DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/20/2026 has been entered.
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 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 because:
Use of parentheses in Claim 16 and 17 – e.g. (MFR <1 measured according ISO1133 at 190°C 2.16 kg), (300%) – renders the scope of the claims indefinite, as it is unclear whether the limitations enclosed in parentheses are optional or required. For the purposes of examination, these limitations will be interpreted as not being required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019/0136100 to Tran et al. in view of US2018/0282451 to Carvagno et al.
Regarding Claims 1, 3-5, 16 Tran teaches a hot melt adhesive composition [0040] comprising 10-100 wt% of a visbroken polyethylene copolymer [0041] that is recycled [0141] (reading on visbroken recycled polyolefin that is a recycled polyethylene-rich polyolefin) that is produced by extruding a polyethylene copolymer in the presence of 0.1-2 wt% of a radical initiator with a decomposition temperature greater than 200°C [0017] (reading on the radical initiator of claims 1, 3, and 5) such as 2,3-dimethyl-2,3-diphenylbutane [0128] (reading on claim 4). Tran’s hot melt adhesive is produced by melt mixing all components [0188] wherein the hot melt adhesive comprises 10-80 of said visbroken polyethylene [0175] (i.e., component (A)) and 10-70 wt% tackifiers [0176] (i.e., component C).
Tran further teaches the starting polymer (before visbreaking) has an MFR of 1-100 g/10 min [0028] and it is preferred if the final MFR of the visbroken polymer has an MFR at least 3 times higher than the MFR of the starting polymer [0029]. As such, it is reasonably calculated that the visbroken recycled polyolefin has a MFR of 3-300 g/10 min, thereby reading on an MFR increase of about 5 to about 1500% of claim 1 and an increase of at least 4 times of claim 16)
Tran does not particularly teach a component (B) that is an amorphous polypropylene-ethylene copolymer comprising at least 60 weight percent of propylene, is further silent on the claimed amount of 2-20 wt% of (B), and further silent still on the claimed molecular weight or glass transition temperature specified in claim 1.
However, Carvagno teaches a composition comprising polyolefins and 1 to 20 weight percent amorphous propylene-ethylene copolymer [Carvagno, title and 0017], such as Aerafin® 17 [Carvagno, 0118]. Aerafin® 17 is the same commercially available amorphous polyolefin used in instant application [instant specification, 0069] therefore it is reasonably expected that the addition of AERAFIN 17 reads on all limitations of component (B) of claim 1. Tran and Carvagno are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polyolefin compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Carvagno’s Aerafin® 17 polyolefin to Tran’s polyolefin adhesive composition.
The motivation would have been that Carvagno teaches combining various types of polyolefins may provide improved adhesion, cohesive strength, temperature resistance, viscosity, and set times [Carvagno, 0117].
The combination of Tran and Carvagno teaches the polyolefin composition comprising 10-70 wt% of tackifiers (C) [Tran, 0176] and an amorphous propylene-ethylene copolymer in an amount of 1 to 20 weight percent, as taught by Carvagno [0117](i.e., component (B)) As such, the (B)/(C) weight ratio is calculated to be 0.01-2.0 (i.e., (B)/(C) weight ratio of 0.2 to about 5.0).
Regarding Claim 2, Tran in view of Carvagno teaches the process of claim 1 wherein the at least one recycled polyolefin is the majority by weight of ethylene monomer units [Tran, 0057] (i.e., polyethylene-rich polyolefin) therefore since the final polymer is recycled [Tran, 0141] it is required to either post-consumer waste or post-industrial waste, thereby reasonably reading on claim 10.
Regarding Claim 6, Tran in view of Carvagno teaches the process of claim 1, comprising 2,3-dimethyl-2,3-diphenylbutane [Tran, 0128] that is the same chemical used in instant specification [I.S. [0206]]. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that Tran’s initiator is in the form of pellets, granules, powder, or flakes.
Regarding Claim 7, Tran in view of Carvagno teaches the process of claim 1, wherein 30-70 wt% of the radical initiator is added at the start of the extrusion process and 30-70 wt% of the radical initiator is added after the start [0117].
Regarding Claim 8, Tran in view of Carvagno teaches the process of claim 1,
Wherein the temperature in the mixing zone is greater than the melting temperature of the polymer, the temperature needs to be greater than the decomposition temperature of the radical generator, and the temperature needs to be less than the decomposition temperature of the polymer [0104] and the combined melting zone and mixing zone is 25 to 60 seconds [0105].
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Tran in view of Carvagno teaches the process of claim 1, wherein in a preferred extruder of the invention there are 10 to 14 barrels such as 12 barrels, the high extrusion temperature is applied by barrel 3, and it is preferred if the maximum extrusion temperature is applied by barrel 3 and is maintained across the remaining barrels in the extruder [0079] such as temperatures of 250°C or more [0081].
Regarding Claim 11, Tran in view of Carvagno teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the extruded and visbroken recycled polyolefin is stored as pellets [0093].
Regarding Claim 12, Tran in view of Carvagno teaches the process of claim 1, but does not specify the recycled polyolefin is directly fed into the melt blending without intermediate storage. However, it has been held that the order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Regarding Claim 13, Tran in view of Carvagno teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the melt temperature of the visbroken recycled polyolefin is at least 240°C [0078] and the recycled visbroken polyolefin is extruded beforehand [0093] followed by melt mixing with the tackifier [0188].
Regarding Claim 14, Tran in view of Carvagno teaches the process of claim 1, as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Tran in view of Carvagno do not particularly teach the random alpha olefin and/or the tackifier is dosed using an in-line rheometer.
It has been held that the order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.
Regarding Claim 15, Tran in view of Carvagno teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the tackifier has a melting point above 70°C [0166], the visbroken polyethylene has a melting point of 120°C or less [0137], and Carvagno’s Aerafin17 is in the form of pellets. Therefore, the at least one recycled polyolefin, the at least one random alpha-olefinic copolymer, and the at least one tackifier are all in solid form and are therefore in the form of either pellets, granules, powders, flakes, or combinations thereof.
Regarding Claim 17, Tran in view of Carvagno teaches the process of claim 1, wherein a mixture of ethylene plastomer/elastomer and ethylene copolymers can be used [0070], wherein the ethylene plastomer or elastomer have a minimum MFR of 0.5 [0017] (i.e., additional virgin polymer with a fractional melt).
Regarding Claims 18-20, Tran in view of Carvagno teaches the process of claim 1 the extruded and visbroken recycled polyolefin is the majority by weight of ethylene monomer units [Tran, 0057] (i.e., polyethylene-rich polyolefin); 1 to 20 weight percent amorphous propylene-ethylene copolymer [Carvagno, title and 0017] wherein the additional polymer is not present (i.e., the at least one random alpha-olefinic copolymer and at least one additional polymer is from about 10-20 wt%). Tran in view of Carvagno further teaches the adhesive comprising various additives [Tran, 0179].
The combination of Tran and Carvagno is silent regarding said polyolefin composition having a melt flow rate increase of about 5 to 100%, an elongation at yield of about 5 to 100%, or a notched impact strength increase of about 5 to 200% when compared to a same polyolefin composition without said random alpha-olefinic copolymer, said tackifier and said at least one additional polymer. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Tran in view of Carvagno, when modified in the manner proposed above, teaches a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process such as extruding [Tran, 0072]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties as mentioned above would implicitly be achieved in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. See In Re Spada, 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states Yalvac, Kulshreshtha, Rebih and Zhou do not teach the newly amended claim 1 individually or in combination.
In response, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Furthermore Applicant states the newly claimed combination yields unexpected results and draws attention to Examples 23 and 52-67.
The burden on applicant to establish results are unexpected and significant (MPEP 716.02(b)(I.)) states the evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance”. In instant case, Applicant has not provided evidence to support unexpected results.
Applicants have burden of explaining proffered data (MPEP 716.02(b)(II.)) states "[A]ppellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness.". In the instant case, Applicant has not explained the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness.
For these reasons, Applicants arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING whose telephone number is (703)756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights