Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Indefiniteness Rejection
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-15 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.
Firstly, with respect to claims 1 and 5, it is unclear to what is being referred by “20 to 55 pieces/g”; the examiner assumes that the language refers to pieces of the polyolefin composition; however, clarification is required. Also, it is unclear if the language within parentheses constitutes a mandated limitation.
Secondly, with respect to claims 1, 2, and 5, the language, “as measured according to the specification” and “as determined according to the specification”, is improper; the means of measuring or determining must be set forth within the claims.
Thirdly, with respect to claims 2 and 6, specifying concentration using the language “wt.%-ppm”, renders the claims indefinite, because the same numerical value, as instantly claimed, cannot be meaningfully applied to both wt.% and ppm. For example, 1200 wt% is not equivalent to 1200 ppm.
Fourthly, with respect to claim 7, the language, “as determined according to formula (I)”, renders the claim indefinite, because no formula has been set forth in claim 7 or claim 1.
Prior Art Rejection
4. 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.
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.
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.
5. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3647328 A1.
EP 3647328 A1 discloses polyolefins having applicants’ claimed VOC content. See abstract. It has not been established that applicants’ process yields a patentably distinct product.
6. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3647328 A1.
EP 3647328 A1 discloses a process for aerating polypropylene, wherein the polypropylene is introduced into an aeration vessel that corresponds to applicants’ claimed vessel (see paragraphs [0018] and [0055]), and further wherein heated gas is introduced into the vessel to remove/reduce VOC. As with the aforementioned vessel, the polypropylene polymers and aerating gas correspond to that claimed. However, the teachings of the reference differ from the instant claims in that the disclosed aerating gas is heated to at least 100 oC, while the maximum temperature utilized for the instant aerating gas is 99 oC. In accordance with the tenets set forth within Titanium Metals Corp of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the position is taken that the respective endpoints of the operating temperature ranges are close enough that one would have reasonably expected the same results. Given this position and the use of equivalent aeration vessels, polymers, and gases, one would have reasonably expected that the respective processes would have yielded the same results with respect to such claimed characteristics as treatment, prevention, and/or removal of yellowness and C# components.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rabon A Sergent whose telephone number is (571)272-1079. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM, ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-1831. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/RABON A SERGENT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights