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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-28 in the reply filed on 3/9/2026 is acknowledged.
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 10-23 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 10 and 17 line 2 refers to “RH” instead of --RH--
Claims 11, 12, 18 and 19 refer to “R” which lacks antecedent basis. “R” either refers to RH (RH, see above) or RT.
Claims 13-16 depend from claim 11 and incorporate the same antecedent basis issue.
Claims 20-23 depend from claims 17 and incorporate the same antecedent basis issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DONALDSON et al. (US 3,528,841).
Regarding claim 28,
DONALDSON teaches a method of using a polyolefin powder as parting agents (surfactant) for polymer pellets abstract. The dispersing agent can be a commercially available product uses 50 wt% PO and 50 wt% EO column 2 lines 68-70. When using a copolymer of PO and EO, the polymer and dispersing agent are mixed with water (aqueous solution) column 3 lines 5-17. The propyl groups and ethyl groups are hydrophobic moieties. The reference teaches applying the dispersant to the polymer that is in melt form to create a coating on the pellets columns 3-4 but further notes that the water can be used to cool the polymer to form pellets (temperature below solid transition) column 4 lines 25-35. The polymer is processed through an extruder and cut while in the water column 3 lines 25-35 (providing strands to the aqueous composition and pelletizing).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DONALDSON et al. (US 3,528,841).
Regarding claim 27,
DONALDSON teaches a method of using a polyolefin powder as parting agents (surfactant) for polymer pellets abstract. The dispersing agent can have varied amounts of propylene oxide (PO) and ethylene oxide (EO) column 2 lines 48-59. A specific commercially available product uses 50 wt% PO and 50 wt% EO column 2 lines 68-70. When using a copolymer of PO and EO, the polymer and dispersing agent are mixed with water (aqueous solution) column 3 lines 5-17. The propyl groups and ethyl groups are hydrophobic moieties. The reference teaches applying the dispersant to the polymer that is in melt form to create a coating on the pellets columns 3-4 but further notes that the water can be used to cool the polymer to form pellets (temperature below solid transition) column 4 lines 25-35.
As noted above, dispersing agent can have varied amounts of propylene oxide (PO) and ethylene oxide (EO) column 2 lines 48-59. The reference teaches specific examples of 50-50 wt% PO and EO which is over 50% EO on a molar basis. However, the reference teaches that the ratio of PO and EO is a result effective variable that can be changed to make a variety of products. The reference prefers over 50wt% EO when dispersing a thermoplastic polymer column 3 lines 1-4. However, the examiner notes that the reference may be relied upon for all that it teaches, not just the preferred embodiments, MPEP 2123. In this instance, the claim is not limited to thermoplastic polymers as the polymer bodies accordingly, the optimal loading may be different when using non-thermoplastic polymers. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art may manipulate the PO/EO ratio, particularly when dispersing other types of polymers. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill may choose to use a suboptimal ratio of PO/EO if access to PO was easier and less costly. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use a molar ratio of PO to EO greater than 1 as the optimization of a result effective variable, MPEP 2144.05.II. A molar ratio will result in a weight percent of greater than 5% PO.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 24-26 are allowed.
Claims 10-20, 22, and 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1,
DONALDSON teaches a method of using a polyolefin powder as parting agents (surfactant) for polymer pellets abstract. The dispersing agent can have varied amounts of propylene oxide (PO) and ethylene oxide (EO) column 2 lines 48-59. A specific commercially available product uses 50 wt% PO and 50 wt% EO) column 2 lines 68-70. The polymer and dispersing agent are mixed with water (aqueous solution) column 3 lines 5-17. The reference teaches applying the dispersant to the polymer that is in melt form to create a coating on the pellets columns 3-4 but further notes that the water can be used to cool the polymer to form pellets (temperature below solid transition) column 4 lines 25-35. DONALDSON generally teaches changing the ratios of polyoxypropylene and polyoxyethylene to yield a wide variety of products column 2 lines 57-59. Accordingly, the reference generally teaches the ratio or weight percent of propylene oxide and ethylene oxide as a result effective variable. However, claim 1 requires mixing a first surfactant with 5 wt% propylene oxide groups and a second with ethylene oxide and no propylene groups. The examiner could not motivate tailoring two different surfactant to a desired PO/EO ratio and reflected property and then mixing them together. It is not clear how different ratios in different surfactants would interact with each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights