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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vogel WO_2022133015_A1.
1. Regarding Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 18, De Vogel discloses post-consumer sources for its recycled polyolefin (paragraph 0004), such as polyethylene (Claim 4) sourced from waste (corresponds to limitation of instant Claim 6) (paragraphs 0034, 0056) along with the use of a free radical initiator (corresponds to claimed modified) (paragraph 00190). De Vogel discloses that the MFR can be 0.1 g/10 min to 2 g/10 min (paragraph 0085); thereby teaching the limitations of instant Claims 1, 4, 5, and 10. De Vogel discloses that the concentration of said initiator can be 0.1% (paragraph 00184) which falls into the claimed range of instant Claim 1. Also, De Vogel discloses its invention can be used as a shrink film, as being claimed in instant Claim 10, that can be made by a suitable method (paragraph 00217) such as using a mixture via reactive extrusion (paragraph 00256) (corresponds to instant Claims 9 and 16’s method), along with a carrier (corresponds to claimed dosage of instant Claims 18 and 19) (paragraph 00109). Although De Vogel does not disclose the claimed shrinkage of instant Claim 16, it does disclose all of the other claimed compositional, structural, and process claimed limitations of instant Claims 1, 10, and 16. As such, it would be expected for it to inherently possess the same physical properties as the claimed invention, including the claimed shrinkage of instant Claims 14 and 16.
2. Regarding Claim 7, De Vogel discloses that its PE can be greater than 50 wt% LLDPE (paragraph 00138).
3. Regarding Claim 12, De Vogel discloses using virgin polyolefin polymers in less than 40 wt% (paragraph 00219), such as LDPE (paragraph 00224).
4. Regarding Claim 13, De Vogel discloses using fillers (Claim 10).
5. Regarding Claim 15, De Vogel discloses an article having the claimed film (Claim 19).
6. Regarding Claim 17, De Vogel discloses the claimed temperature (paragraph 00107).
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Vogel WO_2022133015_A1, as applied to Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18.
7. Regarding Claim 2, De Vogel discloses in paragraph 00190 what meets the claimed free-radical initiator of 2,T-azobis(isobutyronitrile).
8. Regarding Claims 8 and 19, although De Vogel does not disclose the claimed concentration, it does state that the amount of initiator added can be used to control the MFR of the final extruded, visbroken recycled polyethylene-rich polyolefin; where higher amounts of initiator tend to lead to higher MFR values (paragraph 00189). Therefore, it would be expected for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to be able to vary the initiator concentration based on the desire for these properties.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Vogel WO_2022133015_A1, as applied to Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, and in view of Bertin USPA_20030139536_A1.
9. Regarding Claim 3, De Vogel does not disclose the claimed initiator.
10. Bertin discloses polymers with nitroxide functions that exhibit enhanced mechanical properties (Title, Abstract) that can be used as shrink films in packaging (paragraph 0002). Bertin discloses using free radical initiators (Abstract) in PEs (paragraph 0002); such as bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinyloxy)sebacate (paragraph 0145) (corresponds to claimed nitroxide of instant Claim 3).
11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the PE, of De Vogel, by trying the use of nitroxide free radical initiators, of Bertin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to enhance mechanical properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights