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 .
Response to Amendment
All outstanding rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on.
The terminal disclaimer filed on 8/10/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of application no. 18/567,188 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 8/10/2026. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to reduce “an oxygenate level of a PCR-resin containing composition” by at least 85%. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6, the term “order-active zeolite” should read as “odor-active zeolite” to be consistent with initial recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-10, 12-14, 16, and 17 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, in the penultimate line, it is unclear what the term “a PCR resin-containing composition” represents, i.e., does it represent the composition of line 1, the PCR resin of line 2, or something else?
With respect to claims 2-10, 12-14, 16, and 17, they are rejected for curing the deficiency of the claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 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) and 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 or reducing oxygen levels of PCR resin.
Gustafsson discloses eliminating odor-producing substances in plastic, specifically polyolefins, with zeolites having a Si/Al molar ratio of at least 35, preferably 200-500 (abstract). Gustafsson teaches that the zeolites are effective at removing odor/taste-producing substances which have been formed by oxidation (i.e., forming oxygenates) during polymerization and processing steps (col. 1, lines 45-54).
Given that Liu is open to the use of suitable additives and further given that Yang teaches that adding zeolites to adsorb 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 taught by Gustafsson in Liu’s polyethylene composition and thereby reduce limonene content and oxygenate content like claimed.
With respect to claim 2, 4, 6, and 7, Gustafsson exemplifies ABSCENT (tradename) deodorizer which has tetrahedral 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that that none of Liu, Yang, or Gustafsson teach reducing oxygenate levels by at least 85%.
To the contrary, Gustafsson teaches that the zeolites having a Si/Al molar ratio of at least 35, preferably 200-500are effective at removing odor/taste-producing substances which have been formed by oxidation (i.e., forming oxygenates) during polymerization and processing steps (col. 1, lines 45-54). Given that Liu is open to the use of suitable additives and further given that Yang teaches that adding zeolites to adsorb 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 taught by Gustafsson in Liu’s polyethylene composition and thereby reduce limonene content and oxygenate content like claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights