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 .
Claims 1-18 are pending as amended on August 18, 2026. Claims 1 and 2 were amended for clarity. New claims 16 and 18 are supported on page 19 of the specification. New claim 17 is supported by claim 4 and 12.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment adding new claims 16-18. Therefore, this action is properly made final.
Any objections and/or rejections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in the action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4 and 6-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyama (US 2006/0287441 A1) in view of Chung (US 4,539,352) and Yoshifumi (US 4,772,652), as set forth in the 5/18/2026 Office action.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyama (US 2006/0287441 A1) in view of Chung (US 4,539,352) and Yoshifumi (US 4,772,652) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aoyama (US 6,365,659 B1), as set forth in the 5/18/2026 Office action.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyama (US 2006/0287441 A1) in view of Chung (US 4,539,352) and Yoshifumi (US 4,772,652) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17, modified Miyama teaches the thermoplastic mixture according to claim 1 where the mixture comprises 65-75 wt.% A-1, 10-25 wt.% A-2, 3-10 wt.% A-3, and about 2 wt.% A-4.
Miyama does not anticipate the claimed content of A-1, A-2, and A-3.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have used a thermoplastic blend with any A-1 content in the range of 65-75 wt.%, any A-2 content in the range of 10-25 wt.%, and any A-3 content in the range of 3-10 wt.% because modified Miyama teaches these ranges. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges of 68-73 wt.% A-1, 18-22 wt.% A-2, and 5-10 wt.% A-3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claims 16 and 18, modified Miyama teaches the thermoplastic mixture according to claim 1 and claim 17.
Miyama is silent as to the melt volume rate (MVR) of the thermoplastic blend.
However, modified Miyama teaches a substantially similar composition prepared in a substantially similar manner as the instant examples. As explained above for claim 17, modified Miyama teaches a composition with 68-73 wt.% A-1, 18-22 wt.% A-2, 5-10 wt.% A-3, and 2 wt.% A-4, as used in Examples E1-E6. Like Examples E1-E6, modified Miyama teaches polybutylene terephthalate as A-1 ([0021]), HDPE as A-2 ([0026]), and epoxidized linseed oil as A-4 (see claim 1 rejection). Miyama does not specify an ionomer of an ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer which is 80% neutralized with sodium ions where the acrylic acid content is 15% as A-3; however, this ionomer is encompassed by the teachings of Miyama in view of Yoshifumi (see the rejections of claims 1, 3, and 7). Both Miyama and the instant examples prepare the thermoplastic blends with a twin screw extruder (Miyama, [0054]; instant specification, page 18, lines 21-22). Miyama teaches an extruder temperature of 260-310 °C ([0064]). This temperature is slightly higher than the 250 °C used in the instant examples (instant specification, page 18, lines 24-25), but within the range of 230-320 °C recited in the broader disclosure (instant specification, page 17, lines 9-10). Miyama’s composition comprises up to 6.5 wt% of moisture, but the claimed MVR is recited as being of the thermoplastic blend component, not the thermoplastic mixture as a whole. The thermoplastic blend component of the thermoplastic mixture consists of A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4. Examples E1-E6 have MVR values in the range of 1-4.9 cm3/10. The comparative examples have MVR values outside of the claimed range, but these examples do not contain at least one of the A-2, A-3, and A-4 components. Given that Miyama teaches a thermoplastic mixture comprising a thermoplastic blend that is substantially similar to the thermoplastic blend of the instant examples, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the thermoplastic blend component of modified Miyama’s composition would have similar properties to that of the instant examples, including a MVR in the range of 1-4.9 cm3/10 min according to ISO 1133.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-15 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 5-12 of copending Application No. 18/019,630 (reference application) in view of in view of Chung (US 4,539,352), as set forth in the 5/18/2026 Office action.
Claims 16-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 5-12 of copending Application No. 18/019,630 (reference application) in view of in view of Chung (US 4,539,352), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17, modified reference claim 1 teaches the thermoplastic mixture according to claim 1 where the thermoplastic blend consists of 65-75 wt.% A-1, 5-25 wt.% A-2, 10 wt.% A-3, and about 2 wt.% A-4.
Modified reference claim 1 does not anticipate the claimed A-1 and A-3 content.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have used any A-1 content in the range of 65-75 wt.% and any A-2 content in the range of 5-25 wt.% because modified reference claim 1 teaches these ranges. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges of 68-73 wt.% A-1 and 18-22 wt.% A-2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claims 16 and 18, modified reference claim 1 teaches the thermoplastic mixture according to claim 1 and claim 17.
Modified reference claim 1 is silent as to the melt volume rate (MVR) of the thermoplastic blend.
However, modified reference claim 1 teaches a substantially similar composition as the instant examples. As explained above for claim 17, modified reference claim 1 teaches a composition with 68-73 wt.% A-1, 18-22 wt.% A-2, 10 wt.% A-3, and 2 wt.% A-4. This composition is closest to Example E2. Example E2 has an MVR value of 3 cm3/10 min. The only examples with a MVR outside of the claimed range are Comparative Examples C1 and C2. Comparative Examples C1 and C2 do not contain at least one of A-2, A-3, and A-4. Given that modified reference claim 1 teaches a thermoplastic blend that is substantially similar to the thermoplastic blend of the instant examples, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the thermoplastic blend component of modified reference claim 1 would have similar properties to that of instant Example E2, including a MVR value within the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 18, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues (page 10) that the claims are non-obvious over Miyama (US 2006/0287441 A1) in view of Chung (US 4,539,352) and Yoshifumi (US 4,772,652) because instant Examples E1-E6 show unexpected results in terms of improved melt flow volume rate (MVR) values. Examples E1-E6 have MVR values of 1.6-4.9 cm3/10 min whereas Comparative Examples C1-C2 have MVR values of 32.7-68.6 cm3/ 10 min. Comparative Example C1 does not contain A-4 and Comparative Example C2 does not contain A-2 and A-3. MPEP 716.02(b) states that appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Applicant has not explained why the decreased MVR values are unexpected. Comparing C1, E2, and E3 demonstrates a trend of increased A-4 correlating with decreased MVR values for otherwise similar compositions. E3 compared to E4 and E5 compared to E6 also demonstrate the same trend. Applicant argues that Example C1 is representative of Miyama, but Applicant has not addressed how inclusion of a plasticizer in the mixture of Miyama would impact the MVR. In addition, evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. See MPEP 716.02(d). Examples E1-E6 are not commensurate in scope with claim 1 at least because claim 1 encompasses a broader range of polyesters, ionomers, epoxidized oils, and additives than the examples. In addition, the examples use HDPE, but claim 1 encompasses LDPE. Furthermore, claim 1 encompasses a broader range of the quantity of each component than the instant examples. If Applicant wishes to overcome the present rejection by showing unexpected results, Applicant must provide sufficient evidence to show that unexpected results would be obtained for all species and the full breath of ranges encompassed by the claims.
Applicant argues (page 10) that the claims are non-obvious over copending Application No. 18/019,630 (reference application) in view of in view of Chung (US 4,539,352) because the experimental data of record demonstrate unexpected results. This argument is not persuasive because Applicant has not established unexpected results in a matter that is commensurate in scope with the instant examples. See the discussion 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 AUDRA DESTEFANO whose telephone number is (703)756-1404. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/AUDRA J DESTEFANO/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights