DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 4/27/2026.
Claim(s) 1-20, are now pending in the application.
The previous 35 USC 112 rejections of claim(s) 1-20 are withdrawn in light of Applicant' s amendment and remarks.
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 1-2, 6, 11-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US6486246 to Vion et al. in view of US2018/0215846 to Kulshreshtha et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Vion teaches a polyolefin based hot melt adhesive composition [title] comprising 5-85% of a propylene ethylene copolymer component (I) [Col1, L60-65] that is chemically visbroken by extruding the polymer in the presence of radical initiators [Col3, L21-34] reading on 60-96 wt% (A). Vion’s composition further comprises 5-85% of component (II) [Col1, L65] that is a combination of alpha-olefinic copolymers [Col2, L27-48] reading on 2-20 wt% (B); and 10-75% of component (III) [Col2, L5-L8] that is a tackifier [Col3, L35] reading on 2-20 wt% (C); wherein components (I), (II), and (III) are blended in the molten state and extruded [Col4, L20-23] reading melt blending said extruded and visbroken recycled polyolefin, at least one random alpha-olefinic copolymer, optionally at least one tackifier, and optionally at least one additional polymer to thereby form said polyolefin composition. In light of the above amounts, the random alpha-olefinic copolymer (B) to tackifier ratio (C) is reasonably calculated to be 1, therefore reading on a (B) to (C) ratio of 0.2 to 5.0.
Vion does not explicitly teach the visbroken polyolefin composition has a melt flow rate increase of about 5 to about 1500% compared to the recycled polyolefin.
However, Vion teaches the desired values of melt flow rate are obtained according to the process of chemical visbreaking [Col3, L21-34]. Vion further teaches the desire to obtain a composition having a low viscosity [Col1, L37-41] and therefore a high melt flow rate, as one of ordinary skill in the art knows viscosity and melt flow rate are indirectly proportional. Therefore, the chemical visbreaking can be optimized to reach a higher melt flow rate via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to increase the melt flow rate of the extruded, visbroken polyolefin composition by 5-1500% compared to the recycled polyolefin for the intended polyolefin composition via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Vion does not teach the polyolefin is recycled.
However, Kulshreshtha teaches an ethylene propylene copolymer [Kulshreshtha, 0044] that is preferred to be a recycled material which is recovered from waste plastic material derived from post-consumer and/or post-industrial waste [Kulshreshtha, 0037]. Vion and Kulshreshtha are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely compositions comprising polyolefins. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Vion’s component I with Kulshreshtha’s recycled polymer blend (A) with thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation to modify Vion with Kulshreshtha is the demand of using recycled polyolefins
has increased because of legal requirements that exist in some segments like automotive applications
[Kulshreshtha, 0003]. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that
recycling plastics is desirable to conserve resources, reduce pollution, and decrease landfill use.
Regarding Claim 2, Vion in view of Kulshreshtha teaches the process of claim 1 wherein the post-consumer polyolefin is an ethylene propylene copolymer [0044] with over 50wt% ethylene [0042] (i.e., polyethylene-rich polyolefin) with a density of 941-965 kg/m3 [0043] thereby reading on a post-consumer polyethylene-rich polyolefin having a density of about 910 to about 1050 kg/m3.
Though the prior art density range is not identical to the claimed range, it does overlap. It has been held that, where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding Claim 6 Vion in view of Kulshreshtha teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the initiator is dicumyl peroxide [Col3, L21-34] which is solid at room temperature and comes in the form of a powder.
Regarding Claim 11 Vion in view of Kulshreshtha teaches the process of claim 1, wherein component (I) is crystalline [Col1, L61] (i.e., solid and therefore is interpreted to have a form of pellets, granules, flakes or powder) is prepared in advance, and subsequently blended with the other components [Col4, L24-29].
Regarding Claim 12, Vion in view of Kulshreshtha teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the components can be blended all together [Col4, L24-29] (i.e., visbroken recycled polyolefin is melt blended without intermediate storage).
Regarding Claim 13, Vion in view of Kulshreshtha teaches the process of claim 1, wherein component (I) is prepared in advance that is subsequently blended with the other components [Col4, L24-29]. The melt blending is performed wherein the polymer composition is maintained in the molten state [Col 6, L6-16] with a GID temp (extrusion temperature) is at 240°C or below as seen in table 1 [col 7], therefore the mleting temperature of the extruded visbroken recycled polyolefin is less than 240°C that meets the limitation of below 250°C.
Regarding Claim 15, Vion in view of Kulshreshtha teaches the process of claim 1, wherein component (I) is crystalline [Col1, L61], component (II) is crystalline [Col1, L67] and component (II) are rosin esters [Col2, L5-9] that are all solid components at room temperature (i.e., solid and therefore interpreted to be in the form of pellets, granules, powders, flakes or combination thereof).
Regarding Claim 16, Vion in view of Kulshreshtha does not teach the extruded, visbroken polyolefin composition (A) has a MFR at least 4 times higher than the recycled polyolefin. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Vion in view of Kulshreshtha, 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. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties - i.e. MFR change - 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.
Regarding Claim 17, The rejection of claim 1 comprising an additional polymer of a heterophasic composition with an MFR of 0.6 dg/min [col5, lines 45-50]
Regarding Claims 18-20, Vion in view of Kulshreshtha teaches the process of claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference, wherein the post-consumer polyolefin is an ethylene propylene copolymer [Kulshreshtha, 0044] with over 50wt% ethylene [0042] (i.e., polyethylene-rich polyolefin) that is chemically visbroken by extruding the polymer in the presence of radical initiators [Vion, Col3, L21-34]. Vion in view of Kulshreshtha’s process further comprises 5-85% of component (B) [Col1, L65], 10-75% of component (C) [Col2, L5-L8], and an optional component [Col3, L57-59] of 1-75 wt% of an amorphous poly(α-olefin) such as ethylene/propylene/1-butene copolymers [Col3, L60-67] (i.e., additional polymer (D)) wherein the process comprises an additive [Col4, L17-19] (reading on additive of claim 19). As such, the percentage of B+D and weight ratio of B to D is reasonably calculated as 6-160 wt% (i.e., 10-30 wt%) and 0.066 – 85 (i.e., 0.3 to about 3.0) thereby reading on the B+D and weight ratio of B to D limitations.
Vion in view of Kulshreshtha does not teach visbreaking of the extruded, recycled polyolefin leading an MFR increase of 5-100%, a notched impact strength increase of 5-200%, or an increased elongation of 5-100 wt% compared to the same polyolefin composition without the random alpha-olefinic copolymers, optional tackifier resins, and additional polymers. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Vion in view of Kulshreshtha, 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. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties - i.e. notched impact strength, MFR increase, acceptable mechanical properties, and increased elongation - would 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.
Claims 3-5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US6486246 to Vion et al. in view of US2018/0215846 to Kulshreshtha et al. in further view of US2019/0136100 to Tran et al.
Regarding Claims 3-5, and 7, Vion in view of Kulshreshtha teach the process of claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Vion in view of Kulshreshtha do not particularly teach the amount of radical initiator (E) (claim 5), that the radical initator is selected from the group of claim 4, the SADT of the radical initiator, or when it is added (claim 7).
However, Tran teaches a visbreaking process [Tran, title] comprising a radical initiator that has a SADT of at least 200°C [Tran, 0113], wherein the radical initiator (E) is selected from the group of claim 4, of 2,3-dimethyl-2,3-diphenylbutane [0128] (reading on claim 4) in an amount of 0.1-2.0 wt% [Tran, 0115] (reading on claim 5) with a SADT of at least 200°C [Tran, 0113] that is capable of thermally decomposing into carbon-baased free radicals by breaking at least one single bond [Tran, 0121] (reading on claim 3) that is added at the start of the extrusion process [Tran, 0117] (reading on claim 7) wherein extruding occurs in a combined melting and mixing zone [Tran, 0105]. Vion and tran are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely visbroken polyolefin compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Tran’s initiator process with Vion’s initiator process, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Motivation to modify Vion with Tran is peroxide initiators generally decompose at too low of a temperature [Tran, 0114] and therefore a non-peroxide initiator capable of thermally decomposing into carbon based free radicals [Tran, 0121] will have a higher SADT and therefor be more stable [0113] and decompose later, giving a larger increase in MFR [0114] which is valuable to Vion, as Vion teaches the desire to obtain a composition having a low viscosity [Vion, Col1, L37-41] and therefore a high melt flow rate, as one of ordinary skill in the art knows viscosity and melt flow rate are indirectly proportional.
Regarding Claim 8, Vion in view of Kulshreshtha teach the process of claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Vion in view of Kulshreshtha is silent regarding the residence time within an extruder.
However, Tran teaches a residence time of 35-70 seconds. Vion and Tran are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely visbroken polyolefin compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Tran’s residence time with Vion’s process, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Motivation to modify Vion with Tran is that a shorter residence time requires faster screw speeds [Tran, 0088] and higher screw speeds mean more power to the motor that corresponds to specific energy input (SEI) wherein a high SEI is key to achieving a high final MFR [Tran, 0089] which is valuable to Vion, as Vion teaches the desire to obtain a composition having a low viscosity [Vion, Col1, L37-41] and therefore a high melt flow rate, as one of ordinary skill in the art knows viscosity and melt flow rate are indirectly proportional.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Vion in view of Kulshreshtha teach the process of claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Vion in view of Kulshreshtha is silent regarding an extruder with 10-14 zones, the highest zone is set from 250-300°C and is applied by zone 3.
However, Tran teaches the preferred extruder has 10-14 barrels, and in the preferred embodiment, the high extrusion temperature is applied by barrel 3 [0079] wherein the highest barrel temperature is from 250-400 °C [Tran, 0077] reading on claims 9 and 10. Vion and tran are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely visbroken polyolefin compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Tran’s barrels and barrel temperature with Vion, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Motivation to modify Vion with Tran is that the preferred barrels and barrel temperatures [Tran, 0079] lead to an increase in MFR [Tran, 0083] which is valuable to Vion, as Vion teaches the desire to obtain a composition having a low viscosity [Vion, Col1, L37-41] and therefore a high melt flow rate, as one of ordinary skill in the art knows viscosity and melt flow rate are indirectly proportional.
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US6486246 to Vion et al. in view of US2018/0215846 to Kulshreshtha et al. in further view of US2004/0020272 to Lin et al.
Regarding Claim 14 Vion in view of Kulshreshtha teach the process of claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Vion in view of Kulshreshtha is silent regarding dosing components (B) and/or (C) by measuring the extruded, recycled polyolefin using an in-line rheometer.
However, Lin teaches an in-line rheometer device and method [title] wherein in-line rheometers return the diverted melt portion to the main melt stream after testing [0004] wherein a metering pump is used [0005] that can alter MFI [0005]. Vion and Lin are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely controlling MFI of polymers.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Lin’s In-Line rheometer with Vion’s process, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation to modify Vion with Lin is in-line rheometers eliminate the waste generated by the discharge of the plastic melt after measuring it on-line systems [Lin 0004].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Vion and Kulshreshtha because the combination lacks sufficient motivation, the references are from different technical fields, and that the combination is based on impermissible hindsight using applicant’s own specification.
In response, it is noted there is clear motivation to combine as Kulshreshtha teaches the demand of using recycled polyolefins has increased because of legal requirements that exist in some segments like automotive applications [Kulshreshtha, 0003]. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that recycling plastics is desirable to conserve resources, reduce pollution, and decrease landfill use. Moreover, Vion mentions the addition of ingredients to act as a compatibilizer with polyolefins and the need for ingredients not to separate upon standing [Vion, Col 3, lines 35-40] therefore giving more of a reason to look to Kulshreshtha for ideas to compatibilze polyolefins.
Regarding different technical fields, although Vion and Kulshreshtha have different goals, they are considered analogous art as they are both polyolefin compositions comprising primarily combinations of propylene, ethylene and alpha olefins. Furthermore, The scope of analogous art is to be construed broadly. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“The Supreme Court’s decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), directs us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly, stating that ‘familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.’ Id. at 402 (emphasis added).”).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As such, the knowledge of using recycled polyolefins because of legal requirements that exist in some segments as taught by [Kulshreshtha, 0003] was within the level of ordinary skill at the time and therefore this combination is not considered improper hindsight reasoning.
Applicant states that Kulshreshtha teaches away from the proffered prior art combination since Kulshreshtha solves the recycled polyolefin flowability problem by diluting recycled content with 47 to 90 weight of virgin high-MFR propylene and therefore only 10-50 wt% of Kulshreshtha is recycled that does not read on instant claims of 60-96 wt% of instant composition.
In response, attention is drawn to the rejection of claim 1 wherein would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Vion’s component I with Kulshreshtha’s recycled polymer blend (A) with thereby arriving at the claimed invention. Therefore the composition taught by Vion in view of Kulshreshtha would comprise 5-85% recycled material, thereby reading on 60-96 wt% of the instant claims.
Applicant states that the deteriorated mechanical and optical properties along with poor performance of recycled pp/pe blends is solved specifically by adding virgin high-flow polypropylene plus a heterophasic compatibilizer, therefore one skill in the art would abandon Kulshreshtha’s stated solution.
In response, it is noted that the combination of Vion in view of Kulshreshtha as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 would comprise a virigin high flow polypropylene such as component II [Vion, col4, 37-45] wherein component II comprises (i) polypropylene and (ii) copolymer of ethylene with propylene or a alpha olefin [Col4, L37-45] that are the same ingredients as Kulshreshtha’s compatibilizer such as (C1) polypropylene and (C2) copolymer of ethylene and propylene or alpha olefin [Kulshreshtha, 0015] therefore giving no reason to abandon Kulshreshtha’s stated solution.
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights