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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “low molecular polyolefin waxes”. The claim should instead read “low molecular weight polyolefin waxes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The recitation of “bio degree” in claim 1 is interpreted as the amount derived from biomass in view of instant specification [0151].
The recitation of “low molecular polyolefin waxes” is interpreted as polyolefin waxes having a molecular weight of 600 to 30,000 in view of instant specification [0030].
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A purging compound for a resin processing machine, the purging compound comprising:
10 to 97% by mass of a resin having a bio degree of 30% or more with respect to 100% by mass of the purging compound,
wherein the resin has a weight average molecular weight of 200,000 or more and 1,500,000 or less,
and a ratio of the weight average molecular weight to a number average molecular weight (Mw/Mn) of 8 or less.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 201301047937 as listed on IDS dated March 13, 2023) in view of Hakola et al. (US 20180282632).
Regarding claim 1 and 4, Kato et al. disclose a purging agent comprising a hydrocarbon resin (claim 1). Kato et al. further disclose in Example 1 a composition comprising 90 parts of low density polyethylene having a number average molecular weight of 32000 g/mol and a Mw/Mn of 3.9 [0094-0100], equivalent to 90 wt% of the total composition and thereby lying within the claimed range 10 to 97% by mass of a resin and a Mw/Mn of 8 or less and a weight average molecular weight of 124,800 g/mol and thereby lying outside the claimed range.
However, Kato et al. teach the number average molecular weight is between 10,000 to 50,000 g/mol and the Mw/Mn is from 3 to 6 [0045-0046]. Therefore, Kato et al. teach the weight average molecular weight ranges from 30,000 to 300,000 g/mol, thereby overlapping the claimed range of the weight average molecular weight. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a resin with the weight average molecular weight in the range taught by Kato et al.
Kato et al. is silent on the bio degree of the resin as recited in the instant claim.
Hakola et al. teach a method for producing a polymer comprising polymerizing biomonomers to obtain a polymer such as polyethylene wherein the method employs at least 50% of monomers derived from bio-renewable raw materials (claim 12 and 13), thereby overlapping the claimed ranges of instant claim 1 and instant claim 4. Hakola et al. offer the motivation that using a bio-renewable feedstock contributes to environmental sustainability depending on petrochemical products [0050]. Kato et al. also teach a polyethylene resin (Example 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a polyethylene having a bio degree of least 50% since both Kato et al. and Hakola et al. both teach polyethylene resins.
Regarding claim 2, Kato et al. disclose the melt flow rate of the resin used in Example 1 is 1.0 g/10 min [0094], thereby lying within the claimed range. Kato et al. also further teach the melt flow rate is 0.1 to 50 g/10 min, thereby overlapping the claimed range [0044].
Regarding claim 3, Kato et al. is silent on whether the resin is a resin obtained by polymerizing at least one selected from the group consisting of bioethanol and bionaptha as a raw material.
However, the present claim is a product-by-process claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." (MPEP § 2113 (quoting In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).) If the prior art teaches the same product as the product formed by the process recited in the claims at issue, the claims are unpatentable. However, if the process of the claims at issue results in a product that is different from the product taught by the prior art, then the prior art does not teach the invention recited in the claims at issue.
Regarding claim 6, Kato et al. disclose the resin is polyethylene [0094-0100], thereby reading on the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Kato et al. disclose in Example 1 the purging compound comprises magnesium stearate and magnesium carbonate [0094-0100], thereby reading on inorganic compound as recited in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Kato et al. disclose the purging compound formed from example 1 is used to fill an extruder ([0109-0114], claim 11), thereby reading in the instant claim.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 201301047937 as listed on IDS dated March 13, 2023) in view of Hakola et al. (US 20180282632) in further view of Obama et al. (US 5087653).
The composition disclosed in claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 5, Kato et al. disclose a lubricant may be added [0080].
Kato et al. is silent on the specific kind of lubricant.
Obama et al. teach a resin composition for cleaning the inside of molding machines (abstract). Obama et al. teach the resin composition comprises polyethylene wax having a molecular weight between 1,000 to 10,000 as a lubricant (claim 1, [col 3, line 62-65; col 4, line 1-5]), thereby reading on low molecular polyolefin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polyethylene wax since it is well known in the art as a lubricant for purging compounds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M F 8 - 5.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
/ANDREA WU/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763