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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1/29/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11* in the reply filed on 1/29/26 is acknowledged.
* Note that method claims 9-11 have been grouped into Group 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0030163 (herein Wittner).
As to claims 1, 3, Wittner discloses a method for feeding a liquid organic peroxide to a polymer melt. See examples. Specifically, the organic peroxide is e.g. dicumyl peroxide, 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-di(t- butylperoxy)hexane and 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-di(tert-butylperoxy)hexane-3 in paragraph 80, which applicant exemplifies as liquid organic examples. The peroxide is mixed with water to form an aqueous organic peroxide emulsion. See paragraph 15 and 9, note that an emulsion is not dissolved by definition. The water in the aqueous emulsion reads on the inert cooling carrier (paragraph 15). The peroxide and carrier are mixed. See paragraph 24, paragraph 47 (note the multiple mixing zones for the two components to be mixed). Note that the temperature is controlled throughout the entire process. See paragraph 41-58, specifically in paragraph 58 stating that the temperature is controlled before and after introduction of the emulsion. Also see paragraph 85 stating that the temperature of different zones is precisely controlled. Also note paragraph 82 stating that the emulsion may be premixed at a specific temperature of 30 to 40 oC before feeding into the extruder. Thus, the material must be premixed in a temperature-controlled section. Thereafter, the premixture is transferred to an extruder. See paragraph 81-87 and examples. The extruder has a venting zone (paragraph 89), which removed water (carrier) and other volatiles during extrusion. See paragraph 104.
As to claim 5, paragraph 14 states that the peroxide emulsion with water is advantageous because it can be safely transported and placed in storage. Also see paragraphs 21 and 78 discussing storage of the aqueous organic peroxide emulsion.
As to claim 7, the emulsion is feed into the extruder at predetermined feed (flow) rates. See paragraph 83, 86 and examples.
As to claim 8, the polymer is a polyolefin. See abstract, paragraph 61 and examples.
As to claims 9-11, the mixture is feed into an extruder to process a molten polymer and extruded with the organic peroxide and carrier, wherein the water (carrier) is removed. See paragraphs 41-58, 89 and examples. Specifically, the extruder has a venting zone (paragraph 89), which removed water (carrier) and other volatiles during extrusion. See paragraph 104.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,103,833 (herein Hogt) optionally evidenced by US 2003/0038083 (herein Schiestel).
As to claims 1-3, 5 and 9-11, Hogt discloses a method of feeding a liquid organic peroxide into a polymer melt processing equipment. The liquid organic peroxide (peroxide initiators, which are liquid, see col. 2, line 46 through col. 3, line 8 and examples) is mixed with an inert medium (reading on inert cooling carrier, see col. 3, lines 36-61) comprising water (see col. 2, line 46 through col. 3, line 8) that is exemplified as demineralized water (see examples) in a controlled temperature section (to control the temperature below the decomposition temperature of peroxide initiator for storage, see col. 3, lines 14-30 and the paragraph bridging col. 3-4). The peroxide is not dissolved in the carrier, specifically stating that it is a suspended in the carrier (see first two paragraphs of col. 5 and examples). The medium (carrier) is removed (see col. 3, lines 35-60) under the polymer melt conditions (note the temperatures well above 100 oC) such as vacuum (venting, see examples). Thereafter, polymer melt processing equipment is an extruder (see first two paragraph of col. 5 and the extruded examples).
As to claim 4, the equipment contains a peroxide (initiator) and polar medium (dimineralzied water, carrier) mixtures are dispersions/suspension that are mixed with UltraTurrax. See examples. Note that UltraTurrax is a mechanical mixing process (i.e. a stirrer). See paragraph 10 of Schiestel for evidence.
As to claim 8, the polymer is polypropylene (a polyolefin). See abstract and examples.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,405,917 (herein Mueller).
As to claims 1-4, Mueller discloses a method for feeding a liquid organic peroxide (see col. 4, lines 10-21) to a polymer melt processing equipment (hot melt extruder, see abstract, col. 2, lines 36-49 and examples). The method comprises mixing the liquid organic peroxide with an inert cooling carrier (distilled water, reading on demineralized water, see examples, specifically table III and V) in a mixer/Henschel blender (mechanical mixing). See examples, specifically at col. 5, lines 30-60. The mixture if feed to a polymer melt and processed through an extruder. See examples starting at col. 5, line 65.
As to claim 5, the material is mixed in a blender in a pilot plant (temperature controlled) and added to the polymer when needed, thus is considered in storage. See examples.
As to claim 6, col. 5, lines 45-58 states that the liquid additives (e.g. demineralized water) is added slowly (predetermined flow rate) to the mixture.
As to claim 8, the polymer is polypropylene (a polyolefin). See abstract and examples.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0030163 (herein Wittner).
The discussion with respect to Wittner set-forth above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to claim 6, Wittner discloses that the feed rates are predetermined when feeding into the extruder. See paragraph 83. Further, therein stating that the method may be continuous. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to add the inert cooling carrier (water) to the mixing section at a predetermined flow rate because 1) one would want to utilize the addition processes taught for other steps of Wittner, 2) one would want to automate the premixing into a continuous method for simplicity, and 3) the act of adding water to the peroxide would occur at some rate and the only other option would be feeding/adding the peroxide to the water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK S KAUCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 PM EST.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/MARK S KAUCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764