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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poduska, Procedia Structural Integrity 23 (2019) 293–298 in view of Breese (US 2022/0396689).
Poduska teaches HPDE multilayer pipes (pg. 294) where a layer of recycled PE is between two layers of virgin PE (pg.297, Fig. 3). Poduska teaches layers of recycled HDPE with virgin HDPE (pg. 294). Poduska does not teach any other components are present in the virgin layers which meets claim 5. Poduska teaches the thickness of the layers were in a ratio of 0.25:0.5:0.25 where the thicknesses were 2.05 mm and 4.1 mm (pg. 295) which correspond to about 80 mil and 160 mil respectively. Poduska does not teach any perforations are present, therefore, the layers are continuous and unperforated.
Poduska does not explicitly recite the second layer comprises virgin and recycled resin.
However, Breese teaches compounded virgin and post consumer recyclate HDPE compositions (abstract). Breese teaches the blend has at least 60 wt% recycled HDPE (¶31) which meets claims 2-4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the blend of Breese because it provides improved processability and properties (abstract) while being usable in food and beverages (¶ 8) and to balance moisture barrier, material cost, film gauge, and be able to process at a higher extruder output (¶ 32).
Poduska does not explicitly recite a thickness of from 10-100 mils for the second layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a thinner layer in order to form a smaller pipe.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poduska, Procedia Structural Integrity 23 (2019) 293–298 in view of Breese (US 2022/0396689) and Alathon data sheet, 2020.
The discussion with respect to Poduska and Breese above is hereby incorporated by reference.
Poduska does not explicitly recite the Mw, toughness, or impact resistance of the HDPE.
However, Alathon teaches a bimodal HDPE Alathon L4930TC. Alathon L4930TC possesses the claimed properties as shown by the instant specification, Fig. 1-3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Alathon L4930TC because it offers an excellent balance of stiffness, toughness and ease of processing (see pg. 1 of Alathon).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poduska, Procedia Structural Integrity 23 (2019) 293–298 in view of Breese (US 2022/0396689) and Ring (US 2006/0280557).
The discussion with respect to Poduska and Breese above is hereby incorporated by reference.
Poduska does not explicitly recite pipe is perforated.
However, Ring teaches drain field systems which include perforated drainage pipes (abstract) which includes HDPE pipes (¶ 2) which contain perforations (¶ 2). It would have been obvious to have a perforation to allow the pipe to function as a drainage pipe (¶16).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-21 are allowed.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6 and 15 recite properties of the recycled HDPE including the Mw, toughness, and impact resistance. The prior art fails to teach these limitations. Additionally, these properties are not necessarily present, therefore a position of inherence is improper. Claims 16-21 depend from claim 15 and thus contain the same allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10am-4pm.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/ROBERT C BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights