DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 2/3/2026.
Claim(s) 12 was cancelled.
Claim(s) 21 have been added.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-21 are now pending in the application.
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 and 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2006/0030667 to Yalvac et al. in view of US2018/0215846 to Kulshreshtha et al. (as found on the IDS dated 9/7/2022) and US2018/0355138 to Wolschleger.
Regarding Claim 1 and 4, Yalvac teaches a method combining the thermoplastic polymer (i.e., carrier) and extender (i.e., alpha-olefinic copolymer) in a masterbatch application, for example using a relatively small amount of composition to introduce additives into a much larger amount of the composition [0083] (i.e., proving a masterbatch with carrier polymer and at least one random alpha-olefinic copolymer) wherein the thermoplastic blend composition (i.e., polyolefin composition) comprising 75-99 wt% of a thermoplastic polyolefin composition that comprises 50-100 wt% of HDPE [0080] therefore the HDPE is reasonably calculated to be in the thermoplastic blend at an amount of 99-37.5 wt%, therefore reading on 60-96 wt% polyolefin (A). Yalvac further discloses that the same embodiment comprises 1-25 wt% of an extender that is an ethylene alpha-olefin interpolymer [0080] wherein extenders are homogeneously branched [0029] and are random [0033] therefore reading on 2-20 wt% of at least one random alpha-olefinic copolymer (B); wherein Yalvac’s compositions can carry large amounts of fillers such as tackifiers in amounts up to 80 wt% [Yalvac, 0083] thereby teaching tackifiers with “sufficient specificity” that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed combination and reasonably reading on at least one tackifier (C). Polymer D) is an optional ingredient and is therefore not required to read on the limitations of D). The melt index of such thermoplastic blend compositions is increased by at least 5% relative to the composition, absent the extender [0081] i.e., a melt flow rate increase of about 5 to about 400%. Furthermore, the additional polymer D) is optional and is therefore not required in.
Yalvac does not particularly teach the amount of tackifier which may be used.
However, Wolschleger teaches preferably 5-7 wt% of aromatically modified C5 hydrocarbon resin tackifiers based on the total weight of the composition [Wolschleger 0084]. Wolschleger and Yalvac are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polymer compositions used in the automotive field.
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 add Wolschleger’s tackifiers to Yalvac, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation to modify Yalvac with Wolschleger is to facilitate a homogeneously mixed composition [Wolschleger 0084].
Yalvac does not teach the polyolefin is recycled and is silent regarding its melt flow rate.
However, Kulshreshtha teaches an HDPE [Kulshreshtha, 0043] that has a melt flow rate of 0.5 to 20 g/10min [Kulshreshtha, 0043] 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]. Yalvac and Kulshreshtha are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polypropylene-polyethylene compositions with improved flowability.
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 Yalvac, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation to modify Yalvac 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.
The amounts of random alpha-olefinic copolymer (1-25 wt%) [Yalvac, 0080] and tackifier (5-7 wt%) [Wolschleger 0084] are used to reasonably calculate the random alpha-olefinic copolymer/tackifier ratio is 0.14 - 5 (i.e., 0.2 – 5.0).
The combination of Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger is silent regarding said polyolefin composition having a melt flow rate increase of about 5 to 400% compared to a same polyolefin composition without said random alpha-olefinic copolymer, said tackifier, and said additional polymer. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger, 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 [Yalvac, 0113]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties - i.e. melt flow rate increase of about 5 to 400% - 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 Claims 2 and 16, Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the composition is extruded, followed by strand pelletization [Kulshreshtha, 0128] reading on in the form of pellets.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation of claim 5 is considered to be met because claim 5 is further narrowing an optional embodiment (additional polymer) that is not included in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger teaches the process of claim 1, comprising a method of dry blending individual components and subsequently melt mixing to make a composition [0084].
Regarding Claim 7, Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger does not teach that the process imparts a specific energy of about 0.01 to about 10 kWh/kg. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger, when modified in the manner proposed above, teaches a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by the same process of melt mixing [0084]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties - i.e. specific energy - 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 Claims 8, 9, and 14 Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger teaches the process of claim 1 wherein the composition is extruded in a co-rotating twin screw extruder [Kulshreshtha 0128].
Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger is silent regarding the extruding temperature of 110 to 200°C for a polyethylene rich recycled polyolefin of claim 9 or the extruding temperature of 85 to 160°C for a polyethylene rich recycled polyolefin of claim 14.
However, case law has held that differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of ranges is the optimum combination of values (MPEP 2144.05.II.A.). This decision is clearly analogous to other process parameters. Where the principle difference between the claimed process and that taught by the reference is a temperature difference, it is incumbent upon applicant to establish criticality of that difference (see Ex parte Khusid, 174 USPQ 59).
Regarding Claim 10, Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger teaches the process of claim 1, that is useful in masterbatch applications, for example, using a relatively small amount of composition (i.e., first masterbatch) to introduce one or more fillers and or additives into a much larger amount of the composition (i.e., second masterbatch). Yalvac further teaches dry blending these individual components and subsequently melt mixing to make a composition [0084] (i.e., dry blending before melt blending).
Furthermore, 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 11, Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger teaches the process of
claim 1, comprising recycled HDPE polyolefin (A) that has a melt flow rate of 0.5 to 20 g/10min
[Kulshreshtha, 0043] as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, which is considered a carrier polymer as
defined in instant specification [0127].
Regarding Claim 13, Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the individual components are melt mixed [0084] reading on melt blending.
Regarding Claim 15, Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger teaches the polyolefin composition of claim 1, comprising one or more additives [Yalvac, 0083].
Regarding Claim 17, Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger teaches the polyolefin composition of claim 1, comprising one or more additives [Yalvac, 0083].
Regarding Claim 18, Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger teaches the polyolefin composition of claim 1, comprising one or more fillers [Yalvac, 0083].
Claims 3, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yalvac et al. in view of Kulshreshtha et al. and Wolschleger, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of US2019/0382630 to Zhou et al.
Regarding Claims 3, 19, and 20, Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger teaches the process of claim 1, comprising HDPE as an ethylene homopolymer [Kulshreshtha, 0043] that is recycled [Kulshreshtha, 0037] reading on polyethylene-rich recycled polyolefin, wherein the tackifier (C) has a melting point between 100°C and 12°C [Wolschleger, 0084] and an MFR increase of about 5 to about 400%. One of ordinary skill in the art knows a melting point is always higher than a glass transition temperature. As such, a melting point between 100°C and 12° reads on a glass transition temperature above 25°C.
Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger is silent regarding an amorphous propylene-ethylene copolymer with a glass transition equal to or below -10°C.
However, Zhou teaches compositions and articles [Zhou, title] comprising an amorphous alpha olefin copolymer [Zhou, 0024] with a Tg no greater than -10°C [Zhou, 0025]. Zhou teaches the amorphous alpha-olefin copolymer is AERAFIN 17 [Zhou, 0029] which is the same commercially available amorphous polyolefin in instant application [00224] therefore it is reasonably expected that the addition of AERAFIN 17 reads on all limitations random alpha olefinic copolymer (B). Yalvac and Zhou are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely compositions comprising random alpha-olefinic copolymers.
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 Zhou’s low Tg alpha olefin copolymer in place of Yalvac’s random alpha-olefinic copolymer, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation would have been that amorphous alpha olefins are more tacky than semi-crystalline polymers [Zhou, 0003]. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that using a copolymer with a lower Tg in a blend will reduce the blends’ Tg, therefore increasing the melt flow rate and reducing viscosity, which is an interest of Yalvac [0008].
Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger does not teach an an elongation at break increase of about 5 to about 590% compared to the same polyolefin composition without the random alpha-olefinic copolymer and tackifier and the polyolefin composition maintains acceptable mechanical proprieties. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger, 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 increase, elongation at break, and acceptable mechanical properties - 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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yalvac et al. in view of Kulshreshtha et al. and Wolschleger, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of US2019/0153204 to Rebih.
Regarding Claim 21, Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger teaches the process of claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger are silent regarding a recycled polyolefin that is visbroken.
However, Rebih teaches a resin composition comprising polyolefins such as HDPE wherein thermo-mechanical degradation of the polyolefin components occur during compounding causing chain scission and macro-radical fragments [Rebih, 0028] (i.e., visbreaking). Rebih and Yalvac are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely resin compositions comprising polyolefins that are used for cable protection.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Rebih's visbreaking on Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha and Wolschleger’s recycled polyolefin.
The motivation would have been that have improved mechanical and physical properties such as elongation at break, impact strength, and environmental stress crack resistance [Rebih, 0028].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states the prior art does not teach newly amended claim 1 and new claim 21.
In response, attention is drawn to the updated rejection of claim 1 and the new rejection of claim 21 as taught by Yalvac in view of Kulshreshtha, Wolschleger, and Rebih.
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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