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 .
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 17-28 and 30-31, drawn to a method.
Group II, claim(s) 29, drawn to a stabilizer composition.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature. The stabilizer composition of Group II does not share the technical feature of a planetary roller extruder as recited by Group I.
During a telephone conversation with John Economou on March 12, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 17-28 and 30-31. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 29 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
A reference on the initialed copy of the PTO-1449 attached to this Office Action has been crossed out because no reference was provided.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
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 17-28 are 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.
Claim 17 recites “in particular a polymer containing halogen such as polyvinyl chloride,” which is indefinite because it is not clear if the recitations after “in particular” and after “such as” are being positively claimed. Claim 17 recites “as extruder” and “the extrusion” which lack antecedent basis clarity. Claim 17 recites “wherein an impact modifier is admixed” and “the extrusion is carried out” which are indefinite. The impact modifier is admixed relative to what? What is the extrusion relative to? The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
17. (Currently amended) A method for producing a stabilizer composition for a polymer,
forming the stabilizer composition are mixed in an extruder and continuously discharged
therefrom, and wherein the components include an impact modifier and the impact modifier is admixed in the extruder, wherein a planetary roller extruder is used as the extruder and an extrusion within the extruder is carried out with downstream decreasing shear forces.
Claim 18 recites “an impact modifier” which lacks antecedent basis clarity. The Examiner suggests the following amendments: “[[an]] the impact modifier”.
Claim 19 recites “the extrusion direction” which lacks antecedent basis clarity. The Examiner suggests the following amendments: “an extrusion direction”.
Claim 20 recites “is used” which is indefinite. How is it used? The Examiner suggests the following amendments: “is used as the extruder”.
Claim 25 recites “preferably at least three modules, in particular four to eight modules,” which is indefinite because it is not clear if the recitations after “in particular” and after “preferably” are being positively claimed. The Examiner suggests the following amendments: “
Claim 25 recites “used” which is indefinite. How is it used? The Examiner suggests the following amendments: “is used as the extruder”.
Claim 28 recites “, in particular by reducing a number of the planetary rollers in the planetary roller extruder downstream” which is indefinite because it is not clear if the recitations after “in particular”. Note that deleting this recitation would result in claim 28 having the same scope of claim 17. Thus, the Examiner suggests the following amendments: “
Claims not listed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
For further examination purposes, the scope of the claims are read in light of the suggested Examiner amendments.
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 31 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. 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 31 recites “a planetary roller extruder” which is redundant to claim 30 which already recites a planetary roller extruder.
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
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.
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.
Claim(s) 17-22 and 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) in view of Sehm (US 3,644,576), Dyer et al. (US 3,919,137) and Rust et al. US (2020/0055214).
Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) discloses a method for producing a stabilizer composition for a polymer [0001]-[0005], in particular a polymer containing halogen such as polyvinyl chloride [0036], wherein components for forming the stabilizer composition are mixed in an extruder ([0006]-[0044]; fig.1) and continuously discharged therefrom [0032], [0046], and wherein an impact modifier is admixed [0026], wherein a planetary roller extruder is used as extruder [0039].
However, Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) does not disclose the method wherein the extrusion is carried out with downstream decreasing shear forces.
Sehm (US 3,644,576) discloses that acrylate, such as methyl methacrylate, is an impact modifier for vinyl chloride resins (col. 1, line 13, to col. 2, line 28; col. 2, line 67, to col. 3, line 5; col. 3, lines 40-44).
Dyer et al. (US 3,919,137) discloses that acrylate is a processing aid for polyvinyl chloride (col. 1, line 8, to col. 2, line 24), wherein acrylate, such as methyl methacrylate, polymerizes at low temperatures (col. 2, lines 29-35).
Rust et al. US (2020/0055214) disclose a planetary roller extruder [0001] wherein process requirements, such as shear forces and heat exchange, in the planetary roller extruder are adjusted downstream, in particular by changing a number of the planetary rollers (spindles) in the planetary roller extruder downstream ([0013], several cylinder assemblies, [0017], number of spindles can be varied in each cylinder assembly, influences area size for heat exchange, the number affects the supplied shear energy; in view of such teachings, it would have been obvious that reducing the number of planetary rollers in the planetary roller extruder downstream (i.e., reducing the number of rollers in a downstream cylinder assembly relative to the number of rollers in an adjacent upstream cylinder assembly) would reduce/decrease shear forces downstream and would reduce/decrease heat exchange downstream (i.e. reduce/decrease the temperature of the extruder downstream, and thus enable cooling the extruder downstream).
Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) further discloses cooling towards the rear of the extruder (Table 2) and that temperature-sensitive components can thus also be incorporated over the further course of the process in a module of the extruder positioned farther to the rear (which is cooler) in a downstream perspective [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the admixed impact modifier of the method of Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) to be an acrylate, as disclosed by Sehm (US 3,644,576), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the impact modifier known to be operable in the art for vinyl chloride resins. In view of the teachings of acrylates polymerizing at low temperatures (i.e., acrylates are temperature sensitive) of Dyer et al. (US 3,919,137) above, it would have been further obvious to add the acrylate to the extruder in a position farther to the rear (which is cooler) in a downstream perspective as taught by Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) above for temperature-sensitive components. As mentioned above, Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) further discloses cooling towards the rear of the extruder, it would have been further obvious to further modify the method wherein the extrusion is carried out with downstream decreasing shear forces, as disclosed by Rust et al. US (2020/0055214), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for cooling the extruder downstream.
As to claim 18, an acrylate being admixed as an impact modifier is mentioned in the combination above.
As to claim 19, as mentioned in the combination above, Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) discloses that the temperature sensitive additive is added/admixed to the extruder in a position farther to the rear in a downstream perspective. As to the impact modifier being admixed downstream in a last third of the extruder as viewed in the extrusion direction, such “last third” location would have been found in finding operable positions farther to the rear in a downstream perspective for adding/admixing the temperature-sensitive component (acrylate) in view of the teachings of Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472).
As to claim 20, Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) further disclose that an extruder having a plurality of sections (modules) 11-16 arranged in series (Fig. 1) is used as the extruder. As to the impact modifier being admixed in a last section, as mentioned above Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) disclose that temperature-sensitive components can thus also be incorporated over the further course of the process in a module (section) of the extruder positioned farther to the rear in a downstream perspective. As to the section being the last section, such last section would have been found in finding operable positions farther to the rear in a downstream perspective for adding/admixing the temperature-sensitive component in view of the teachings of Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472).
As to claim 21, as mentioned above Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) disclose that temperature-sensitive components can thus also be incorporated over the further course of the process in a module (section) of the extruder positioned farther to the rear in a downstream perspective. Thus, it would have been further obvious that the impact modifier being admixed as the last component would have been found in view of the teachings Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472). For example, if the impact modifier (acrylate) is the only temperature-sensitive component, then it would have been obvious to add it as the last component in view of the “farther to the rear” teachings Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472).
As to claim 22, Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) disclose the method wherein the stabilizer composition is pelletized (granulated) after discharge from the extruder [0032]-[0034].
As to claim 24, Rust et al. US (2020/0055214) further discloses a composition (blend) is pressurized after the extruder for discharge ([0076], pressurized by melt pump; Fig. 1; [0236], melt pump 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the method wherein the stabilizer composition is pressurized after the extruder for pelletizing (discharge), as disclosed by Rust et al. US (2020/0055214), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the method known to be operable in the art.
As to claim 25, Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) disclose the method wherein a planetary roller extruder with several modules, preferably at least three modules, in particular four to eight modules, is used (Fig. 1, there are six modules 11-16).
As to claim 26, Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) disclose the method wherein the components are extruded in a temperature range of about 80 °C to 240 °C ([0044], [0046] and Table 2).
As to claim 27, Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) disclose the method wherein along the planetary roller extruder downstream, the temperature is initially set to increase and then to decrease again (Table 2, increase from filling section 10 to module 11 and then decrease again from module 11 to module 16).
As to claim 28, as mentioned in the combination as mentioned above, it would have been obvious that reducing the number of planetary rollers in the planetary roller extruder downstream (i.e., Rust et al. US (2020/0055214) disclosed that the number of rollers for each cylinder assembly can be adjusted to modify shear forces, as mentioned above) would adjust the shear forces to reduce/decrease downstream.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) in view of Sehm (US 3,644,576), Dyer et al. (US 3,919,137) and Rust et al. US (2020/0055214) as applied to claims 17-22 and 24-28 above, and further in view of Deiss et al. (US 2016/0193771).
Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472), Sehm (US 3,644,576), Dyer et al. (US 3,919,137) and Rust et al. US (2020/0055214) do not disclose the limitations of claim 23.
Deiss et al. (US 2016/0193771) discloses a method wherein a composition is pelletized in air [0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the method wherein the stabilizer composition is pelletized in air, as disclosed by Deiss et al. (US 2016/0193771), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the method known to be operable in the art.
Claim(s) 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) in view of Rust et al. US (2020/0055214).
Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) discloses a method for producing a stabilizer composition for a polymer [0001]-[0005], wherein components for forming the stabilizer composition are mixed in an extruder ([0006]-[0044]; fig.1), wherein a planetary roller extruder is used as extruder [0039].
However, Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) does not disclose the method wherein shear forces are adjusted via a different number of planetary spindles in modules of the planetary roller extruder.
Rust et al. US (2020/0055214) disclose a planetary roller extruder [0001] wherein process requirements, such as shear forces, in the planetary roller extruder are adjusted via a different number of planetary spindles in modules (cylinder assemblies) of the planetary roller extruder [0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the method of Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) wherein shear forces are adjusted via a different number of planetary spindles in modules of the planetary roller extruder, as disclosed by Rust et al. US (2020/0055214), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the method known to be operable in the art
As to claim 31, Hecher et al. (US 2020/0071472) discloses the method wherein a planetary roller extruder is used as the extruder, as mentioned above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S LEYSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 5712705343. 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.
/J.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights