DETAILED ACTION
Applicants’ amendment has overcome the rejection noted in paragraph 2 of the prior office action.
For claim interpretation purposes, note the following. The % found in the second polyethylene high density content is considered to be weight %.
Also, note that the content of high density polyethylene found in the second poly-
ethylene is not required to meet the specific requirements for Mn, Mw, MI, MIR and HLMI as found for the second polyethylene since this it is only a component of the second polyethylene and not the entirety of the second polyethylene.
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.
Claims 1 to 7 and 9 to 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatent-able over Holtcamp et al. 2019/0119413, in view of the “ExxonMobil HDPE HTA 108 High Density Polyethylene Resin” data sheet (attached).
Holtcamp et al. teach LLDPE polyethylenes that meet the requirements of the
second polyethylene. Applicants refer to this document in the specification as disclosing how to make such polyethylenes. See paragraph 128 and note that Holtcamp et al. corresponds to the WO 2019/083609 document.
In Holtcamp et al. see Tables 1 and 3. This shows polyethylene 123_16-09.01 having an MI of .97, an HLMI of 31.52, a density of 0.919, an Mw of 125,036 and an Mn or 13179. It also has a hexane content of 9.67 wt% and meets each of the requirements of the second polyether. 123_16-09.03 meets these requirements as well.
While Holtcamp et al. do not specifically teach the first polyethylene meeting the claimed requirements, please see paragraph 129 which teaches blends of the polymers therein with other polymers including HDPE. Generally the claimed first polyethylene is considered to be an HDPE.
The HDPE HTA 108 data sheet teaches polymers having a density of .961 and a melt flow of .7 g/10min. It is designed to improve stiffness and barrier in PE blends and when blended with LLDPE it improves processability.
From this one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add HDPE HTA 108 to the polyethylene composition Holtcamp et al. to form a blend having improved properties, as per the Polyethylene Resin data sheet.
For the newly added limitation regarding the second polyethylene and a high density content, note that this % is being interpreted as wt%. As this applies to the prior art rejection, see below.
On one hand, note that the first and second polyethylenes can be mixed at any ratio and/or amounts such that, while the second polyethylene contains about 25 to about 40% the final claimed blend can contain an extremely wide range of polyethylene. For instance if the second polyethylene is present in only 1 wt% of the blend, the high density component can be present in as little as .25 to 40 wt% of the entire blend. This is just one example of the vast breadth the amount of the second polyethylene high density content in the claimed blend.
Additionally the high density polyethylene in the second polyethylene can be the same as the first polyethylene such that any polyethylene meeting the presence of the first polyethylene meets the presence of the second polyethylene as well. Note that all that is required for the second polyethylene high density content is that it fall within the claimed density range.
In this manner this requirement is fulfilled by the combination of references noted supra and claim 1 is rendered obvious.
On the second hand, given a full reading of the specification, it is clear that the second polyethylene is prepared by the method in Holtcamp et al. In fact the WO equiv-alent of Holtcamp et al. is incorporated by reference into the body of the specification. See paragraph 72 which states that the second polyethylene has the same BOCD (broad orthogonal composition distribution) as the polyethylene in the WO reference. This distribution of a high density component in the second polyethylene is part of the BOCD characteristics found in Holtcamp et al. and the instant second polyethylene. As such one having ordinary skill in the art would have basis to believe that the polyethyl-ene in Holtcamp et al. will inherently meet this requirement.
As such, in this manner as well, the requirement is fulfilled by the combination of references noted supra and claim 1 is obvious.
For claims 2 and 3, see paragraph 58 in Holtcamp et al. which teaches that the polyethylenes therein have a BOCD and meet the property (a) in claim 3.
For claim 4, see Table 3 which shows Mw and Mz within these ranges
For claim 5, a polyethylene with all of these properties is not specifically shown by Holtcamp et al. but according to applicants’ disclosure, are within the breadth of the teachings and the process of Holtcamp et al. As such one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust and/or optimize the properties of the polyethyl-ene in Holtcamp et al. in an effort to determine the beneficial and most useful product such that polyethylenes having such properties would have been obvious and well with-in routine experimentation of the teachings therein.
For claim 6, the polymers referred to supra in Tables 1 and 3 possess these properties. Note that the term “about” used to modify the Mw/Mn value allows for values above 8 such that the Mw/Mn value of 9.49 (for polymer 123_16-09.01) meets this requirement. If not within the breadth of “about 8”, the Examiner again notes that the process and polymers in Holtcamp et al. generally embrace the claimed second poly-ethylene such that a polymer meeting these requirements would have been within routine experimentation of the teachings in Holtcamp et al.
For claim 7 see paragraph 128 which teaches a preferred range of hexene monomers of from 3 to 10 wt% which embraces and provides motivation for the skilled artisan to select an amount within the claimed range of 2 to 6 wt%.
For claim 9, note that adjusting the amount of the second and first polyethylenes in the modified composition of Holtcamp et al. would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in an effort to optimize the properties associated with each polymer. As such the wt% in claim 9 would have been obvious.
For claim 10, note that polyethylene blends having different densities have differ-ent uses such that adjusting the final density to correspond with the final utility would have been obvious to the skilled artisan.
For claim 11 note that such a property would appear to be the natural result of the combination of polymers found in claim 1 since the polymers used in the admixture rendered obvious above are the same as claimed.
In response to applicants’ traversal, note that reliance on the newly added language in claim 1 is not sufficient to overcome this rejection, as noted supra.
Arguments directed to advantageous properties, there is nothing that indicates
that any such advantages are found in the entirety of the claimed composition which is significantly broader than that shown in the examples. In addition, there is nothing to support the conclusion that any differences shown are, in fact, unobvious differences.
Claims 8 and 12 are 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 18 and 19 are allowed. This determination is based on the reasons of record found in the previous office action.
Prosecution Insights