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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I. in the reply filed on 2/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 22 and 26-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected grouping of invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/11/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(IDS) received 4/27/2023 is not complete. No Abstract has been received for the CHEN reference referred to hereinbelow. No full document for the FU and CHEN references referred to hereinbelow have been received. The IDS has been treated accordingly. Further, as these documents are not readily available, submission of complete copies of these documents is REQUIRED at this time {Note: 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2)}.
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, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 21 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.
The term “high” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims are confusing as to intent because it can not be definitively ascertained what densities of polyethylene are intended to be included or excluded by the term “high” in connection with the density of the polymers. Though applicants’ disclosure does express densities that may be considered “high”, from the standpoint of patentability these expressions do not definitively identify what densities are intended to be included or excluded by the term “high” as used in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 and 6 are confusing as to intent because it can not be definitively determined if the “surface tension reducing additive” defined by this claim comprises “a grafted copolymer of polyethylene” and one or more of the recited species that follow, or if “a grafted copolymer of polyethylene and maleic acid anhydride” is just one of the species.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 6 have been treated as if “a grafted copolymer of polyethylene and maleic acid anhydride” is just one of the species of the groupings of concern.
Claim 18 is confusing as to intent because it can not be determined what arrangements of polyethylene polymer, including multiple polyethylene polymers, are intended to be included or excluded by the requirements of this claim. In that polyethylene polymers are an arrangement of different polyethylene polymers, it can not be determined how the claim is intended to be further defined by the recitation that the composition only contains a “single” high density polyethylene polymer. From the standpoint of patentability, it can not be determined what polymeric variations are intended to be included or excluded by this expression, included combined/mixed polyethylene polymers that may be considered to constitute a single polyethylene polymer.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14, 17, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/180,657.
WO 2019/180,657 discloses polyethylene particles combined with plasticizers as claimed as well as additional additives, including aluminum hydroxide and hydrotalcite coated with coupling agent or anionic surfactant, sufficient to meet the surface tension reducing additive requirements of applicants’ claims {see abstract and pages 3-16}. Regarding claims 8 and 9, though contact angle information is not described by WO 2019/180,657, products with good scavenging and processing effects are disclosed, and owing to these effects and the closeness of material make-ups, it is held that products having contact angle impacts/effects as claimed are inherently met by the products of WO 2019/180,657. Regarding claim 14, particle sizes as claimed are disclosed {see para [00040] and Examples}. Regarding claim 17, molecular weights as claimed are disclosed {see para [00042] and Examples}. Regarding claims 18 and 21, WO 2019/180,657 is directed towards a single polyethylene polymer to any degree that may be required by applicants’ claims {see also rejection under 35USC112 above} and has no specific requirement for polypropylene polymer inclusion {see Examples}. Accordingly, from the standpoint of patentability, these claims are met by WO 2019/180,657.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/180,657 as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14, 17, 18 and 21 above.
WO 2019/180,657 differs from claim 7 in that the amount of additive of this claim are not particularly disclosed. However WO 2019/180,657 recognizes impact of amount on scavenging effects {see para [00020] and Examples}. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have utilized the scavengers of WO 2019/180,657 in any amount, including amounts as disclosed and in excess of the extremely low amount levels recognized to be suitable, in forming the preparations of WO 2019/180,657 for the purpose of imparting their recognized acid scavenging effects in order to arrive at the products of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 6, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/180,657 as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14, 17, 18 and 21 above, and further in view of CHEN {China Elastomerics Doc.} and/or FU {Hebei University Doc}, each taken individually.
WO 2019/180,657 differs from claims 2, 3, 6, 10 and 13 in that the additives of these claims are not particularly disclosed. However CHEN and/or FU, each taken individually, disclose that grafted copolymer of polyethylene and maleic acid anhydride can reduce the surface tension and enforce coalesce strength of the two phases (such as HDPE phase and Aluminium trihydroxide phase) and improve compatibility {see abstract and/or statements in the Written Opinion provided by applicants}. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have utilized the that grafted copolymer of polyethylene and maleic acid anhydride in any amount provided for by CHEN and/or FU, each taken individually, in forming the preparations of WO 2019/180,657 for the purpose of imparting their recognized surface tension reducing effects in order to arrive at the products of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 102781641 and WO 98/41576 are cited for their disclosure of relevant included copolymers and/or additive materials in the related arts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Cooney whose telephone number is 571-272-1070. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached on 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.
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights