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 of Group IV, cystine, polypropylene, 4-(ethylene-1,2-bis[3,3-bis(3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-phenyl)butyrate]), UV absorber, foil in the reply filed on 7/2/26 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)).
Claims 19-29, 33-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
The foreign priority is not in English, the claims are thusly given an effective date of the filing of the 371: 5/18/22
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/2/26, 6/1/26, 2/13/26, 10/30/24, 8/26/24 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebenezer (US 2020/0071490).
Ebenezer discloses stabilizing compositions (title). Said stabilizing compositions comprise various stabilizers, including buffering agents such as cysteine, cystine and methionine [0050] amongst others [meeting the sulphur containing amino acid of claim 30 and elected species of cystine of claim 32]. These buffering agents are added as part of the stabilizing composition to stabilize polymers. The polymers are listed in [0137-1045], most (if not all) polymers listed therein being thermoplastic. The elected species, polypropylene, is disclosed in [0137] and also exemplified [meeting the claimed thermoplastic polymer].
Polypropylene and cystine are separately exemplified ([0167] and Table 1) thus using cystine in the exemplified polypropylene composition, or, polypropylene in the exemplified cystine composition, is only picking/swapping 1 element from a list and is anticipated.
“recyclate” is a product by process limitation and is anticipated since the elected species is met unless Applicant shows a distinct product is produced.
Alternatively, “recyclate” renders the claim prima facie obvious because the claimed product may be slightly different than the product of the prior art
Also alternatively, in light of the picking and choosing a prima facie case of obviousness exists over the combination of polypropylene and cystine. See Merck v. Biocraft, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985): though picked from a list of possible combinations, it has been held that though a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious, also, that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious
Elements above meet claims 30 and 32.
Regarding claim 31, cystine is exemplified to be added in an amount of 0.25% (table 2), anticipating claim 32. Alternatively, the stabilizing composition is added in amounts ranging 0.01-5% of the polymer [0136], the buffering agent is 1-50% of the stabilizing agent [0052], this calculates to 0.001-2.5 wt% buffering agent in the overall polymer composition (50% of 5% is 2.5%, ect). This embraces and renders prima facie obvious the requirements of claim 31
Claim(s) 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebenezer in view of Berger (US 5759642).
Ebenezer includes elements as set forth above. Ebenezer discloses stabilizing compositions for polyolefins for hot melt adhesives. Ebenezer does not disclose using recycled polymers.
Berger discloses processes for producing a hot melt adhesive (title). Said process includes providing a polyolefin comprising any required additives such as a stabilizers (Column 2 lines 42-45). The polyolefin may be virgin or recycled (Column 2 line 45). The polyolefin may be polypropylene (claim 4). Berger thusly teaches virgin and recycled polypropylene function equivalently as base polymer materials for hot melt adhesive compositions comprising stabilizers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Ebenezer the use of recycled polypropylene, as taught by Berger, since it is recognized in the art as a functional equivalent to virgin polypropylene.
Elements above alternatively meet claims 30-32.
Claim(s) 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (US 5759642) in view of Ebenezer.
Berger and Ebenezer include elements as set forth above. Berger discloses that stabilizers can be added to the recycled polyolefin for use as hot melt adhesives. Berger does not disclose the type of stabilizers thereof.
Ebenezer includes elements as set forth above and discloses stabilizing compositions that comprise 0.001-2.5 wt% buffering agent in the stabilizing composition, wherein the buffering agent may be cystine. The stabilizing composition aids in retaining melt flow properties, viscosity and color stability [0002].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Berger the use of the stabilizing composition comprising 0.001-2.5 wt% cystine buffering agent, as taught by Ebenezer, in order to retain the melt flow properties, viscosity and color stability of the composition.
Elements above meet claims 30-32.
Claim(s) 30, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce (US 2020/0216668)
Bruce discloses polymer composite compositions (title) comprising a polymer (abstract) that is thermoplastic [0044] and may be virgin or recycled [0057]. The polymer may be polypropylene [0045]. The composition may further include an antioxidant, such as acetyl cysteine, cysteine or cysteine HCL [0134], amongst other choices.
In light of the picking and choosing of a recycled thermoplastic and the above mentioned antioxidants a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Though picked from a list of possible combinations, it has been held that though a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious, also, that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious, see Merck v. Biocraft, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985).
Elements above meet claims 30, 32.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA BLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2451. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 am -3:00 pm EST.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ALICIA BLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights