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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 7/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because although Groups I-II overlap in subject matter relating to an organo modified siloxane, synergist, and carrier resin, the restriction remains proper between groups due to separate classification and divergent subject matter between the claimed polymer processing aid and claimed method for forming a masterbatch.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/27/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/5/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Application Data Sheet on 10/31/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “comprises” is legalese. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The use of the terms TPM11166, PM125000, Exceed 1018, CX400-20, HHM5502, Whie M/B, and MINIBLOC, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “plasctic” is a typographical error and should read “plastic”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al (US 20250215201 A1, priority date 01/31/2022).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12, Schneider discloses a functionalized silicone-based polyolefin processing aid which can delay the onset of sharkskin (Abstract) comprising:
0.01 to 50 wt% of a functionalized poly(dialkyl siloxane) [0017] (organo-modified polysiloxane), which may be present at about 0.5 to 50 wt% , preferably 0.5 to 25 wt%, in a polyolefin carrier polymer [0018] (carrier resin) which is preferably LLDPE [0099],
0.01 to 50 wt% of a synergist, which may be a poly(oxyalkylene) [0028] which may be polyethylene glycol [0087, claim 12] or a phosphite antioxidant [0028], and
Optionally, other additives, such as slip agents [0091].
Note that the above ranges taught by Schneider teach embodiments wherein the ratio of organo-modified polysiloxane to synergist reads on the limitations of claims 2 and 9. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 11, Schneider does not particularly disclose the thermal stability of their polyolefin processing aid. However, 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. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 13, Schneider measures the widths of the film exhibiting melt fracture, and the sum of the widths of such areas containing film defects are divided by the total width of the film to provide the percent melt fracture (Table 3). However, Schneider did not particularly measure the time to elimination as described by claim 13. It is noted that Schneider reports improvements in melt fracture elimination for disclosed compositions over the comparative examples (Table 3), and it is therefore presumed that the limitations of claim 13 are met.
In the alternative, 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. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lavallee et al (US 20160229994 A1, priority date 08/19/2014) discloses a polymer processing additive synergist composition comprising a poly(oxyalkylene) polymer which is preferably polyethylene glycol, a homogeneously catalyzed polyolefin which may be LLDPE, a carboxylic acid metal salt, antioxidants such as phosphites, and additional additives such as UV stabilizers. The composition exhibits improved thermal stability and is particularly useful as a synergist for polysiloxanes.
Lavallee et al (US 20150175785 A1, priority date 05/22/2015) discloses melt-processable compositions comprising 50 to 99.5 wt% of a melt-processable thermoplastic hydrocarbon polymer such as LLDPE, a thermoplastic silicone-containing polymeric process additive, a hindered amine light stabilizer, a synergist such as polyethylene glycol, and optional additives such as UV absorbers, antioxidants, and slip agents.
Ruocco et al (US 20250145820 A1, priority date 02/07/2022) discloses polyethylene glycol-based polymer processing aids, comprising: 1 to 50 wt% of PEG as a processing aid, a carrier resin which may be LLDPE, and one or more non-PPA additives, including antioxidants, antislip agents, and UV stabilizers. Suitable antioxidants include phosphite antioxidants, preferably present at 200 to 2500 ppm (0.02 to 0.25 wt%).
Lin et al (US 20060008643 A1, priority date 08/12/2002) discloses a polymeric composition comprising polyolefin present at 40 to 99 wt% of which LLDPE is a preferred example, a hydrocarbon plasticizer present at 60 to 0.1 wt%, a slip agent present at 0.001 to 1 wt%, and additives, such as antioxidants (preferably phosphites) and UV absorbers (stabilizers).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Savannah G Phillips whose telephone number is (571)270-0822. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 ET.
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.
/SAVANNAH G. PHILLIPS/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights