CTNF 18/567,184 CTNF 80299 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections Claims 3, 8, and 16 are objected to because of the following reasons: With respect to claim 3, the term “a second odor-active zeolite” has antecedent basis in claim 2 and should have the leading “a” article replaced with “the.” With respect to claim 8, the term “the zeolites” in line 3 is inconsistent with the previous recitation “at least one odor-active zeolite” in claim 1. With respect to claim 16, line 2, “any preceding claim” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-10, 12-14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. With respect to claim 1, the “reduced limonene level” of the composition (last line) is inconsistent with the initial limonene level of the PCR resin. Therefore, is unclear whether the reduction of limonene is necessarily based on the odor-active zeolite content (as described in the specification) because merely adding equal part of virgin ethylene-based polymer can provide a composition having limonene level of less than 3 ppm. With respect to claim 14, it is not clear if or how “PCT resin-containing composition” of line 2 is different “PCR resin” of line 3. With respect to claims 2-10, 12, 13, 16, and 17, they are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency of the claim from which they depend. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-10, 12-14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2023/0114045) in view of Yang (CN 105733074) and Gustafsson (US 5,436,282) . With respect to claims 1 and 12, Liu discloses a polyethylene composition comprising 10-85 wt % of a post-consumer waste polyethylene blend and 15-90 wt % of virgin high-density polyethylene (paragraphs 0212-0225). Liu teaches that the limonene content of post-consumer waste is 2-500 mg/kg (2-500 ppm) (paragraph 0076) but exemplifies LDPE recycling blends NAV 102-1 and NAV 102-2 having limonene content of 5.7 and 5.4 ppm, respectively (paragraph 0516; Table A). Inventive Example IE10 comprises 25 wt % NAV 102-1 and 75 wt % HE6063 (HDPE, paragraph 0512) which provides for up to 1.425 ppm in the polyethylene composition (paragraph 0529). Liu discloses adding “suitable additives” (paragraph 0135) but fails to disclose an odor-active zeolite. Yang discloses a blend comprising recycled high-density polyethylene (like Liu) comprising 1-3 parts by weight of an odor adsorbent (abstract) such as zeolites which are used to effectively adsorb toxins and harmful gas molecules and thereby eliminating the “inherent odor” from the materials (paragraph 0024). Neither Liu nor Yang teaches that an odor-active zeolite has a Si/Al molar ratio of 1-1000. Gustafsson discloses eliminating odor-producing substance in plastic, specifically polyolefins, with zeolites having a Si/Al molar ratio of at least 35, preferably 200-500 (abstract). Given that Liu is open to the use of suitable additives and further given that Yang teaches that adding zeolites to absorb odors is useful for eliminating the “inherent odor” from recycled materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an effective deodorant for polyolefins as taug ht by Gustafsson in Liu’s polyethylene composition. With respect to claim 2, 4, 6, and 7, Gustafsson exemplifies ABSCENT (tradename) deodorizer which has tetrahedrdal structure having large porous structure (col. 2, lines 33-50) which read on claimed FAU and MFI crystal structures. Evidence to support the examiner’s position is found in the present specification in paragraphs 0069-0070 which teaches that Abscents is a zeolite having FAU and/or MFI crystal structure. With respect to claim 3, Gustafsson fails to explicitly disclose a mixture of at least two of the zeolite deodorizer, however, it is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Lindner 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize two odor-active zeolites in the polyethylene composition disclosed by Liu, Yang, and Gustaffson. With respect to claim 5, Gustaffson teaches that the zeolite has a particle size of 0.1-7 µm (col. 3, lines 58-64). With respect to claim 8, when faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that “[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek , 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize 50 wt % each of the first and second odor-active zeolite. With respect to claim 9, Liu teaches that the virgin HDPE has density of 940-970 g/cc (paragraph 0223). With respect to claim 10, Liu discloses a polyethylene composition comprising 10-85 wt % of a post-consumer waste polyethylene blend and 15-90 wt % of virgin high-density polyethylene (paragraphs 0212-0225). With respect to claim 13, Liu teaches that the virgin HDPE has melt flow rate at 190°C of 0.3-0.7 g/10 min (paragraph 0222). With respect to claim 14, Liu discloses that the polyethylene composition comprising as low as 10 wt % of a post-consumer waste and that an exemplified recycled polyethylene blend includes limonene content of 5.4 ppm (Table 1). Therefore, a theoretical amount of limonene in the polyethylene composition is 0.54 ppm. With respect to claim 16, Liu teaches that polyolefins are used in a wide range of application including packaging for food and other goods (paragraph 0002) and teaches that its composition has improved balance of mechanical properties and low gel content. Liu fails to disclose a product prepared from the recycled composition comprising a cap or a closure. Even so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the recycled composition taught by Liu, Yang, and Gustaffson in a packaging material which would require a cap to close the container or a closure in order to complete the package. With respect to claim 17, Liu discloses preparing cast films from the polyethylene composition (paragraph 0503) . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-35 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 1, and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 2, 4, 8, and 10-12 of copending Application No. 18/567,188 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given below. With respect to claims 1, 2, and 6, claim of US appl ‘188 it claims a composition having limonene level of 3 ppm comprising PCR having an initial limonene level of 5 ppm comprising at least 50 wt % polyolefin, virgin ethylene-based polymer, and at least one odor-active zeolite having FAU, MFI, and/or beta crystal structures and Si/Al molar ratio of 1-100. Because the Si/Al ratio of 1-100 overlaps with claimed range of 1-1000, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the claimed composition having 1-100 Si/Al molar ratio. With respect to claim 5, see claim 8 of US appl ‘188. With respect to claim 9, see claim 4 of US appl ‘188. With respect to claim 12, see claim 2 of US appl ‘188. With respect to claim 14, see claim 10 of US appl ‘188. With respect to claim 16, see claim 11 of US appl ‘188. With respect to claim 17, see claim 12 of US appl ‘188 . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday. 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. /Vickey Nerangis/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763 vn Application/Control Number: 18/567,184 Page 2 Art Unit: 1763 Application/Control Number: 18/567,184 Page 3 Art Unit: 1763 Application/Control Number: 18/567,184 Page 4 Art Unit: 1763 Application/Control Number: 18/567,184 Page 5 Art Unit: 1763 Application/Control Number: 18/567,184 Page 6 Art Unit: 1763 Application/Control Number: 18/567,184 Page 7 Art Unit: 1763 Application/Control Number: 18/567,184 Page 8 Art Unit: 1763
Prosecution Insights