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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Denkwitz et al. (US Pat. 10,066,034).
Considering Claims 1-4 and 7: Denkwitz et al. teaches a composition comprising a polypropylene polymer (3:44-50) and an antioxidant (15:49-61), where the polypropylene has a polydispersity index of 3.9 and a melt flow rate 8.9 g/10 min (Table 3, Example 20). Thus the PI ratio is 1.20.
Denkwitz et al. is silent towards the I value of the composition. However, Denkwitz et al. teaches the polymer as being prepared in a gas phase with a Ziegler Natta catalyst of the formula MgCl2-xROH with titanium (3:11-30) in a Mg/Ti ratio of 1:20 (13:17-20) in the presence of a diether internal donor in a ratio of donor to Mg of 0.25 (13:17-20). These conditions are taught by the original specification to result in the claimed I value (¶0024; 0051-54; 0106-07). The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the I value, peak maximum temperature, and peak crystallization temperature, would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Considering Claims 5, 6, and 8: Denkwitz et al. teaches the polymer as having a xylene cold soluble content of 1.3 weight percent and a MFR of 8.9 g/10 min (Table 3, Example 20).
Considering Claim 16: Denkwitz et al. teaches forming an article from the composition (12:8-15).
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.
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.
Claims 9-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denkwitz et al. (US Pat. 10,066,034) in view of Souza Bento et al. (US 2023/0074665).
Considering Claims 9-12: Denkwitz et al. teaches a composition comprising a polypropylene polymer (3:44-50) and an antioxidant (15:49-61), where the polypropylene has a polydispersity index of 3.9 and a melt flow rate 8.9 g/10 min (Table 3, Example 20). Thus the PI ratio is 1.20.
Denkwitz et al. is silent towards the I value of the composition. However, Denkwitz et al. teaches the polymer as being prepared in a gas phase with a Ziegler Natta catalyst of the formula MgCl2-xROH with titanium (3:11-30) in a Mg/Ti ratio of 1:20 (13:17-20) in the presence of a diether internal donor in a ratio of donor to Mg of 0.25 (13:17-20). These conditions are taught by the original specification to result in the claimed I value (¶0024; 0051-54; 0106-07). The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the I value, peak maximum temperature, and peak crystallization temperature, would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Denkwitz et al. does not teach the composition as comprising a recycled polymer. However, Souza Bento et al. teaches a blend of 40 to 90 weight percent of recycled resin (Claim 2), that is preferably at least 80 weight polypropylene (Claim 16) and 10 to 40 weight percent of virgin polypropylene (Claim 2). Denkwitz et al. and Souza Bento et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polypropylene compositions. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the polypropylene of Denkwitz et al. in the blend of Souza Bento et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Souza Bento et al. suggests, to reduce the environmental impact of waste residues (¶0003).
Considering Claim 13: Souza Bento et al. teaches mixing the polypropylene and recycled polymer (¶0046).
Considering Claim 17: Denkwitz et al. teaches forming an article from the composition (12:8-15).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denkwitz et al. (US Pat. 10,066,034) in view of Souza Bento et al. (US 2023/0074665).
Considering Claims 9-12: Denkwitz et al. teaches a composition comprising a polypropylene polymer (3:44-50) and an antioxidant (15:49-61), where the polypropylene has a polydispersity index of 3.9 and a melt flow rate 8.9 g/10 min (Table 3, Example 20). Thus the PI ratio is 1.20.
Denkwitz et al. is silent towards the I value of the composition. However, Denkwitz et al. teaches the polymer as being prepared in a gas phase with a Ziegler Natta catalyst of the formula MgCl2-xROH with titanium (3:11-30) in a Mg/Ti ratio of 1:20 (13:17-20) in the presence of a diether internal donor in a ratio of donor to Mg of 0.25 (13:17-20). These conditions are taught by the original specification to result in the claimed I value (¶0024; 0051-54; 0106-07). The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the I value, peak maximum temperature, and peak crystallization temperature, would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Denkwitz et al. does not teach the composition as comprising a recycled polymer. However, Souza Bento et al. teaches a blend of 40 to 90 weight percent of recycled resin (Claim 2), that is preferably at least 80 weight polypropylene (Claim 16) and 10 to 40 weight percent of virgin polypropylene (Claim 2). Souza Bento et al. teaches mixing the polypropylene and recycled polymer (¶0046). Denkwitz et al. and Souza Bento et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polypropylene compositions. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the polypropylene of Denkwitz et al. in the blend of Souza Bento et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Souza Bento et al. suggests, to reduce the environmental impact of waste residues (¶0003).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights