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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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).
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein an oxygenate level of the composition is reduced at least 75% relative to an initial oxygenate level of the PCR resin”. The scope of the limitation is generally indefinite.
Firstly, the limitation appears to require a given oxygenate level of the composition (i.e. the mixture comprising PCR, virgin polymer, and zeolite) relative to the level of the PCR resin, but the specification does not appear to measure the oxygenate levels as such. For instance, comparative example 1 of ¶ has 30 wt% of PCR, but is reported to have a 0% reduction in oxygenates. Since the PCR resin is diluted by 70 wt% over the course of creating the composition, the levels of oxygenate observed would have to decrease by at least 70%. The discrepancy between the language used within the claims and how the parameter is actually measured/quantified within the specification renders the intended scope of the claim unclear.
Secondly, the specification appears to convey the PCR resin has a given starting level of oxygenate, after which removal of oxygenates occurs via 1) incorporating zeolite, 2) devolatilizing the PCR prior to combining with virgin polymer / zeolite, and/or 3) devolatilizing the PCT/ / virgin polymer / zeolite composition after blending. The scope of the claim is therefore unclear as to what constitutes “an initial oxygenate level of the PCR resin” and how the level is ultimately reduced is undefined.
Thirdly, the specification discusses reduction in various types of oxygenates (aldehyde, ketone, THF) as well as “average oxygenate reduction” at Table 3. It is generally unclear whether “an oxygenate level” is meant to entail some average value of oxygenates or if it refers to the total quantity of oxygenates.
As claims 2-12 depend from claim 1, they are rejected for the same issue discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trolez (US 2017/0107364 A1) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Pat. No. 5,436,282) and Gioffre (U.S. Pat. No. 4,795,482) as evidenced by Perez-Botella (Chem. Rev. 2022, 122, 17647-17695).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 6, 9 and 10, Trolez teaches compositions comprising polyethylene PCR resin and virgin polyethylene resin (Abstract). Examples are taught where the PCR resin has a limonene content of 21 ppm, of which is diluted upon incorporation into the composition (e.g. 40 wt% PCR resin yields 8 ppm limonene in the composition; 25 wt% PCR resin yields 5 ppm limonene in the composition; see Table 4). While the limonene amounts of Table 4 exceed 3 ppm, the content of limonene within the PCR resin is preferably at most 25 ppm (¶ 112), whereby 15-70 wt% of PCR resin is used (¶ 14). As no lower limit is specified, Trolez describes ranges that overlap the “less than 3 ppm” range of claim 1 and less than 1 ppm range of claim 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Trolez suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Trolez. See MPEP 2123.
The overlapping ranges taught by Trolez also meets the “PCR resin having an initial limonene level of at least 5 ppm” limitation. In the alternative, the limitation at issue merely refers to a characteristic of the PCR resin that is lost over the course of creating the instantly claimed compositions. The reference discloses the claimed product in the sense that the prior art product structure is seen to be no different from that indicated by the claims, even if manufactured by alternative means. See MPEP 2113.
With respect to the oxygenate level of the composition being reduced at least 75% relative to an initial oxygenate level of the PCR resin, the following rationales are relied upon in the alternative:
1) Trolez teaches 15-70 wt% of PCR resin is used (¶ 14). For those compositions comprising 25 wt% or less of PCR resin, the oxygenate levels of the resulting composition would seemingly be reduced by 75% or more even without further treatment. For instance, if the oxygenate level of the PCR resin was 100 ppm, blending 20 wt% of PCR into the composition would confer 20 ppm oxygenates within the resulting blend. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Trolez suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Trolez. See MPEP 2123.2) The limitation, in essence, only requires an oxygenate level in relation to whatever initial value was in the PCR resin to begin with, but an exact quantity of oxygenate within the PCR resin or quantity of oxygenate within the resulting composition is not defined. The specification indicates the reduced oxygenate level may simply correspond to before/after values of PCR devolatilization prior to combination with virgin resin + zeolite. Thus, the reference to oxygenate content is seen to merely refer to a characteristic of the PCR resin that is lost over the course of creating the instantly claimed compositions. The reference discloses the claimed product in the sense that the prior art product structure is seen to be no different from that indicated by the claims, even if manufactured by alternative means. See MPEP 2113.
Trolez therefore differs from the subject matter claimed with respect to the further incorporation of odor-active zeolite. Gustafsson teaches it was known in the art zeolites can be incorporated into polyolefin plastics for the purpose of eliminating odor/taste producing substances (Abstract; Col. 3, Lines 29-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the zeolites of Gustafsson into the polyolefin compositions of Trolez, thereby eliminating odor/taste producing substances in accordance with the teachings of Gustafsson.
Gustafsson teaches the zeolites have a Si/Al molar ratio exceeding 35 (Col. 3, Lines 50-54), which overlaps the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Trolez suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Trolez. See MPEP 2123.
While not describing a particular crystal structure, Gustafsson explicitly teaches the zeolites are those of US 4795482 (Gioffre), of which Geoffre indicates zeolites of the ZSM-5 type are applicable (Col. 8, Lines 54-57). As evidenced by Perez-Botella, ZSM-5 is a common name for a MFI crystal structure (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize zeolites with a MFI crystal structure because such zeolites are effective in eliminating odor/taste producing substances as taught by Gustafsson/Geoffre.
Regarding Claim 3, Gustafsson teaches 0.05-0.5 wt% of zeolite (Abstract).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Trolez teaches virgin HDPE and HDPE PCR resins (¶ 68, 75). The virgin resin has a density spanning 0.945-0.96 (¶ 105). The PCR resin has a density spanning 0.954-0.964 (¶ 27).
Regarding Claim 7, Trolez teaches the content of virgin resin ranges from 30-85 wt% (¶ 26).
Regarding Claim 8, Gustafsson teaches a particle size not exceeding about 5 microns (Abstract), which overlaps the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Gustafsson suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Gustafsson. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claim 11, Trolez teaches various articles such as containers for food or chemicals (¶ 59), construed as closures.
Regarding Claim 12, Trolez teaches the compositions re-utilize plastic waste (¶ 8-9) and be used for the creation of various articles (¶ 59). Trolez differs from the subject matter claimed in that films are not described. Gustafsson teaches it was known in the art HDPE can be used to formulate various articles, inclusive of plastics films or containers (Col. 3, Lines 21-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create films of the polyethylene compositions of Trolez because doing so would facilitate the re-use of waste polyethylenes in accordance with the teachings of Trolez/Gustafsson.
Double Patenting
The double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of the filed terminal disclaimer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the applied prior art fails to describe a reduction in oxygenate level as amended. This is not found persuasive for reasons set forth above.
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 STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Curtis 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
