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 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 1-20 is/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:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "extruded, visbroken polyolefin composition" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “extruded, visbroken polyolefin composition” is interpreted to be the same as “a polyolefin composition” of line 1. The claim will be interpreted as “extruded, visbroken polyolefin composition” in the following claims and lines:
Claim 1 – lines 1 and 6
Claim 11 – line 3
Claim 18 – line 1
Claim 19 – line 1, 10, 11, 12, 15
Claim 20 – line 1
Claim 1 recites the limitation "extruded, recycled polyolefin" in line 4 that corresponds to (A). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “extruded, recycled polyolefin” is interpreted to be the same as the “extruded visbroken recycled polyolefin” of line 3. The claim will be interpreted as “extruded, visbroken polyolefin composition (A)” in the following claims and lines:
Claim 1 – lines 3 and 4
Claim 11 - line 1
Claim 12 – line 1
Claim 13 – line 3
Claim 14- line 3/4
Claim 16 – line 1
Claim 1 recites the limitation "recycled polyolefin" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “recycled polyolefin” is interpreted to be the same as the “at least one recycled polyolefin” of line 1. The claim will be interpreted as “at least one recycled polyolefin” in the following claims and lines:
Claim 1 – lines 1 and 9
Claim 2 – line 1
Claim 8 – line 3
Claim 13 – line 2
Claim 15 – line 1
Claim 16 – line 2
Claim 1 is indefinite because it recites states that component (C) is an optional ingredient in line 5 and further limits a weight ratio of components (B) and (C) in lines 7-8. It is unclear whether the tackifier (C) is optional or required. For the purposes of examination , claim 1 will be interpreted as the tackifier (C) being required.
Claim 5 sets forth a percentage of radical initiator (E) but do not specify the type (weight%, volume%, mole%, etc.). For purposes of examination the percentage will be interpreted is weight %.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the combined melting and mixing zone" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it recites “combined melting and mixing zone”. It is unclear what this limitation means and how it is defined. For purposes of examination, the claim will disregard the limitations regarding “combined melting and mixing zone”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the residence time" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18-20 are indefinite because they state “retains acceptable mechanical
properties”. There are multiple definitions of “acceptable mechanical properties” as set
forth in instant specification [0102-0104 of PG-PUB], therefore the scope of the claim
cannot be clearly ascertained. For purposes of examination, “retains acceptable
mechanical properties” set forth in claims 18-20 will be interpreted as at least
one mechanical property as set forth in instant application [0102] e.g., tensile strength
at yield, elongation at break, etc. is at least 80% of the mechanical property compared
to the same polyolefin composition without the random alpha-olefinic copolymer and
tackifier.
Claims 2-20 are further rejected as they are dependent on rejected claim 1.
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 5-58% 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 on the amounts of (A)-(C) are melt blended. 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 Kulshreshtha with Vion, 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 as set forth above does not include the additional polymer (D) as it is an optional embodiment. As such, the limitations of claim 17 are not required as they are further limiting an embodiment that is not required.
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 to a reduced notched impact strength (claim 18), or an MFR increase of 5-100%, a notched impact strength increase of 5-200%, acceptable mechanical properties, 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). 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].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Devin Darling whose telephone number is (703) 756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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 on (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