DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 6/10/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Interpretation
For claim interpretation purposes please note that the Examiner is considering the first polypropylene composition and the second polypropylene composition to be different from one another.
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 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 to 10, 15 to 19, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 4210448 as interpreted by the English language translation.
‘448 teaches organic peroxide – polypropylene resin composition that is prepared
by mixing a polypropylene and an organic peroxide and extruding. See for instance the working example found in paragraph 46. This prepares what is considered to be the claimed second polypropylene composition.
Regarding the claimed first polypropylene composition, note that the peroxide – polypropylene resin composition is used in combination with other polypropylenes in an amount of 3 to 15 wt%. See paragraphs 33, 34 and 51. The working example shows a poly-propylene having a MFR of 60 and, after co-extrusion, an MFR of 520. This meets the C is greater than A requirement in claim 1.
This differs from that claimed in that there is nothing to indicate that the first poly-propylene composition in ‘448 was extruded prior to forming the blend.
As applicants are no doubt aware, it is well known in the art to use recycled poly-propylene materials in an effort to reduce waste and environmental stress. With this in mind the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use a recycled material as the polypropylene in the ‘448 composition. Such a polypropylene will have already been extruded such that it will meet this limitation for the first polypropylene composition.
On the other hand, there are commercially available extruded polypropylene pellets available to the skilled artisan. In an effort to expedite processing and increase ease the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to select a commercially available polypropylene for use in the composition of ‘448, thereby finding one that has already been extruded to have been obvious.
In this manner claim 1 is rendered obvious.
For claim 2, note that the above blend does not include a peroxide in the first polypropylene composition.
For claim 4, note that the polypropylene in ‘448 that corresponds to the claimed second polypropylene is a propylene copolymer (paragraph 10 of ‘448).
For claim 5 see the amount organic peroxide in the polypropylene copolymer as found in paragraph 29 which meets this claimed range.
For claim 7, see the MFR of the polypropylene used in the working example. While it is unclear if this specific polypropylene has been extruded, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to select a polypropylene from commercially available or recycled ones that have this MFR as it has been shown to be useful and operative.
For claim 8 see the ranges found in paragraph 34 which meet those claimed.
For claim 9 see paragraph 33 which teaches polypropylene resin, which clearly suggests a homopolymer. This is also the polypropylene polymer in paragraph 51.
For claims 19 and 22, see the teaching of a non-woven fabric in paragraph 51 which meets the requirement of a fiber.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 4210448 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McLeod et al.
The JP reference does not teach the specific peroxide found in this claim.
McLeod et al. teach a method for treating polypropylene for enhanced stability
which uses various peroxides, as found in paragraph 21. This includes the peroxide found in claim 6. Such a peroxide serves to increase MFR, a desired result in the JP ‘448 reference.
Given the fact that such a peroxide is known to be useful in the manner required by ‘448, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the use of such a peroxide to have been obvious in the composition of ‘448. In this manner claim 6 is rendered obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 11 to 18, 20 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a reject-ed 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 prior art fails to teach or suggest with sufficient specificity the selection of
such specific polypropylenes as found in these claims, or the resulting differences in MFR. In addition to this there is nothing that teaches or suggests forming a fiber having the specific requirements found in claims 20 and 21.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Kelly, can be reached at 571-270-1831.
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 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.
Mgm
7/29/26
/MARGARET G MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights