DETAILED ACTION
Pending Claims
Claims 36-46 and 55-57 are pending.
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 .
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 36-41 and new claims 55-57) in the reply filed on July 28, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 42-46 (Group III) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 28, 2026. Group I (claim1), Group IV (claim 53), and Group V (claim 54) have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, 4th paragraph (d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 40, claim 36 features “(i) a first carbon-carbon backbone (CCB) polymer” (singular). Claim 40 attempts to further limit this material with: (40) wherein: the first CCB polymer is selected from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), very-low-density polyethylene (VLDPE), ultra-low-density polyethylene (ULDPE), medium-density polyethylene (MDPE), polypropylene (PP), polymethylpentene (PMP), polybutene-1 (PB-1), an ethylene-octene copolymer, stereo-block PP, a propylene-butane copolymer, polyisobutylene (PIB), ethylene propylene rubber (EPR), ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber (EPDM rubber), and combinations thereof. This claim fails to further limit claim 36 because it improperly shifts the scope of the claim from a singular first CCB polymer to multiple first CCB polymers.
Further regarding claim 40, claim 36 features “(i) a second polymer” (singular). Claim 40 attempts to further limit this material with: (40) wherein: the second polymer is selected from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polylactic acid (PLA), polyamides, and combinations thereof. This claim fails to further limit claim 36 because it improperly shifts the scope of the claim from a singular second polymer to multiple second polymers.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 36-41 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 107488291 A) in view of Wang et al. (CN 110483877 A).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 107488291 A) in view of Wang et al. (CN 110483877 A) and Trenchard et al. (WO 2015/042641 A1).
Regarding claims 36, 38, 41, and 55, Wang discloses: (36) a method for forming a carbon-carbon backbone (CCB) copolymer (Abstract; paragraphs 0008-0017), the method comprising:
(1) reactive melt-processing (embodiments 1-3 in paragraphs 0043-0048)
(i) a first carbon-carbon backbone (COB) polymer (embodiments 1-3 in paragraphs 0043-0048: mPE),
(ii) a first grafting agent selected from the group consisting of unsaturated cyclic anhydrides, unsaturated cyclic imides, ring-opened analogs thereof, and combinations thereof (embodiments 1-3 in paragraphs 0043-0048: MAH; see also paragraph 0026),
(iii) a first initiator (embodiments 1-3 in paragraphs 0043-0048: DCP; see also paragraph 0026), and
(iv) optionally a first reversible radical trapping agent (optional component not required),
thereby forming a first functionalized CCB polymer comprising the first COB polymer and the first grafting agent;
(2) reactive melt-processing (embodiments 1-3 in paragraphs 0043-0048)
(i) a second polymer (embodiments 1-3 in paragraphs 0043-0048: LDPE),
(ii) a second grafting agent selected from the group consisting of unsaturated cyclic anhydrides, unsaturated cyclic imides, ring-opened analogs thereof, and combinations thereof (embodiments 1-3 in paragraphs 0043-0048: MAH; see also paragraph 0026),
(iii) a second initiator (embodiments 1-3 in paragraphs 0043-0048: DCP; see also paragraph 0026), and
(iv) optionally a second reversible radical trapping agent (optional component not required),
thereby forming a second functionalized polymer comprising the second polymer and the second grafting agent; and
(3) reactive melt-processing the first functionalized COB polymer and the second functionalized polymer (embodiments 1-3 in paragraphs 0043-0048);
(38) comprising: performing steps (1), (2), and (3) in a single melt-processing apparatus (embodiments 1-3 in paragraphs 0043-0048);
(41) wherein the second polymer comprises a second CCB polymer different from the first CCB polymer (embodiments 1-3 in paragraphs 0043-0048: LDPE and mPE); and
(55) wherein the grafting agent comprises a 5-membered ring structure, a 6-membered ring structure, or a ring-opened analog thereof (embodiments 1-3 in paragraphs 0043-0048: MAH; see also paragraph 0026).
Wang fails to explicitly disclose: (36) wherein at least one of conditions (A1), (B1), and (C1) apply: (A1) the first grafting agent has a surface energy relative to that of the first COB polymer in a ratio in a range from 0.02 to 2.0; (B1) a ratio of a half-life of the first initiator relative to a residence time for the reactive melt-processing is in a range of 0.2 to 5.0; or (C1) the first radical trapping agent is present; and (36) wherein at least one of conditions (A2), (B2), and (C2) apply: (A2) the second grafting agent has a surface energy relative to that of the second polymer in a ratio in a range from 0.02 to 2.0; (B2) a ratio of a half-life of the second initiator relative to a residence time for the reactive melt-processing is in a range of 0.2 to 5.0; or (C2) the second radical trapping agent is present. However, it appears that the mPE/MAH combination would have obviously satisfied (A1), and that the LDPE/MAH combination would have obviously satisfied (A2). This is because Applicant states: “typical polyolefins such as PE and PP generally have an absolute surface energy of about 30 dyne/cm (e.g., 25-35 dyne/cm)”, and “Maleic anhydride grafting agents can have an absolute surface energy of about 40 dyne/cm or higher” (see paragraph 0077 of the instant specification).
Lastly, Wang discloses that their MAH-grafted polymers help improve the interface between the polymers and their calcium carbonate filler (see Abstract; paragraph 0017; see also embodiments 1-3 in paragraphs 0043-0048). However, Wang fails to explicitly disclose: (36) a COB compatibilizer copolymer comprising the first COB polymer and the second polymer joined via the first grafting agent and the second grafting agent.
Wang et al. disclose a composition that includes MAH-grafted polyethylene wax and a calcium carbonate filler (see paragraph 0014). They disclose that MAH-grafted polyethylene wax improves the compatibility and adhesion of the interface of the polymers and the calcium carbonate filler (see paragraph 0014). Specifically, the MAH-grafted polyethylene wax can cause intermolecular entanglement (see paragraph 0014). In addition, the carboxyl groups (from the MAH grafts) form complex or ionic bonds with the calcium carbonate (see paragraph 0014). This improves bonding between calcium carbonate and polyolefins and improves structural properties of the overall composition (see paragraph 0014). This teaching suggests that the intermolecular entanglement, as well as complex or ionic bonds with the calcium carbonate, would have obviously been present in the material of Wang. The intermolecular entanglement would have obviously stratified a physical joining of materials. The complex or ionic bonds with the calcium carbonate would have obviously satisfied a chemical joining of materials where the calcium carbonate acts in the capacity of coupling agent.
Therefore, the skilled artisan would have expected the process of Wang to obviously result in a joined relationship between grafted polymers because: (a) Wang discloses that their MAH-grafted polymers help improve the interface between the polymers and their calcium carbonate filler; (b) Wang et al. disclose a composition that includes MAH-grafted polyethylene wax and a calcium carbonate filler, where the MAH-grafted polyethylene wax improves the compatibility and adhesion of the interface of the polymers and the calcium carbonate filler; (c) the MAH-grafted polyethylene wax of Wang et al. can cause intermolecular entanglement; (d) the carboxyl groups (from the MAH grafts) in Wang et al. form complex or ionic bonds with the calcium carbonate, improving bonding between calcium carbonate and polyolefins and structural properties of the overall composition; and (e) the teachings of Wang et al. suggest that the intermolecular entanglement, as well as complex or ionic bonds with the calcium carbonate, would have obviously been present in the material of Wang. Furthermore: (f) the intermolecular entanglement would have obviously stratified a physical joining of materials; and (g) the complex or ionic bonds with the calcium carbonate would have obviously satisfied a chemical joining of materials where the calcium carbonate acts in the capacity of coupling agent.
Regarding claim 37, the combined teachings of {Wang and Wang et al.} are as set forth above and incorporated herein to obviously satisfy claim (37).
Regarding claim 39, the combined teachings of {Wang and Wang et al.} are as set forth above and incorporated herein. The fail to explicitly disclose: (39) performing steps (1), (2), and (3) in two or more melt-processing apparatus. However, the skilled artisan would have recognized that running the same reaction in multiple extruders is an obvious way to increase production output.
Regarding claim 40, the combined teachings of {Wang and Wang et al.} are as set forth above and incorporated herein. The composition of Wang is used for forming mulch films (see Abstract). Wang discloses: (40) wherein: the second polymer is selected from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polylactic acid (PLA), and polyamides (embodiments 1-3 in paragraphs 0043-0048: LDPE); and the second polymer is different from the first CCB polymer embodiments 1-3 in paragraphs 0043-0048: LDPE and mPE). Wang fails to explicitly disclose: (40) wherein: the first CCB polymer is selected from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), very-low-density polyethylene (VLDPE), ultra-low-density polyethylene (ULDPE), medium-density polyethylene (MDPE), polypropylene (PP), polymethylpentene (PMP), polybutene-1 (PB-1), an ethylene-octene copolymer, stereo-block PP, a propylene-butane copolymer, polyisobutylene (PIB), ethylene propylene rubber (EPR), and ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber (EPDM rubber). However, the skilled artisan would have expected the mPE of Wang to obviously fall within a category of “high-density”, “low-density”, “linear low-density”, “very-low-density”, “ultra-low-density”, or “medium-density”.
Furthermore, the teachings of Trenchard et al. disclose a related mulch film (see Abstract). They demonstrate that linear low-density mPE and low-density mPE are recognized in the art as suitable mPE polymers used in mulch films (see paragraph 0027). In light of this, it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the process resulting from the combined teachings of {Wang and Wang et al.} with the instantly claimed first polymer because: (a) the skilled artisan would have expected the mPE of Wang to obviously fall within a category of “high-density”, “low-density”, “linear low-density”, “very-low-density”, “ultra-low-density”, or “medium-density”. Furthermore: (b) the teachings of Trenchard et al. disclose a related mulch film and demonstrate that linear low-density mPE and low-density mPE are recognized in the art as suitable mPE polymers used in mulch films; and (c) it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 107488291 A) in view of Wang et al. (CN 110483877 A) and Takemura et al. (US Pat. No. 5,728,776).
Regarding claim 56, the combined teachings of {Wang and Wang et al.} are as set forth above and incorporated herein. Wang uses a maleic acid anhydride (MAH) grafting agent. Accordingly, Wang fails to disclose: (56) wherein the grafting agent further comprises a pendant functional group selected from the group consisting of a silyl ether, a further unsaturated carbon-carbon group, a hydroxy group, a carboxylate group, an epoxide group, an amino group, an ester group, and combinations thereof.
Takemura et al. disclose a similar hot-melt process of graft modifying polyolefins (see Abstract). They contemplate various anhydride grafting agents (see column 2, lines 56-67) and demonstrate that maleic anhydride and itaconic anhydride (see column 2, lines 60-67) are recognized in the art as equally suitable anhydride grafting agents for this type of process. In light of this, it has been found combining and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious – see MPEP 2144.06.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the process resulting from the combined teachings of {Wang and Wang et al.} with the instantly claimed grafting agent because: (a) Wang uses a maleic acid anhydride (MAH) grafting agent; (b) Takemura et al. disclose a similar hot-melt process of graft modifying polyolefins; (c) Takemura et al. contemplate various anhydride grafting agents and demonstrate that maleic anhydride and itaconic anhydride are recognized in the art as equally suitable anhydride grafting agents for this type of process; and (d) it has been found combining and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 57 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
International Search Report
The international search report cited two X-references. Both references have been considered.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FEELY whose telephone number is (571)272-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/MICHAEL J FEELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
September 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights