DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 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.
2. Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al (US 2017/0271048).
3. Nishida et al discloses a flame-retardant resin composition comprising:
A) 18-85%wt, or 30-85%wt ([0021]) of a high density polyethylene (HDPE) having a density of 0.945 g/cc or more, or 0.950 g/cc or more ([0021]);
B) 9-69%wt of a low density polyethylene (LDPE) having a density of 0.925 g/cc ([0023]);
C) 3-25%wt of an acid-modified polyolefin, specifically maleic anhydride-modified polyethylene ([0025], as to instant claim 5) and
D) 25-110 pbw of calcium carbonate particles having particle size of 1.5-3.6 micron ([0031], as to instant claim 4);
E) 1 pbw of a silicone-based compound and
F) 2 pbw of a fatty acid-containing compound,
each of the components D)-F) based on 100 pbw of the base resin components A)-C) (Abstract),
Wherein the composition is used for making an insulating layer ([0013]-[0014]), i.e. a film or sheet (as to instant claims 9-10).
4. As to instant claims 7-8, the composition comprises 2 pbw of an antioxidant (Table 1).
5. All ranges in the composition of Nishida et al are overlapping with the corresponding ranges of those as claimed in instant invention. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
6. Based on the teachings of Nishida et al, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use a composition comprising 85%wt of HDPE having density 0.945 g/cc or 0.950 g/cc, 12%wt of LDPE having density of 0.925 g/cc, 3%wt of a maleic anhydride-modified polyethylene, totaling 100%wt of the base resins, and 25 pbw of calcium carbonate, based on 100%wt of said resins, i.e. 20%wt based on the composition comprising said base resins and calcium carbonate, since it would have been obvious to choose materials based on its their suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
Given the composition comprises:
85%wt of HDPE, 3%wt of a maleic anhydride-modified polyethylene, and 20%wt calcium carbonate, therefore the weight percentages based on said combination of the components A)+C)+D) will be:
85/108=78.7%wt of HDPE;
3/108=2.7%wt of maleic anhydride-modified polyethylene and
20/108=18.5%wt of calcium carbonate (as to instant claim 1).
Given the composition comprises:
the preferable amount 80%wt ([0021]) of HDPE, the preferable amount of 5%wt ([0026]) of a maleic anhydride-modified polyethylene, and a preferable amount of 40 phr of calcium carbonate ([0032], i.e. 28%wt based on the composition), therefore the weight percentages based on said combination of the components A)+C)+D) will be:
80/113=71%wt of HDPE;
5/113=4%wt of maleic anhydride-modified polyethylene and
28/113=25%wt of calcium carbonate (as to instant claim 1).
7. Further, taking into account that i) the density of LDPE component B) of Nishida et al is 0.925 g/cc, which value is very close to the claimed value for density of HDPE of 0.930 g/cc (instant claim 3), and is used in a minor amount; ii) the composition of Nishida et al is substantially the same as that claimed in instant invention, i.e. comprising substantially the same HDPE with substantially the same density value as that claimed in instant invention used in substantially the same amount as that claimed in instant invention, and comprising calcium carbonate having the same particle size and used in substantially the same amount, as claimed in instant invention, therefore, the composition of Nishida et al will intrinsically and necessarily have, or would be reasonably expected to have density values that are either the same as those claimed in instant invention, i.e. in the range of 1.0-1.2 g/cc, or in a range overlapping with that as claimed in instant invention as well (as to instant claim 1). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
8. Claims 1-5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al (US 2017/0271048) in view of Lee et al (US 2019/0169325).
9. The discussion with respect to Nishida et al (US 2017/0271048) set forth in paragraphs 2-7 above, is incorporated here by reference.
10. Though Nishida et al does not explicitly recite other properties of the HDPE, including melt index and melt flow ratio,
Lee et al discloses a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) having density of 0.930-0.970 g/cc ([0108]), melt index 0.1 g/10 min or 0.5 g/10 min ([0111]) and MFR of 35-100 ([0112]) (as to instant claim 3), wherein said HDPE is having excellent flowability, excellent mechanical properties and excellent molding processability due to high MFR (Abstract, [0126]) and is used to form extrusion molded products such as films ([0117]).
11. Since the HDPE of Lee et al is having not only density of 0.930-0.970 g/cc as required by Nishida et al, but further melt index 0.1 g/10 min or 0.5 g/10 min and MFR of as high as 35-100 ([0112]), wherein said HDPE of Lee et al is having excellent flowability, excellent mechanical properties and excellent molding processability due to said high MFR (Abstract, [0126]) and is used to form extrusion molded products such as films, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee et al and Nishida et al, and to use, or obvious to try to use the HDPE of Lee et al as the HDPE in the composition of Nishida et al, so to further improve flowability, mechanical properties and molding processability of the composition of Nishida et al used for making insulating sheets/films as well, and since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141
12. Since the composition of Nishida et al in view of Lee et al is substantially the same as that claimed in instant invention, i.e. comprising the same HDPE with substantially the same density, melt index and MFR as that claimed in instant invention used in substantially the same amount as that claimed in instant invention, and comprising calcium carbonate having the same particle size and used in substantially the same amount, as claimed in instant invention, therefore, the composition and further insulating sheet made from said composition of Nishida et al in view of Lee et al will intrinsically and necessarily have, or would be reasonably expected to have the properties, including density, melt index and MFR, and for said insulating layers- tensile strength and elongation, that are either the same as those claimed in instant invention, or having properties overlapping with those as claimed in instant invention as well (as to instant claims 1-2, 9). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
13. All ranges in the composition of Nishida et al in view of Lee et al are overlapping with the corresponding ranges of those as claimed in instant invention. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
14. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2012/0009387) in view of Lee et al (US 2019/0169325).
15. Wang et al discloses a polyolefin-based composition comprising:
A) 55-95%wt of a polyolefin, specifically high-density polyethylene ([0036]);
B) 5-45%wt of a thermoplastic starch;
C) 0.5-8%wt of a compatibilizer, specifically polyethylene grafted with maleic anhydride and comprising 0.5-1%wt of said maleic anhydride ([0036], as to instant claims 5-6) (Abstract),
D) 10-30%wt of a filler including calcium carbonate ([0037]),
Wherein the composition is used for making films (Abstract, as to instant claim 10).
The film is having elongation of 200-1000% ([0039]).
16. The ranges in the composition of Wang et al are overlapping with the corresponding ranges of those as claimed in instant invention. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553.
17. Based on the teachings of Wang et al, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use a high density polyethylene (HDPE) as the component A) in amount of 70-88%wt, calcium carbonate as the filler in amount of 10-30%wt, and the polyethylene grafted with 0.5-1%wt of maleic anhydride in amount of 2-4%wt as the compatibilizer, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
18. Though Wang et al does not explicitly recite the properties of the HDPE component A), including density, melt index and melt flow ratio,
Lee et al discloses a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) having density of 0.930-0.970 g/cc ([0108]), melt index 0.1 g/10 min or 0.5 g/10 min ([0111]) and MFR of 35-100 ([0112]) (as to instant claim 3), wherein said HDPE is having excellent flowability, excellent mechanical properties and excellent molding processability due to high MFR (Abstract, [0126]) and is used to form extrusion molded products such as films ([0117]).
19. Since the HDPE of Lee et al is having excellent flowability, excellent mechanical properties and excellent molding processability due to said high MFR (Abstract, [0126]) and is used to form extrusion molded products such as films, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee et al and Wang et al, and to use, or obvious to try to use the HDPE of Lee et al as the HDPE component A) in the composition of Wang et al, so to further improve flowability, mechanical properties and molding processability of the composition of Wang et al used for making insulating sheets/films as well, and since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141
20. Since the composition of Wang et al in view of Lee et al is substantially the same as that claimed in instant invention, i.e. comprising the same HDPE with substantially the same density, melt index and MFR as that claimed in instant invention used in substantially the same amount as that claimed in instant invention, and comprising calcium carbonate used in substantially the same amount as claimed in instant invention, therefore, the composition and further the film made from said composition of Wang et al in view of Lee et al will intrinsically and necessarily have, or would be reasonably expected to have the properties, including density, melt index and MFR, and for said films- tensile strength and elongation, that are either the same as those claimed in instant invention, or having properties overlapping with those as claimed in instant invention as well (as to instant claims 1-2, 9). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
21. All ranges in the composition of Wang et al in view of Lee et al are overlapping with the corresponding ranges of those as claimed in instant invention. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
22. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al (US 2017/0271048) in view of Lee et al (US 2019/0169325) and Wang et al (US 2012/0009387).
23. The discussion with respect to Nishida et al (US 2017/0271048) in view of Lee et al (US 2019/0169325) set forth in paragraphs 8-13 above, is incorporated here by reference.
24. Though Nishida et al in view of Lee et al do not explicitly recite the content of maleic anhydride in the maleic anhydride-modified polyethylene,
Wang et al discloses a polyolefin-based composition comprising:
i) 55-95%wt of a polyolefin, specifically high-density polyethylene ([0036]);
i) 0.5-8%wt of a compatibilizer, specifically polyethylene grafted with maleic anhydride and comprising 0.5-1%wt of said maleic anhydride ([0036], as to instant claims 5-6) (Abstract),
iii) 10-30%wt of a filler including calcium carbonate ([0037]),
Wherein the composition is used for making films (Abstract, as to instant claim 10).
The film is having elongation of 200-1000% ([0039]).
25. Since Wang et al and Nishida et al in view of Lee et al are related to compositions based on HDPE, calcium carbonate and maleic anhydride-modified polyethylene, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein Wang et al specifies the polyethylene grafted with maleic anhydride comprising 0.5-1%wt of said maleic anhydride as the compatibilizer, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wang et al and Nishida et al in view of Lee et al, and include, or obvious to try to include the polyethylene grafted with maleic anhydride comprising 0.5-1%wt of said maleic anhydride of Wang et al as the polyethylene grafted with maleic anhydride component C) of Nishida et al so to compatibilize the composition of Nishida et al in view of Lee et al, especially since Nishida et al itself recites that the acid-modified polyolefins are used to improve adhesion of the HDPE to the calcium carbonate particles, i.e. to compatibilize the composition as well, and since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141
26. Since the composition of Nishida et al in view of Lee et al and Wang et al is substantially the same as that claimed in instant invention, i.e. comprising the same HDPE with substantially the same density, melt index and MFR as that claimed in instant invention used in substantially the same amount as that claimed in instant invention, maleic anhydride-modified polyethylene in substantially the same amount as that claimed in instant invention and comprising calcium carbonate used in substantially the same amount as claimed in instant invention, therefore, the composition and further the film made from said composition of Nishida et al in view of Lee et al and Wang et al will intrinsically and necessarily have, or would be reasonably expected to have the properties, including density, melt index and MFR, and for said insulating sheets/films- tensile strength and elongation, that are either the same as those claimed in instant invention, or having properties overlapping with those as claimed in instant invention as well (as to instant claims 1-2, 9). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
27. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al (US 2017/0271048) in view of Lee et al (US 2019/0169325), Wang et al (US 2012/0009387), and in further view of Heinz et al (US 2003/0181563).
28. The discussion with respect to Nishida et al (US 2017/0271048) in view of Lee et al (US 2019/0169325), Wang et al (US 2012/0009387), set forth in paragraphs 22-26 above, is incorporated here by reference.
29. Though Nishida et al does not explicitly recite the composition comprising 3pbw or less of additives per 100 pbw of the resins,
Heinz et al discloses a flame-resistant composition comprising
HDPE, calcium carbonate as a filler and a polyolefin grafted with a carboxylic acid derivative to improve polymer-filler compatibility ([0008]-[0011], [0018]-[0019]), wherein Heinz et al further recites that such composition comprises as low as 0.1 pbw of a stabilizer system ([0012]), including antioxidants ([0029]-[0031]).
30. Since the compositions based on HDPE, calcium carbonate and a compatibilizer based on polyolefin grafted with a carboxylic acid are taught in the art as further comprising stabilizer systems including antioxidants, as shown by Heinz et al, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Heinz et al and Nishida et al in view of Lee et al and Wang et al, and to include, or obvious to try to include a minor amount of stabilizing system including antioxidants of Heinz et al in the composition of Nishida et al in view of Lee et al and Wang et al, so to provide the composition of Nishida et al in view of Lee et al and Wang et al with stabilizing and antioxidant properties as well, and since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRINA KRYLOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-7349. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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.
/IRINA KRYLOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764