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/Restriction
Applicant's election of Group l: Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 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)).
Claims 15-17 are hereby withdrawn.
IDS
The IDS’ entered 11/02/2023 and 10/17/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “in particular an injection- molding machine” in line 2. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as “a molding machine”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “preferably in a decompression zone, in a degassing zone and/or in a feed zone, of the plasticizing unit and/or of the injection unit, preferably wherein a low-pressure region represents a region with a pressure of less than 5 bar.” in line 3. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as “the monomer is supplied to the polymer starting material in a low-pressure region”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “preferably the decompression zone, the degassing zone and/or the feed zone, of the plasticizing unit and/or of the injection unit has a region of low pressure, preferably over a length of from one up to two screw diameters, in which a degassing of the polymer starting material is brought about and/or the monomer is supplied due to atmospheric pressure or negative pressure.” in line 1. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as “the low- pressure region”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “preferably partially filled in a low- pressure region, preferably in a decompression zone, in a degassing zone and/or in a feed zone.” in line 3. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as “the plasticizing unit and/or the injection unit is equipped with a reciprocating screw”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “in particular on the injection- molding machine,” in line 3, and “preferably between the plasticizing unit and the clamping unit and/or between the plasticizing unit and the injection unit and/or between the injection unit and the clamping unit,” in line 6. The limitations render the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitations are interpreted as “the viscosity of the polymer starting material is measured with at least one rheometer on the molding machine before, during and/or after the supplying of the monomer” and “wherein the at least one rheometer is arranged after the plasticizing unit,” respectively.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “in particular 0.4 dl/g to 0.7 dl/g, in particular 0.5 dl/g to 0.6 dl/g” in line 3. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as “the polymer starting material after the supplying of the monomer has an intrinsic viscosity of at most 0.8 dl/g”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “in particular a polyester, in particular polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polylactide (PLA), polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polycarbonate (PC), polyester carbonate (PEC) and/or polyarylate (PAR)” in line 2. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as “the polymer starting material is a polycondensate”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “preferably is a diol and/or a hydroxycarboxylic acid and/or a dicarboxylic acid, in particular ethylene glycol (1,2-ethanediol), 1,3-propanediol, 1,4-butanediol, 2-hydroxypropanoic acid and/or 3-hydroxybutanoic acid” in line 5. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as “the monomer is suitable for the synthesis of the polymer starting material and/or has at least one hydroxyl group, carboxyl group, organyloxycarbonyl group and/or a halocarbonyl group”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “preferably nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide” in line 2. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as “a gas mixture consisting of monomer and inert gas as entrainer, is supplied”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “preferably mineral fillers and/or polymer materials that differ from the polymer starting material” in line 2. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as “a mixture consisting of monomer and a nucleating agent is supplied as a gas mixture and/or as an aerosol.”
Claim 3 recites the limitation " a low-pressure region" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A low-pressure region is introduced in line 2 of the claim, therefore it is unclear if the low-pressure region in line 5 is referencing a second low pressure region or the already introduced low pressure region. The examiner will interpret the low-pressure region of line 5 to be referencing the low-pressure region of line 2.
Claim 4, dependent on claim 1, recites the limitation " the low-pressure region " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 does not introduce a low-pressure region. The examiner will interpret claim 4 as dependent to claim 3.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stibal (CA 2169612 A1) in view of Siegl (US 2024100742 A1 corresponding to WO 2022167679 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 13-14 Stibal teaches a molding method for producing a molded part from a polymer starting material in a molding machine, comprises plasticizing and/or fusing the polymer starting material (pg.5, ll4-20).
Stibal is silent to supplying at least one monomer in the gaseous state to the polymer starting material mixed with inert gas and a nucleating agent.
Siegl, in the same field of endeavor, polymer molding, teaches supplying at least one monomer to the polymer starting material (“chain breaker” P0079-81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added monomer to the polymer starting material for the purpose of decreasing viscosity of the polymer as taught by Siegl (P0079).
Siegl doesn’t specify that the monomer is supplied in gaseous state mixed with inert gas and a nucleating agent. However, it would be obvious to try introducing the monomer in gaseous state as fluid states would be best for mixing with a melt and therefore liquid or gas are the limited options, where introduction in the gas state would require an inert gas carrier and nucleator. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Stibal teaches the polymer starting material is transferred from a plasticizing unit to an injection unit (pg.5, ll10-15).
Regarding claims 3-4, Siegl teaches the monomer is supplied to the polymer starting material in a low-pressure region (P0072 “extrusion in vacuum”, P0080 “addition of chain breaker in extruder”) .
Regarding claim 5, Siegl teaches the monomer is supplied in a mixing zone of the plasticizing unit and/or of the injection unit (P0080).
Regarding claim 6, Stibal teaches the plasticizing unit and/or the injection unit is equipped with a reciprocating screw (pg.7, ll25-28).
Regarding claim 7, Siegl teaches the polymer starting material is filtered with a filter after the supplying of the monomer (P0068).
Regarding claim 8, Siegl teaches the viscosity of the polymer starting material is measured according to the ASTM 4603-03 standard (P0018) which dictates use of a viscometer.
Siegl reports values of intrinsic viscosity for before addition of the monomer and after (P0063, P0031-36) but is not specific to at least one rheometer on the molding machine, during and/or after the supplying of the monomer, wherein the at least one rheometer is arranged after the plasticizing unit. However, it would be obvious to arrange the viscosity measurement element at the point that the desired data would be acquired. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, Stibal teaches the polymer starting material after the supplying of the monomer has an intrinsic viscosity of 0.5-0.75 dl/g (pg.5, ll12-13) which meets the limitation of an intrinsic viscosity of at most 0.8 dl/g.
Regarding claim 10, Siegl teaches the supplied quantity of the monomer is measured, controlled and/or regulated (P0061).
Regarding claim 11, Stibal teaches the polymer starting material is a polycondensate (PET, pg.5, ll4-6).
Regarding claim 12, Siegl teaches the monomer is suitable for the synthesis of the polymer starting material and/or has at least one hydroxyl group, carboxyl group, organyloxycarbonyl group and/or a halocarbonyl group (P0044, diols).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741