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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022196791A1 to Maki et al. (“Maki”) in view of JP 2021045963 to Nakanishi et al. (“Nakanishi”, of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Maki teaches a resin composition comprising:
- 40 to 90 mass% of a biomass-derived polyolefin (A) obtained by polymerizing a monomer component mainly containing a biomass-derived ethylene (x) (para [0024], [0026] [0027], [0031], the blend includes plant-based biomass-derived LDPE, meeting the claimed material limitations, Maki also teaches in blend ratio of plant-based biomass-derived LDPE to LLDPE is 9:1, to 4:6, i.e., that is about 40 to 90% of biomass-derived polyolefin/LDPE), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 40 to 90 mass% of a biomass-derived polyolefin of claim 1, and which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 50 to 75 mass% of a biomass-derived polyolefin of claim 3;
- 10 to 60 mass% of a linear low-density polyethylene (B) (para [0024], [0026] [0027], [0031], the blend further includes LLDPE, Maki also teaches in blend ratio of 9:1, to 4:6, i.e., that is about 10 to 60% of LLDPE), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 25 to 50 mass % of a linear low-density polyethylene of claim 1, and which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 25 to 45 mass % of a linear low-density polyethylene of claim 3. Maki further teaches a density of the polyolefin (B) (i.e., petroleum derived LLDPE, para [0024], [0027]) having a density of 0.91 to 0.93 g/cm3 (para [0043]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 0.90 to 0.93 g/cm3. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Maki does not specifically teach the inclusion of a modified polyolefin (C) in its resin composition in the amount as instantly claimed.
Nakanishi teaches a polyethylene-based resin blend suitable for making tube or multilayer tubular articles (para [0009] [0014]). Nakanishi teaches its polyethylene-based resin blend includes biomass-derived polyethylene and petroleum derived polyethylene, and further includes modified polyolefin adhesive resin to promote adhesion compatibility (para [0053]-[0055]). Nakanishi teaches the inclusion of modified polyolefin adhesive resin in suitable amount of 20 parts by weight or less, based on 100 parts by weight of polyethylene resin (para [0055]), of which if calculated is about 16% or less (i.e., 20/120 *100 =16%), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 1 to 10 mass% of a modified polyolefin (C) of claim 1, and which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 3 to 7 mass% of a modified polyolefin (C) of claim 3. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the resin composition of Maki in view the teachings of Nakanishi, to include in the resin composition of Maki (i.e., that includes plant-based biomass-derived LDPE, and LLDPE as discussed above), with the modified polyolefin adhesive resin in the suitable amount as taught by Nakanishi (i.e., provided that a sum of the (A)/plant-based biomass-derived LDPE, the (B)/LLDPE and the (C)/modified polyolefin is 100 mass%), to provide a resin composition with improved adhesion compatibility as taught by Nakanishi (para [0053]-[0055]).
As discussed above, Maki teaches its resin composition comprising biomass-derived plant-based LDPE, and suitable materials include plant-derived LDPE sold by Braskem (para [0037]), which is the same material as the biomass-derived polyolefin (A) of the instant application (see instant specification, para [0056] which describes suitable polyolefin (A) such as include plant-derived LDPE sold by Braskem), which material is considered as meeting the claimed limitation of having a biomass content Pbio of the polyolefin (A) calculated by the following method is 90% or more. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112. 01.
Maki teaches the biomass content Pbio of its resin composition is a result effective variable and is preferably 50% or more (para [0075]-[0076]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 50% or more. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Maki teaches wherein the linear low-density polyethylene (B) contains a biomass-derived linear low-density polyethylene (para [0026] [0030]), and Maki teaches the suitable materials include plant-derived liner low density polyethylene sold by Braskem (para [0041]), which is the same material as the biomass-derived polyolefin (B) of the instant application (see instant specification, para [0138] which describes suitable polyolefin (B) such as include plant-derived LLDPE sold by Braskem), which material is considered as meeting the claimed limitation of having a biomass content Pbio of the polyolefin (B) calculated by the following method is 80% or more. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112. 01.
Regarding claim 4, Maki teaches a density of the polyolefin (A) is 0.91 to 0.93 g/cm3 (para [0035]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 0.91 to 0.96 g/cm3. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 5-6, Maki teaches a formed body made of its resin composition, of which the formed body is a tube (para [0091]-[0093]), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 7-8, Maki teaches a multilayer tube/body comprising a layer containing its resin composition (para [0091]-[0093]), meeting the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sawano et al. (US 2023/0043006) that teaches a resin composition comprising bio-polyethylene blends (para [0011] [0022]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights