DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, 10, in the reply filed on 8/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-9, 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 8/26/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (CN 106883490). As the CN reference is not in English, citations are to the attached translation.
Bai teaches an example of 20 parts of an LDPE resin, 10 parts of sodium bicarbonate, (¶ 50) where the LDPE has a melting point of 110-130˚C (¶10). Bai teaches the composition is pelletized (¶51). The LDPE corresponds to the claimed (A) polyethylene based resin and the sodium bicarbonate corresponds to the claimed (B) inorganic foaming agent. 20 pbm LDPE and 10 pbm sodium bicarbonate corresponds to about 67 pbm LDPE and 33 pbm sodium bicarbonate based on 100 pbm of LDPE + sodium bicarbonate. Bai teaches an example of 40 pbw LDPE and 10 pbw sodium bicarbonate (¶66) which gives a 80/20 pbm LDPE/sodium bicarbonate based on 100 pbw. Bai extrudes the composition at 120˚C or 130˚C (¶ 51, 69). Bai teaches zinc stearate is present (¶ 50) which is a modified fatty acid salt and falls in the scope of the lubricant described at ¶ 25, pg. 11 of the instant specification. Bai teaches adding the LDPE masterbatch to a thermoplastic resin (¶77) in an amount of 1-10 wt% masterbatch (¶77). This corresponds to an amount of about 100:10000 to 100:1000 parts by mass which overlaps the claimed range.
Bai does not explicitly recite the claimed weight loss ratio, shape retention ratio, or the amount of residue after incineration.
However, Bai teaches the same composition as claimed, a polyethylene resin and an inorganic blowing agent, in the claimed amounts. Additionally, the instant specification shows LDPE and sodium bicarbonate are exemplified and amounts of 75/25 and 60/40 polyethylene/sodium bicarbonate give weight loss ratio that meet the claimed range. See instant specification, Table 1. Therefore, the compositions of Bai are expected to have the same properties as claimed based on the identity and amounts of the ingredients. Case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Bai teaches melting points which overlap claimed ranges. It is well settled that where prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05; In re Harris, 409, F3.d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). In light of the cited patent case law, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Bai suggests the melting points. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Bai. See MPEP 2123.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (CN 106883490) in view of Meyer (US 5,736,585).
The discussion with respect to Bai above is hereby incorporated by reference.
Bai does not explicitly recite using a recycled polyethylene.
However, Meyer teaches using recycled polyethylene to form foam moldings (col. 1, ln. 28-36). It would have been obvious to use recycled polyethylene because it improves the disposal of used packaging moldings (col. 1, ln. 14-16).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (CN 106883490) in view of Wilkes (US 2006/0100296).
The discussion with respect to Bai above is hereby incorporated by reference.
Bai does not explicitly recite using a recycled polyethylene.
However, Wilkes teaches polymeric compositions for producing foams (abstract) which include recycled polyethylene (abstract, ¶ 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use recycled polyethylene in order to use a low cost material (¶ 10, 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10am-4pm.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/ROBERT C BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
