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 Objections
Claim 26 and 36 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 26, line 8 recites “tris(2,4-ditert-butylphenyl) phosphite (CAS-No. 31570-04-4)”. The claim should instead read “tris(2,4-ditert-butylphenyl) phosphite”.
Claim 26, line 9 recites “tetrakis-[3-(3,5-ditert-butyl-4-hydroxy-phenyl)- propionyloxymethyl]methane (CAS-No. 6683-19-8)” . The claim should instead read “tetrakis-[3-(3,5-ditert-butyl-4-hydroxy-phenyl)- propionyloxymethyl]methane”.
Claim 36, line 3 recites “tris(2,4-ditert-butylphenyl) phosphite (CAS-No. 31570-04-4)”. The claim should instead read “tris(2,4-ditert-butylphenyl) phosphite”.
Claim 36, line 4 recites “tetrakis-[3-(3,5-ditert-butyl-4-hydroxy-phenyl)- propionyloxymethyl]methane (CAS-No. 6683-19-8)” . The claim should instead read “tetrakis-[3-(3,5-ditert-butyl-4-hydroxy-phenyl)- propionyloxymethyl]methane”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Regarding claim 38, the “use” format of the claim renders the claim indefinite because it does not recite a step of how the use is practiced. (See MPEP 2173.05(q) (“Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) …. For example, a claim which read: ‘[a] process for using monoclonal antibodies of claim 4 to isolate and purify human fibroblast interferon’ was held to be indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. (Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986).)”.)
MPEP 2173.05(q) recommends an additional rejection in the alternative under 35 USC 101. That rejection is set forth below.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the polymer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because it does not recite a step of how the use is practiced. (See MPEP 2173.05(q) (“In Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967), the Board held the following claim to be an improper definition of a process: ‘The use of a high carbon austenitic iron alloy having a proportion of free carbon as a vehicle brake part subject to stress by sliding friction.’ In Clinical Products Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966), the district court held the following claim was definite, but that it was not a proper process claim 35 U.S.C. 101: ‘The use of a sustained release therapeutic agent in the body of ephedrine absorbed upon polystyrene sulfonic acid.’”).)
MPEP 2173.05(q) recommends an additional rejection in the alternative under 35 USC 112. That rejection is set forth above.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A method for manufacturing a pellet in a pellet mill, which comprises a roller and a die with a nozzle, which method comprises the steps of
(A) pressing a mixture for compaction by the roller through the nozzle to obtain a strand, and
(B) comminuting the strand to obtain the pellet, wherein the mixture for compaction comprises the components
(i) 87 to 97 wt.% of a polymer stabilizer mixture, which comprises the polymer stabilizers
(i-1) 45 to 55 wt.% of tris(2,4-ditert-butylphenyl) phosphite (CAS-No. 31570-04-4),
(i-2) 45 to 55 wt.% of tetrakis-[3-(3,5-ditert-butyl-4-hydroxy-phenyl)- propionyloxymethyl]methane (CAS-No. 6683-19-8), and
wt.% of the polymer stabilizers (i-1) and (i-2) are based on the weight of the polymer stabilizer mixture, and
(ii) 3 to 13 wt.% of a processing aid, which is a propylene-ethylene copolymer and which possesses a melting enthalpy below 20 J / g at 101.32 kPa, wherein the melting enthalpy is determined by a differential scanning calorimetry according to EN ISO 11357-3;
and wt.% of the components (i) and (ii) are based on the weight of the mixture for compaction.
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 26-32, 34-36, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunski (US 5846656 as listed on IDS dated September 29, 2023) in view of Lustiger (US 20090130443 A1).
Regarding claim 26 and 31, Dunski disclose in Example 21 a method of forming a pellet by blending 45 wt% of Irgafox (a tradename for tris(2-4-ditret-butylphenyl) phosophite), and 45 wt% of Irganox 1010 (a tradename for tetrakis-[3-(3,5-ditert-butyl-4-hydroxy-phenyl)-propionyloxymethyl]methane), and 10 wt% of low density polyethylene (LDPE) feeding the resulting mixture into the pellet mill to form a pellet ([col 5, line 49-64], [col 8, line 43-67]), thereby reading on steps A and B as recited in the instant claim. Dunski teach LDPE is a lubricating compound, thereby reading on a processing aid of component (ii) [col 2, line 35-41].
The amounts in Example 21 are equivalent to 50 wt% of tris(2-4-ditret-butylphenyl) phosophite and tetrakis-[3-(3,5-ditert-butyl-4-hydroxy-phenyl)-propionyloxymethyl]methane each based on the weight of the polymer stabilizer mixture and thereby lying within the claimed ranges for component (i) and (ii).
Dunski is silent on the melting enthalpy of the processing aid which is a propylene ethylene copolymer as recited in the instant claim 26 and 31.
Lustiger teaches a pellet comprising 2 to 20 wt% of one or more waxes (claim 1). Lustiger teaches suitable waxes include Licocene PP1502 [0052], which is the same propylene ethylene copolymer used in the examples of the instant specification, thereby lying within the claimed range of the melting enthalpy of instant claim 26 and 31 and the overlapping with the claimed amount of component (ii) (see Table B-1 of the instant specification). Lustiger offer the motivation that adding the wax insures a uniform and consistent distribution [0052]. Dunski is also concerned with forming a pellet from a homogenous mixture (claim 1 and 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the propylene ethylene copolymer of Lustiger to the method of Dunski with reasonable expectation that the consistency of the mixture would improve.
Regarding claim 27-30, Dusnky is silent on the weight average molecular weight, melting peak temperature, viscosity, and if the processing aid is a wax as recited in the instant claims.
However, Lutiger teaches a pellet comprising the wax Licocene PP1502 as rejected in the rejection for claim 26 above, thereby reading on the processing aid is a wax as recited in instant claim 30. Therefore, the weight average molecular weight, melting peak temperature, viscosity of the propylene ethylene copolymer lies within the claimed range of the weight average molecular weight of instant claim 27, melting peak temperature of instant claim 28, and viscosity of instant claim 29. Lustiger offer the motivation that adding the wax insures a uniform and consistent distribution [0052]. Dunski is also concerned with forming a pellet from a homogenous mixture (claim 1 and 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the propylene ethylene copolymer of Lustiger to the method of Dunski with reasonable expectation that the consistency of the mixture would improve.
Regarding claim 32, Dunski teach in Example 21 a method of forming a pellet by blending 45 wt% of Irgafox (a tradename for tris(2-4-ditret-butylphenyl) phosophite), 45 wt% of Irganox 1010 (a tradename for tetrakis-[3-(3,5-ditert-butyl-4-hydroxy-phenyl)-propionyloxymethyl]methane), and 10 wt% of low density polyethylene (LDPE) ([col 5, line 49-64], [col 8, line 43-67]), equivalent to 90 weight% of the polymer stabilizing mixture and 10 wt% of the processing aid and thereby lying within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 34, Dunski teach feeding the mixture for compaction into the pellet mill as reject in claim 26 above, thereby reading on the step (pre-A) of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 35, Dusnki teach the pellet mill used a CL-3, which is a ring die pellet mill ([col 5, line 49-64], [col 8, line 43-67]), thereby reading on the pellet mill of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 36, Dunski disclose in Example 21 a pellet comprising 45 wt% of Irgafox (a tradename for tris(2-4-ditret-butylphenyl) phosophite), 45 wt% of Irganox 1010 (a tradename for tetrakis-[3-(3,5-ditert-butyl-4-hydroxy-phenyl)-propionyloxymethyl]methane), and 10 wt% of low density polyethylene (LDPE) ([col 5, line 49-64], [col 8, line 43-67]), thereby lying within the claimed ranges for component (i) and (ii). Dunski teach LDPE is a lubricating compound, thereby reading on a processing aid of component (ii) [col 2, line 35-41].
The amounts in Example 21 are equivalent to 50 wt% of tris(2-4-ditret-butylphenyl) phosophite and tetrakis-[3-(3,5-ditert-butyl-4-hydroxy-phenyl)-propionyloxymethyl]methane each based on the weight of the polymer stabilizer mixture and thereby lying within the claimed ranges for component (i) and (ii).
Dunski is silent on the melting enthalpy of the processing aid which is a propylene ethylene copolymer as recited in the instant claim 36.
Lustiger teaches a pellet comprising 2 to 20 wt% of one or more waxes (claim 1). Lustiger teaches suitable waxes include Licocene PP1502, which is the same propylene ethylene copolymer used in the examples of the instant specification, thereby lying within the claimed range of the melting enthalpy and overlapping with the claimed amount of component (ii) of instant claim 36 (see Table B-1 of the instant specification). Lustiger offer the motivation that adding the wax insures a uniform and consistent distribution [0052]. Dunski is also concerned with forming a pellet from a homogenous mixture (claim 1 and 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the propylene ethylene copolymer of Lustiger to the method of Dunski with reasonable expectation that the consistency of the mixture would improve.
Regarding claim 40, Dunski disclose in Example 21 a pellet comprising 45 wt% of Irgafox (a tradename for tris(2-4-ditret-butylphenyl) phosophite), 45 wt% of Irganox 1010 (a tradename for tetrakis-[3-(3,5-ditert-butyl-4-hydroxy-phenyl)-propionyloxymethyl]methane), and 10 wt% of low density polyethylene (LDPE) ([col 5, line 49-64], [col 8, line 43-67]), thereby lying within the claimed ranges for component (i) and (ii). Dunski teach LDPE is a lubricating compound, thereby reading on a processing aid of component (ii) [col 2, line 35-41].
The amounts in Example 21 are equivalent to 50 wt% of tris(2-4-ditret-butylphenyl) phosophite and tetrakis-[3-(3,5-ditert-butyl-4-hydroxy-phenyl)-propionyloxymethyl]methane each based on the weight of the polymer stabilizer mixture and thereby lying within the claimed ranges for component (i) and (ii).
Dunski is silent on the melting enthalpy of the processing aid which is a propylene ethylene copolymer as recited in the instant claim 40.
Lustiger teaches a pellet comprising 2 to 20 wt% of one or more waxes (claim 1). Lustiger teaches suitable waxes include Licocene PP1502, which is the same propylene ethylene copolymer used in the examples of the instant specification, thereby lying within the claimed range of the melting enthalpy and overlapping with the claimed amount of component (ii) of instant claim 40 (see Table B-1 of the instant specification). Lustiger offer the motivation that adding the wax insures a uniform and consistent distribution [0052]. Dunski is also concerned with forming a pellet from a homogenous mixture (claim 1 and 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the propylene ethylene copolymer of Lustiger to the method of Dunski with reasonable expectation that the consistency of the mixture would improve.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunski (US 5846656 as listed on IDS dated September 29, 2023) in view of Lustiger (US 20090130443 A1) and in further view of Henkins et al. (US 6033600 as listed on IDS dated September 29, 2023).
The pellet of claim 36 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 38, Dunski teaches the pellet is used as a stabilizing system for stabilizing polymeric materials against ultraviolet light and thermoxidative deterioration (claim 1 and 20).
Dusnki is silent on the exact polymeric material as recited in the instant claim.
Henkins et al. teach a stabilizer blend in the form of a pellet used as additives for polymeric compositions such as styrenic polymers and polyolefin homopolymers and copolymers [col 5, line 6-37], thereby reading on the instant claim. Dunski Therefore, it would have been to add the pellet of Dunski to a polystyrene or polyolefin as taught by Henskins et al. since both are related to stabilizer pellets used as additives for polymeric compositions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33, 37, and 39 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 33, 37, and 39 are allowable over the closest prior art, Dunski (US 5846656 as listed on IDS dated September 29, 2023).
Dunski disclose a method for producing a stabilizer for polymeric materials in pellet form comprising dry mixing at least one stabilizing compound and a melt stabilizing compound to form a homogeneous mixture, introducing the homogeneous mixture, and operating the pellet mill to compress the homogeneous mixture into a product (claim 20).
Dunski does not teach or fairly suggest the speicifc method wherein the strand obtained in step (A) has a specific surface temperature as recited in the instant claim 33. Dusnki also does not teach or fairly suggest the pellet has a shape of a round rod and the round rod has a diameter of a circle which has the specific diameter of between 2 mm and 4 mm and has a specific length of 1 to 3 times of the diameter of the circle as recited in instant claim 37. Dusnki also does not teach a method for manufacturing a stabilized polymer comprising the specific steps of dosing a pellet of claim 36 into a polymer to obtain a pellet-polymer mixture and exposing the pellet-polymer mixture to a specific temperature in the range of 120 to 340°C under mechanical stirring as recited in instant claim 39.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M F 8 - 5.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
/ANDREA WU/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights