard to claim 28, the claim is directed to the process of claim 25, wherein: the olefin polymer composition comprises at least 51 wt% of an ethylene-based polymer, and the melt mixing step is carried out at a temperature at about 350 °C or greater.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971).One would have been motivated to employ particular parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such in col. 4 lines 50-54 and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
With regard to claim 29, the claim is directed to the process of claim 1, wherein the melt mixing step is carried out at a temperature wherein a crosslinking or chain branching reaction occurs.
Although the reference prefers to lower the amount of crosslinking, the reference teaches that crosslinking reactions occur during peroxide-initiated melt mixing of olefin polymers and demonstrates that both crosslinking or chain branching reactions are a known and expected result of operating at temperatures sufficient to decompose peroxide initiators during melt processing. See col. 4 lines 8-12, 43-44, and claim 12.
With regard to claim 30, the claim is directed to the process of claim 29, wherein: the olefin polymer composition comprises at least 51 wt% of an ethylene-based polymer, and the melt mixing step is carried out at a temperature lower than about 350 °C.
See col. 4 lines 50-54. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971).One would have been motivated to employ particular parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
With regard to claim 31, the claim is directed to the process of claim 1, further comprising, prior to or during the melt mixing, adding a grafting agent comprising one or more functional groups selected from the group consisting of carboxyl, anhydride, epoxy, hydroxyl, amino, amide, imide, ester, silane, alkoxysilane, acid halide group, aromatic ring, nitrile group, and combinations thereof.
See abstract, cols, 1-2.
With regard to claim 32, the claim is directed to the process of claim 1, further comprising, prior to or during the melt mixing, adding an additional polymer composition selected from the group consisting of a propylene-based polymer, an ethylene-based polymer, an ethylene-vinyl ester polymer, a C4-C12 olefin-based polymer, a styrene-based polymer, and combinations thereof.
See col. 1 lines 48-49.
With regard to claim 33, the claim is directed to the process of claim 32, wherein the melt mixing step is carried out at a temperature wherein a grafting reaction occurs, producing the modified olefin polymer composition having functional groups or additional polymeric units grafted in the polymer chains.
See abstract, cols, 1-2.
With regard to claim 34, the claim is directed to the process of claim 1, wherein the melt mixing step is carried out by extrusion.
See col. 4 line 1.
With regard to claim 35, the claim is directed to the process of claim 1, where the melt mixing step is carried out at a residence time of 2 minutes or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971).One would have been motivated to employ particular parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
With regard to claim 36, the claim is directed to a modified olefin polymer composition prepared by a process comprising: melt mixing an olefin polymer composition with a free-radical initiator composition comprising a peroxide-modified inorganic composition prepared from: i) a liquid or an aqueous hydrogen peroxide, and ii) one or more inorganic solid particles, wherein the inorganic solid particles have affinity to the hydrogen peroxide through hydrogen bonding, wherein the peroxide-modified inorganic composition initiates a free-radical reaction of the olefin polymer composition to produce a modified olefin polymer composition.
Claim 36 is a product-by-process and thus the claim is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps of claim 1, only the structure of the implied by the steps. As such, note USP5580931 discloses a process for modifying polymer compositions by melt mixing olefin polymers with peroxide-based initiator systems under conditions effective to general free radicals and modify polymer chains. The reference discloses melt mixing polyethylene and polypropylene compositions in an extruder with organic peroxides, such as dicumyl peroxide and inorganic solid material including metal oxides and metal peroxides such as calcium peroxide and magnesium oxide, thereby initiating free-radical reactions that modify the polymer compositions. (abstract, col. 1 line 66, col. 2 line 19, col. 3 lines 59-64, col. 4 lines 1-4, 46, and examples 1-3, 4, 9 and 11 and claims 21-25. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Pham et al. discloses that hydrogen peroxide interacts with inorganic solid surfaces to generate reactive radical species. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized hydrogen peroxide as an alternative peroxide source capable of making free
radicals when associated with inorganic solids, and thus making it a substitution for the peroxide initiators disclosed in USP5580931 an obvious modification yielding predictable results. Since claim 36 is a product-by-process claim and does not recite any structural characteristics that distinguishing the modified olefin polymer compositions produced by the combined teachings of USP5580931 and Pham et al., the modified olefin polymer composition produced by the combination would reasonably be expected to possess the same structural characteristics as those produced by the claimed process and thus, the claimed composition would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 37, the claim is directed to the modified olefin polymer composition of claim 36, wherein the modified olefin polymer composition has i) an increased melt flow index and ii) an increased or retained mechanical strength, as compared to an unmodified olefin polymer composition.
Note that the Melt Flow Index and Melt Index (MI) are essentially the same, industry-standard, and often interchangeable terms for measuring the flowability of thermoplastics (typically in
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
g/10ming / 10 min𝑔/10min), used to predict processing behavior. While "Melt Index" historically favored polyethylene, MFI (now often termed Melt Mass-Flow Rate or MFR) is a broader term for molten plastics. With this said note example 7, 8 and 10 disclose a Melt Index that falls within or overlaps that which is claimed. Moreover, the Example 7 states that the resulting copolymer has a better tensile strength and flexural modulus which are mechanical properties.
With regard to claim 38, the claim is directed to the modified olefin polymer composition of claim 37, wherein the modified olefin polymer composition has an increase in melt flow index of at least 75% fold and an increase in flexural modulus of at least 5%, as compared to an unmodified olefin polymer.
Note that the Melt Flow Index and Melt Index (MI) are essentially the same, industry-standard, and often interchangeable terms for measuring the flowability of thermoplastics (typically in
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
g/10ming / 10 min𝑔/10min), used to predict processing behavior. While "Melt Index" historically favored polyethylene, MFI (now often termed Melt Mass-Flow Rate or MFR) is a broader term for molten plastics. With this said note example 7, 8 and 10 disclose a Melt Index that falls within or overlaps that which is claimed. Moreover, the Example 7 states that the resulting copolymer has a better tensile strength and flexural modulus which are mechanical properties. These properties may be affected by routine optimization of reaction conditions and the recited performance values fall within expected results of controlled free-radical modifications.
With regard to claim 39, the claim is directed to the modified olefin polymer composition of claim 37, wherein the modified olefin polymer composition has an increase in melt flow index of at least 75% fold and no more than10% decrease in flexural modulus, as compared to an unmodified olefin polymer.
Note that the Melt Flow Index and Melt Index (MI) are essentially the same, industry-standard, and often interchangeable terms for measuring the flowability of thermoplastics (typically in
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
g/10ming / 10 min𝑔/10min), used to predict processing behavior. While "Melt Index" historically favored polyethylene, MFI (now often termed Melt Mass-Flow Rate or MFR) is a broader term for molten plastics. With this said note example 7, 8 and 10 disclose a Melt Index that falls within or overlaps that which is claimed. Moreover, the Example 7 states that the resulting copolymer has a better tensile strength and flexural modulus which are mechanical properties. These properties may be affected by routine optimization of reaction conditions and the recited performance values fall within expected results of controlled free-radical modifications.
With regard to claim 40, the claim is directed to the modified olefin polymer composition of claim 37, wherein the modified olefin polymer composition has an increase in melt flow index of at least 75% and no more than 20% decrease in Izod impact strength, as compared to an unmodified olefin polymer. In addition to the discussion in claim 37 above, note that the impact strength in Example 7, impact strength is a key material property measured by the Izod impact test, which determines a material's ability to withstand high-strain, sudden shocks. And thus is included in the mechanical properties that may be affected by routine optimization.
With regard to claim 41, the claim is directed to the modified olefin polymer composition of claim 36, wherein the modified olefin polymer composition has a reduced VOC content of at least 5%, as compared to the unmodified olefin polymer composition. The decrease or increase of VOC content would naturally flow therefrom and would have been a predictable result of modifying polymer compositions using inorganic peroxide systems and controlled melt processing which minimize low molecular weight by products.
With regard to claim 42, the claim is directed to the modified olefin polymer composition of claim 36, wherein the modified olefin polymer composition has an added VOC content of no more than 6-fold, as compared to the unmodified olefin polymer composition.
The decrease or increase of VOC content would naturally result therefrom and would have been a predictable result of modifying polymer compositions using inorganic peroxide systems and controlled melt processing which minimize low molecular weight byproducts.
With regard to claim 43, the claim is directed to the modified olefin polymer composition of claim 36, wherein the composition is in a form of solid, wax, liquid, volatile, or a combination thereof.
The limitations represent predicable outcomes of melt modification.
With regard to claim 44, the claim is directed to a molded article, fiber, filament, film, melt blown fabric, additive manufacture feedstock, or chemical recycling feedstock formed from the modified olefin polymer composition of claim 36.
The limitations represent routine and intended use of such compositions.
With regard to claim 45, the claim is directed to the chemical recycling feedstock of claim 44, wherein the chemical recycling feedstock is employed in a chemical recycling process selected from the group consisting of pyrolysis, thermal or catalytic depolymerization, hydrogenation, hydrocracking, oxycracking, gasification, and hydrothermal liquefaction.
The above are known and predicable applications of olefin materials prepared for recyclability.
In conclusion, in view of the above, there appears to be no significant difference between the reference(s) and that which is claimed by applicant(s). Any differences not specifically mentioned appear to be conventional. Consequently, the claimed invention cannot be deemed as unobvious and accordingly is unpatentable.
Obviousness-type Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-45 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-47 of copending Application No.18/142313.
Both independent claims are directed to substantially the same process, i.e. melt mixing an olefin polymer composition, and initiating a free-radical reaction using an inorganic peroxide-based initiator to produce a modified olefin polymer composition. The primary distinction between the claims resides in the form of the inorganic peroxide initiator , i.e. a metal peroxide powder as claimed in the related application versus a peroxide modified inorganic composition prepared using hydrogen peroxide and inorganic solid particles as claimed in the present application.
However, related application teaches metal peroxides as inorganic free-radical initiators, optionally including of liquid or aqueous hydrogen peroxide, see claims 13-15 of related application. Blending metal peroxide powders with inorganic solid particles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the metal peroxide initiator system of the related application to include hydrogen peroxide associated with inorganic solid particles, as claimed in the instant application as a predictable variation of the same free radical initiator.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the related application contains dependent claims which, when read as a whole, contain the same subject as claim 1 of the present application, respectively and thus would have been obvious over the claimed invention. It is clear that all the elements of the application claims are to be found in related application claims (as the application claims fully encompasses related application claims). The difference between the application claims and the related application claims lies in the fact that the related application claim includes many more elements and is, thus, much more specific. Thus, the invention of claims of the related application is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claims. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29USPQ2d2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application claims is anticipated by claims of the related application, it is not patentably distinct from claims of the related application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
Note that any future and/or present information disclosure statements must comply with 37 CFR § 1.98(b), which requires a list of the publications to include: the author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date and place of publication to be submitted for consideration by the Office.
Improper Claim Dependency
Prior to allowance, any dependent claims should be rechecked for proper dependency if independent claims are cancelled.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRESSA M BOYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5:30.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571 270-1831. 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.
/Terressa Boykin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765