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 Objections
Claim(s) 6 – 8 is / are objected to because of the following informalities:
Currently claims 6 – 8 recite either ASTM-XXXX or ASTM XXXX, a single syntax i.e. with or with “-“ between ASTM and the test number, should be used across all ASTM testing methods mentioned. Highlighting, that the same choice should be reflected in the body / specifications of the disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a recycled polypropylene for use in the present disclosure is an FDA noncompliant resin, does not reasonably provide enablement for determine whether a recycled polypropylene for use in the present disclosure is an FDA noncompliant resin or not, namely the FDA does not test, certify, or approve individual resins or plastic materials for compliance. Instead, the agency sets specific regulations and guidelines (such as Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations) that detail which raw materials and additives are safe for food contact. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make use of the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
A.) Claim(s) 1, 5, 9 – 12 & 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Suzuki et al. (WO 2023176552 A1, hereinafter Suzuki)Regarding claim 1,
A method of preparing a film, the method comprising:
contacting a recycled propylene with
a cavitating agent and
an optional virgin polypropylene to form a mixture;
extruding the mixture to form an extrudate; and
biaxially orientating the extrudate to form a biaxially oriented film.
Suzuki teaches the following:
([0010]) teaches the sheet according to [1] or [2] above, wherein the chemically recycled polyolefin contains chemically recycled polypropylene. ([0089]) teaches a resin composition (a1) that was prepared consisting of 40 parts by mass of chemically recycled PP2.
([0049]) teaches that pore formation during stretching, calcium carbonate, calcined clay, or talc are preferred, with calcium carbonate being more preferred. The inorganic particles may have their surfaces treated with fatty acids, polymer surfactants, or antistatic agents. Where the calcium carbonate treated with polymer surfactants provides for and acts as applicant’s cavitating agent.
It should be noted that the virgin polypropylene is considered optional and thus not required. However, ([0089]) teaches a resin composition (a1) that was prepared consisting of 39 parts by mass of virgin PP (unused propylene homopolymer).
([0102]) teaches that (Example 1) The above resin composition (a1) was kneaded in an extruder set to 230°C, and then supplied to a feed block die set to 250°C and extruded into a sheet.
([0102]) teaches that Next, the 4x stretched film was cooled to 60°C, then heated again to approximately 145°C using a tenter oven and stretched 8x in the transverse direction. After annealing in an oven set to 160°C, the material was cooled to 60°C, and the edges were slit to obtain a sheet with a total thickness of 80 μm and a single-layer structure (biaxially oriented layer). Namely, biaxially orientating the extrudate sheet to form a biaxially oriented sheet is understood to be disclosed.
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the recycled polypropylene comprises an FDA noncompliant resin.
Suzuki teaches the following:
([0089]) teaches that acid-modified PP (maleic acid-modified polypropylene (manufactured by Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation, trade name: Modic P908, softening point: 140°C)). Highlighting, whether Modic P908 is FDA compatible depends entirely on your exact application. Namely, if Modic P908 is in Indirect Contact (Safe) versus if Modic P908 is in Direct Contact (Not). In particular, if the Modic P908 is trapped between two layers of plastic (like a tie layer in a food wrap film), it can be FDA compliant. It falls under specific food contact notifications for packaging. While, if Modic P908 touches food directly (as a solid plastic tub, utensil, or tray), it is not FDA compatible. This is because the acid-modifying chemicals (like maleic anhydride) can leak into food in ways that violate safety rules.
([0043]) expands the list of acid-modified PP to include maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene, maleic anhydride-modified polyethylene, acrylic acid-modified polypropylene, ethylene-methacrylic acid random copolymer, ethylene-glycidyl methacrylate random copolymer, or glycidyl methacrylate-modified polypropylene. Where glycidyl methacrylate-modified polypropylene is known to be not FDA compatible due to the FDA carefully reviews materials containing "glycidyl methacrylate". This is because the chemical glycidol can be tied to unwanted health issues. These are rarely, if ever, approved for direct, long-term contact with food without a specific individual review. Accordingly, glycidyl methacrylate-modified polypropylene is understood to the recycled polypropylene comprises an FDA noncompliant resin.
Regarding claim 9 – 12 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the optional virgin polypropylene has a polydispersity index of from about 2 to about 15.
Wherein the optional virgin polypropylene has is characterized by a density of from about 0.890 g/cc to about 0.920 g/cc.
Wherein the optional virgin polypropylene has a MFR of from about 0.5 dg/min to about 20 dg/min.
Wherein the optional virgin polypropylene has a xylene soluble content of from about 0.2 wt.% to about 5.0 wt.%.
Suzuki teaches the following:
As noted above, the virgin polypropylene is understood to be optional, thus is not required.
Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the mixture comprises a recycled polypropylene (in amounts ranging from about 0.1 wt.% to about 100 wt.% based on the total weight of the mixture.
Suzuki teaches the following:
([0089]) teaches a resin composition (a1) that was prepared consisting of 40 parts by mass of chemically recycled PP2. As such, the mixture comprises a recycled polypropylene (in amounts ranging from about 0.1 wt.% to about 100 wt.% based on the total weight of the mixture
Regarding claim 14 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the cavitating agent comprises polylactic acid, polybutylene terephthalate, nylon, solid or hollow pre-formed glass spheres, metal beads or spheres, ceramic spheres, calcium carbonate, talc, chalk, or combinations thereof.
Suzuki teaches the following:
([0049]) teaches that pore formation during stretching, calcium carbonate, calcined clay, or talc are preferred, with calcium carbonate being more preferred. The inorganic particles may have their surfaces treated with fatty acids, polymer surfactants, or antistatic agents. Where the calcium carbonate treated with polymer surfactants provides for and acts as applicant’s cavitating agent.
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the cavitating agent comprises calcium carbonate.
Suzuki teaches the following:
([0049]) teaches that pore formation during stretching, calcium carbonate, calcined clay, or talc are preferred, with calcium carbonate being more preferred. The inorganic particles may have their surfaces treated with fatty acids, polymer surfactants, or antistatic agents. Where the calcium carbonate treated with polymer surfactants provides for and acts as applicant’s cavitating agent.
Regarding claim 16 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the cavitating agent is present in an amount of from about 2 wt.% to about 30 wt.%.
Suzuki teaches the following:
([0089]) teaches a composition with 20 parts by mass of calcium carbonate (heavy calcium carbonate (manufactured by Bihoku Funka Kogyo Co., Ltd., trade name: Softon 1800, average particle size: 1.2 μm)). As such, the cavitating agent is present in an amount of from about 2 wt.% to about 30 wt.%
Regarding claim 17 – 24 as applied to claim 1 respectively,
Wherein the film has a haze of from about 50% to about 100%.
Wherein the film has a gloss at 450 of from about 10 to about 80.
Wherein the film has a tensile yield strength in the machine direction ranging from about 4,000 psi to about 10,000 psi.
Wherein the film has a tensile yield elongation in the machine direction ranging from about 10% to about 80%.
Wherein the film has a tensile break strength in the machine direction ranging from about 4,000 psi to about 10,000 psi.
Wherein the film has a tensile modulus 1% secant in the machine direction ranging from about 100 kpsi to about 300 kpsi.
Wherein the film has a tensile break strength in the transverse direction ranging from about 4,000 psi to about 10,000 psi.
Wherein the film has a tensile modulus 1% secant in the transverse direction ranging from about 100 kpsi to about 300 kpsi.
Suzuki teaches the following:
– 24a.) As detailed above, Suzuki is found to teach the entirety of claim 1 including, the composition utilized. Namely a composition that comprises a recycled propylene with a cavitating agent and an optional virgin polypropylene to form a mixture. Additionally, the entire fabrication process as recited in claim 1, i.e, extruding the mixture to form an extrudate and biaxially orientating the extrudate to form a biaxially oriented film. Accordingly, Suzuki is understood to produce the a sheet / film that has the same properties and functions as that of applicant’s film / sheet. Including but not limited to the film has a haze of from about 50% to about 100%, the film has a tensile yield strength in the machine direction ranging from about 4,000 psi to about 10,000 psi, the film has a tensile yield elongation in the machine direction ranging from about 10% to about 80%, the film has a tensile break strength in the machine direction ranging from about 4,000 psi to about 10,000 psi, the film has a tensile modulus 1% secant in the machine direction ranging from about 100 kpsi to about 300 kpsi, the film has a tensile modulus 1% secant in the machine direction ranging from about 100 kpsi to about 300 kpsi, the film has a tensile break strength in the transverse direction ranging from about 4,000 psi to about 10,000 psi, and the film has a tensile modulus 1% secant in the transverse direction ranging from about 100 kpsi to about 300 kpsi. Adding, that the various properties aforementioned are understood to be functional limitation of the fabricated film / sheet. Accordingly, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the film / sheet comprising the same properties as that of applicant’s film / sheet. The case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
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.
B.) Claim(s) 2, 4 & 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated over Suzuki in view of Freudenthaler et al. (Polypropylene Post-Consumer Recyclate Compounds for Thermoforming Packaging Applications, 2023, hereinafter Freudenthaler)
Regarding claim 2 & 4 as applied to claim 1 respectively,
Wherein the recycled polypropylene is sourced from post-consumer recycled resin, post-industrial recycled resin or combinations thereof.
Wherein the recycled polypropylene has a melt flow rate of from about 1 g/10 min. to about 20 g/10 min.
Regarding Claim(s) 2 & 4, Suzuki is silent on the recycled polypropylene is sourced from post-consumer recycled resin, post-industrial recycled resin or combinations thereof and the recycled polypropylene has a melt flow rate of from about 1 g/10 min. to about 20 g/10 min. In analogous art for polypropylene post-consumer recyclate compounds, (Abstract), Freudenthaler suggests details regarding the recycled polypropylene is sourced from post-consumer recycled resin, post-industrial recycled resin or combinations thereof and the recycled polypropylene has a melt flow rate of from about 1 g/10 min. to about 20 g/10 min, and in this regard, Freudenthaler teaches the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
160
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
& 4a.) (Abstract) teaches that the aim of this research was to blend intermediate-performance recyclate with a virgin PP grade to obtain compounds that fulfill the rheological and mechanical demands of this application. Three commercially available PP post-consumer recyclates were acquired and compounded with different blending ratios with a high stiffness, low MFR virgin PP grade. (Pg. 2, 2.1 Materials) teaches that three different commercially available recyclate grades were provided by three European recycling companies. All of them are designated as “rPP” for recycled PP and are made from post-consumer PP packaging waste. All three recyclates were delivered as pellets and will henceforth be called rPP-A, rPP-B, and rPP-C. Namely, the recycled polypropylene is understood to be sourced from a post-consumer recycled resin and/or a post-industrial recycled resin. (Pg. 2, Table 1) provided within, details various properties for the recycled PP resin, rPP-A, rPP-B, and rPP-C, in which the recycled PP resin have an MFR in the range of 10. 1 – 18 g/10 min which overlaps with applicant’s range of from about 1 g/10 min. to about 20 g/10 min.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a resin sheet of the present invention is equipped with a biaxially oriented layer containing a recycled polypropylene resin, virgin polypropylene and pore former comprising calcium carbonate with surfactant of Suzuki. By modifying the recycled polypropylene resin to comprise a post-consumer polypropylene resin that has an MFR in the range of 10. 1 – 18 g/10 min, as taught by Freudenthaler. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a recycled polypropylene resin that comprises a post-consumer polypropylene resin that has an MFR in the range of 10. 1 – 18 g/10 min as it provides for blending the post-consumer polypropylene resin with a virgin PP grade resin to tailor and modify the resulting resin’s MFR to a desired targeted range for molding, (Abstract). Additionally, the case law for overlapping ranges may be recited. Where, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of MFR range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the optional virgin polypropylene has a MFR of from about 0.5 dg/min to about 20 dg/min.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, Suzuki is silent on the optional virgin polypropylene has a MFR of from about 0.5 dg/min to about 20 dg/min. In analogous art as applied above, Freudenthaler suggests details regarding the optional virgin polypropylene has a MFR of from about 0.5 dg/min to about 20 dg/min, and in this regard, Freudenthaler teaches the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
160
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Abstract) teaches that the aim of this research was to blend intermediate-performance recyclate with a virgin PP grade to obtain compounds that fulfill the rheological and mechanical demands of this application. Three commercially available PP post-consumer recyclates were acquired and compounded with different blending ratios with a high stiffness, low MFR virgin PP grade. (Pg. 2, 2.1 Materials) teaches a low MFR, high modulus virgin PP grade was acquired for compounding and will be called vPP from here on. As detailed in (Table 1) the virgin PP (vPP) has an melt flow rate (MFR) of 0.25 g/min. With (Pg. 4, 2.2.2 Specimen Production) adding that the processing temperature used for molding is dependent on the MFR of the material. Therefore, as vPP has an MFR of below 1.5 g/10min. Where 0.5 dg/min to about 20 dg/min is equivalent to 0.5 g/10 min to 20 g/ 10 min. As such, a range of below 1.5 g/10min is understood to encompass and overlap applicant’s range of 0.5 g/10 min to 20 g/ 10 min (0.5 dg/min to about 20 dg/min).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a resin sheet of the present invention is equipped with a biaxially oriented layer containing a recycled polypropylene resin, virgin polypropylene and pore former comprising calcium carbonate with surfactant of Suzuki. By modifying the optional virgin polypropylene to have a MFR of below 1.5 g/10min, as taught by Freudenthaler. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement an optional virgin polypropylene that has a MFR of below 1.5 g/10min as it provides for blending the post-consumer polypropylene resin with a virgin PP grade resin to tailor and modify the resulting resin’s MFR to a desired targeted range for molding, (Abstract). Additionally, the case law for overlapping ranges may be recited. Where, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of MFR range that corresponds to the claimed range. See In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).C.) Claim(s) 2 – 4 & 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated over Suzuki in view of Matei et al. (Recycled Polypropylene Improved with Thermoplastic Elastomers, 2017, hereinafter Matei)
Regarding claim 2 – 4 & 8 as applied to claim 1 respectively,
Wherein the recycled polypropylene is sourced from post-consumer recycled resin, post-industrial recycled resin or combinations thereof.
Wherein the recycled polypropylene has a density of from about 0.890 g/cc to about 0.965 g/cc.
Wherein the recycled polypropylene has a melt flow rate of from about 1 g/10 min. to about 20 g/10 min.
Wherein the recycled polypropylene has an Izod impact of from about 0.2 ft-lb/in to about 5.0 ft-lb/in as determined in accordance with ASTM D-256.
Regarding Claim(s) 2 & 4, Suzuki is silent on the recycled polypropylene has a density of from about 0.890 g/cc to about 0.965 g/cc and the recycled polypropylene has an Izod impact of from about 0.2 ft-lb/in to about 5.0 ft-lb/in as determined in accordance with ASTM D-256. In analogous art for polypropylene post-consumer recyclate compounds, (Abstract), Matei suggests details regarding the recycled polypropylene has a density of from about 0.890 g/cc to about 0.965 g/cc and the recycled polypropylene has an Izod impact of from about 0.2 ft-lb/in to about 5.0 ft-lb/in as determined in accordance with ASTM D-256, and in this regard, Matei teaches the following:
(Pg. 1, Abstract) teaches the use of recycled polypropylene (RPP) as raw material for various industries has been known. However, the mechanical and thermal properties of recycled products are lower than those of raw material. The objective of this study was to obtain and investigate the modified recycled polypropylene (RPP) with commercial elastomers for possible applications. (Pg. 2, 2.1 Materials and Methods, ¶1) teaches that the polymeric matrix, recycled poly-propylene (RPP) (in the granule form), comes from industrial postconsumer boxes processed by injection moulding technology. Highlighting, the recycled poly-propylene (RPP) is understood to be industrial postconsumer sources.
(Pg. 2, 2.1 Materials and Methods, ¶1) teaches that the polymeric matrix, recycled poly-propylene (RPP) is characterized by a density of 0.96 – 0.99 g/cm3. Highlighting, that a density of 0.96 – 0.99 g/cm3 is found to overlap with applicant’s range of about 0.890 g/cc to about 0.965 g/cc.
(Pg. 2, 2.1 Materials and Methods, ¶1) teaches that the polymeric matrix, recycled poly-propylene (RPP) is characterized by a melt flow index (190 °C, 5 kg) of 6 g/10 min. Where a melt flow index of 6 g/10 min is found to within applicant’s range of a melt flow rate of from about 1 g/10 min. to about 20 g/10 min.
(Pg. 2, 2.1 Materials and Methods, ¶1) teaches that Polymeric matrix, recycled poly-propylene (RPP) is characterized by an IZOD impact strength at 23°C of 6 kJ/m2. Where a an IZOD impact strength at 23°C of 6 kJ/m2 is equivalent to
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a resin sheet of the present invention is equipped with a biaxially oriented layer containing a recycled polypropylene resin, virgin polypropylene and pore former comprising calcium carbonate with surfactant of Suzuki. By modifying the recycled polypropylene resin to comprise the various aforementioned properties, as Matei. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a recycled polypropylene resin to comprise the various aforementioned properties as it provides tailoring various mechanical properties of the recycled polypropylene resin including the tensile properties, density, and IZOD impact, (Pg. 2, Introduction, ¶5). Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a recycled polypropylene resin to comprise the various aforementioned properties as it provides for the use of a known material, i.e., recycled polypropylene resin for its intended purposes, i.e, forming an article, in a known environment, namely melted for molding provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
D.) Claim(s) 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated over Suzuki in view of Noguerol-Cal et al. (Effect of Several Variables in the Polymer Toys Additive Migration to Saliva, 2011, hereinafter Noguerol-Cal)
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the recycled polypropylene comprises an FDA noncompliant resin.
Suzuki teaches the following:
([0089]) teaches that acid-modified PP (maleic acid-modified polypropylene (manufactured by Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation, trade name: Modic P908, softening point: 140°C)). Highlighting, whether Modic P908 is FDA compatible depends entirely on your exact application. Namely, if Modic P908 is in Indirect Contact (Safe) versus if Modic P908 is in Direct Contact (Not). In particular, if the Modic P908 is trapped between two layers of plastic (like a tie layer in a food wrap film), it can be FDA compliant. It falls under specific food contact notifications for packaging. While, if Modic P908 touches food directly (as a solid plastic tub, utensil, or tray), it is not FDA compatible. This is because the acid-modifying chemicals (like maleic anhydride) can leak into food in ways that violate safety rules.
([0043]) expands the list of acid-modified PP to include maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene, maleic anhydride-modified polyethylene, acrylic acid-modified polypropylene, ethylene-methacrylic acid random copolymer, ethylene-glycidyl methacrylate random copolymer, or glycidyl methacrylate-modified polypropylene. Where glycidyl methacrylate-modified polypropylene is known to be not FDA compatible due to the FDA carefully reviews materials containing "glycidyl methacrylate". This is because the chemical glycidol can be tied to unwanted health issues. These are rarely, if ever, approved for direct, long-term contact with food without a specific individual review. Accordingly, glycidyl methacrylate-modified polypropylene is understood to the recycled polypropylene comprises an FDA noncompliant resin.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Suzuki is silent on the recycled polypropylene comprises an FDA noncompliant resin. In analogous art for a polypropylene with additives, dyes, antioxidants, hindered amine light stabilizers (HALS) or antistatics, used to from plastic toys, (Abstract), Noguerol-Cal suggests details regarding the recycled polypropylene comprises an FDA noncompliant resin, and in this regard, Noguerol-Cal teaches the following:
(Pg. 2083, 2.2 Samples ) teaches that polypropylene (PP) 070 G2 M from Repsol YPF (Madrid, Spain) was selected in this work as polymer used in toys articles. PP film was extruded at laboratory by using a Brabender DSE 20 double screw extruder (Duisburg, Germany) with five heating zones and the following zone temperature settings: PP granules with the additives and the concentrations shown in (Table 2) were re-extruded several times to obtain a homogeneous distribution of the compounds (n = 5). (Table 2) provides for several composition which implement dyes with various concentrations, amongst those is Sudan IV. Accordingly, the use of a polypropylene that is recycled, i.e., re-extruded with additives such as dyes comprising Sudan IV provides for and acts as applicant’s recycled polypropylene comprising an FDA noncompliant resin. Highlighting, (Table 1) teaches Sudan IV is a Category 3 carcinogen to humans (IARC) [9]. According to Cramer rules classified in high toxicity group (class III). Reduced to form potentially toxic amines aromatic by intestinal bacterial species. Banned as additive in food . Accordingly, Sudan Red BBA (C.I. 26105, also known as Sudan IV) is not FDA compliant dye. Highlighting, that Sudan IV is a synthetic, fat-soluble industrial dye that is universally prohibited for the use in food, drugs, and cosmetics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a resin sheet of the present invention is equipped with a biaxially oriented layer containing a recycled polypropylene resin, virgin polypropylene and pore former comprising calcium carbonate with surfactant of Suzuki. By modifying the recycled polypropylene resin to comprise a recycled polypropylene comprises an FDA noncompliant resin, as taught by Noguerol-Cal. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a recycled polypropylene comprising an FDA noncompliant resin as it provides for tailoring the color of the article fabricated, (Table 1). Highlighting, that the use of a known material, i.e., non-complaint FDA resin, namely polypropylene with a dye, in particular Sudan IV, in a known environment, namely molding articles, for its intended purposes end applications that require specific hue, provide for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
E.) Claim(s) 6 – 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated over Suzuki in view of Hyie et al. (Tensile and flexural investigation on polypropylene recycling, 2017, hereinafter Hyie)
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the recycled polypropylene has a flexural modulus of from about 100,000 psi to about 300,000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 790 .
Wherein the recycled polypropylene has a tensile yield strength of from about 2000 psi to about 6000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 638.
Regarding Claim(s) 6 – 7, Suzuki is silent on the recycled polypropylene has a flexural modulus of from about 100,000 psi to about 300,000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 790 and the recycled polypropylene has a tensile yield strength of from about 2000 psi to about 6000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 638. In analogous art for a study is about the effect of composition between virgin and recycled PP towards their mechanical properties, (Abstract), Hyie suggests details regarding the recycled polypropylene has a flexural modulus of from about 100,000 psi to about 300,000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 790 and the recycled polypropylene has a tensile yield strength of from about 2000 psi to about 6000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 638, and in this regard, Hyie teaches the following:
(Pg. 2, 2.1 Materials and Sample Preparation, ¶2) teaches that Tensile and flexural specimens were fabricated according to their ASTM standard D638 and D790, respectively. As detailed in (Table 2) the VP0 sample is for a sample composed of 100% recycled polypropylene. (Pg. 5, Table 3) provides a table with the (Bending Modulus) of the various samples fabricated. As detailed, the (Bending Modulus) of the VP0 sample is provided as 982.12 MPa which is equivalent to 142,444.463 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 790, which overlaps with applicant’s range of 100,000 psi to about 300,000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 790.
(Pg. 2, 2.1 Materials and Sample Preparation, ¶2) teaches that tensile and flexural specimens were fabricated according to their ASTM standard D638 and D790, respectively. As detailed in (Table 2) the VP0 sample is for a sample composed of 100% recycled polypropylene. (Pg. 5, Table 3) provides a table with the (Flexural yield strength) of the various samples fabricated. As detailed, the (Flexural yield strength) of the VP0 sample is provided as 51.42 MPa which is equivalent to 7457.85 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 790, which is slight above applicant’s range of 2000 psi to about 6000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 638. As noted on (Pg. 6) it can be observed that the flexural specimens did not break even beyond 5% deflection. It is suspected that the load applied were not sufficient. Only permanent deformation occurred toward the samples and not fractures as the universal testing machine only capable of maximum load of 50kN. Highlighting, the yield strength is understood to impact the maximum stress a material can endure before it begins to deform permanently. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited regarding the recycled polypropylene has a tensile yield strength of from about 2000 psi to about 6000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 638. Where, a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a resin sheet of the present invention is equipped with a biaxially oriented layer containing a recycled polypropylene resin, virgin polypropylene and pore former comprising calcium carbonate with surfactant of Suzuki. By modifying the recycled polypropylene resin to comprise a flexural modulus of from about 100,000 psi to about 300,000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 790 and modifying the recycled polypropylene resin to comprise a tensile yield strength of from about 2000 psi to about 6000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 638, as taught by Hyie. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a recycled polypropylene resin to comprise the various aforementioned properties as it provides for tailoring flexural properties such as flexural strength and bending modulus as illustrated in (Fig. 1), (Pg. 3, 2.2 Mechanical Testing and Facture Analysis, Fig. 1). Additionally, the use of a known material, i.e., recycled polypropylene resin for its intended purposes, i.e, forming an article, in a known environment, namely melted for molding provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
G.) Claim(s) 7 – 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated over Suzuki in view of Barbosa et al. (Analysis of Impact and Tensile Properties of Recycled Polypropylene, 2017, hereinafter Barbosa)
Regarding claim 7 – 8 as applied to claim 1 respectively,
Wherein the recycled polypropylene has a tensile yield strength of from about 2000 psi to about 6000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 638.
Wherein the recycled polypropylene has an Izod impact of from about 0.2 ft-lb/in to about 5.0 ft-lb/in as determined in accordance with ASTM D-256.
Regarding Claim(s) 7 – 8, Suzuki is silent on the recycled polypropylene has a tensile yield strength of from about 2000 psi to about 6000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 638 and the recycled polypropylene has an Izod impact of from about 0.2 ft-lb/in to about 5.0 ft-lb/in as determined in accordance with ASTM D-256. In analogous art for a study on tensile and impact tests were performed on virgin polypropylene, recycled polypropylene and mixtures of different proportions of both, (Abstract), Barbosa suggests details regarding the recycled polypropylene has a tensile yield strength of from about 2000 psi to about 6000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 638 and the recycled polypropylene has an Izod impact of from about 0.2 ft-lb/in to about 5.0 ft-lb/in as determined in accordance with ASTM D-256, and in this regard, Barbosa teaches the following:
(Pg. 118, Materials and Methods, ¶1) teaches that The specimens for the tensile and impact tests were injected by Cavaletti S.A., located in the city of Erechim - Brazil, following the dimensional requirements of ASTM D638-02a and ASTM D256-02, respectively. Polypropylene from secondary recycling (PPr) supplied by the company Coplast were used. (Pg. 118, Table 3) provides a table of yield strength for various samples. (Pg. 118, Table 3) shows that the secondary recycling (100PPr) was provided with a yield strength of 20.83 MPa, which is equivalent to 3021.15 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 638, and subsequently falls within applicant’s range of 2000 psi to about 6000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 638.
(Pg. 118, Materials and Methods, ¶1) teaches that the specimens for the tensile and impact tests were injected by Cavaletti S.A., located in the city of Erechim - Brazil, following the dimensional requirements of ASTM D638-02a and ASTM D256-02, respectively. Polypropylene from secondary recycling (PPr) supplied by the company Coplast were used. (Pg. 119, Table 4) provides a table of Izod impact for various samples. (Pg. 119, Table 4) shows that the secondary recycling (100PPr) was provided with a yield strength of 6.67 kJ/m2 which is equivalent to 1.25 ft-lb/in as determined in accordance with ASTM D-256, and subsequently falls within applicant’s range of 0.2 ft-lb/in to about 5.0 ft-lb/in as determined in accordance with ASTM D-256.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a resin sheet of the present invention is equipped with a biaxially oriented layer containing a recycled polypropylene resin, virgin polypropylene and pore former comprising calcium carbonate with surfactant of Suzuki. By modifying the recycled polypropylene resin to comprise a recycled polypropylene has a tensile yield strength of from about 2000 psi to about 6000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 638 and modifying the recycled polypropylene resin to comprise a recycled polypropylene has an Izod impact of from about 0.2 ft-lb/in to about 5.0 ft-lb/in as determined in accordance with ASTM D-256, as taught by Barbosa. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a recycled polypropylene resin to comprise a tensile yield strength of from about 2000 psi to about 6000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM D 638 and have an Izod impact of from about 0.2 ft-lb/in to about 5.0 ft-lb/in as determined in accordance with ASTM D-256, as it provides for tailoring the stress and strain an article manufactured from the recycled polypropylene resin can undergo, (Fig. 1). Furthermore, one would be motivated to implement a recycled polypropylene resin to comprise the various aforementioned properties as it provides for the use of a known material, i.e., recycled polypropylene resin for its intended purposes, i.e, forming an article, in a known environment, namely melted for molding provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
H.) Claim(s) 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated over Suzuki in view of Hafner et al. (US 20160115258 A1, hereinafter Hafner)
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the optional virgin polypropylene has a polydispersity index of from about 2 to about 15.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Suzuki is silent on the optional virgin polypropylene has a polydispersity index of from about 2 to about 15.In analogous art for a polypropylene with very broad molecular weight distribution and its manufacture, (Abstract), Hafner suggests details regarding the optional virgin polypropylene has a polydispersity index of from about 2 to about 15, and in this regard, Hafner teaches the following:
([0016]) teaches Preferably the polypropylene according to the first and second embodiment is a propylene homopolymer. Adding, that there is no mention or use of implementing recycled polypropylene. Accordingly, the propylene homopolymer is understood to be a virgin polypropylene. ([0015]) teaches preferably said polypropylene has a ratio of weight average molecular weight (Mw) to number average molecular weight (Mn) [Mw/Mn] of at least 15.0 and/or a polydispersity index (PI) of at least 10.0. ([0022]) notes that the above polypropylene provides for a broad molecular weight distribution.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a resin sheet of the present invention is equipped with a biaxially oriented layer containing a recycled polypropylene resin, virgin polypropylene and pore former comprising calcium carbonate with surfactant of Suzuki. By modifying the virgin polypropylene to comprise a polydispersity index (PI) of at least 10.0, as taught by Hafner. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a virgin polypropylene to comprise a polydispersity index (PI) of at least 10.0, as it provides for a polypropylene provides with a broad molecular weight distribution, ([0022]). Highlighting, that the use of a known material, i.e., polypropylene, in a known environment, namely molding articles, for its intended purposes end applications that require stiffness and flowability, provide for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
I.) Claim(s) 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated over Suzuki in view of Kozimor et al. (US 6231936 B1, hereinafter Kozimor)Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the optional virgin polypropylene has is characterized by a density of from about 0.890 g/cc to about 0.920 g/cc.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Suzuki is silent on the optional virgin polypropylene having a density of from about 0.890 g/cc to about 0.920 g/cc. In analogous art for a blend of from about 99% to about 50% by weight homo or copolymerized polypropylene and about 1% to about 50% by weight polyethylene produced by single-site catalysis, (Abstract), Kozimor suggests details regarding the virgin polypropylene has a density of from about 0.890 g/cc to about 0.920 g/cc, and in this regard, Kozimor teaches the following:
(Col. 5, lines 10 – 34) teaches that the ethylene polymer produced by Single Site catalysis and used as a partner with polypropylene in the blends of this invention may be drawn from the range of ethylene polymers from homopolymer with density of about 0.965 g/cc down through the copolymers with high comonomer content and density of about 0.85 g/cc. The ethylene polymers which are preferred because of their greater improvement of the radiation tolerance of the subject blends are those ranging in density from 0.865 g/cc – 0.920 g/cc. More preferred for their combination of good improvement in radiation tolerance and low impact on the appearance (low increase in haze) of the blends are the ethylene polymers ranging in density from 0.880 g/cc – 0.915 g/cc and MI from 2-11 dg/min. Most preferred for these same reasons are the resins in the density range from 0.865 g/cc – 0.920 g/cc. Where, 0.865 g/cc – 0.920 g/cc is found to overlap with applicant’s range of virgin polypropylene having a density from about 0.890 g/cc to about 0.920 g/cc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a resin sheet of the present invention is equipped with a biaxially oriented layer containing a recycled polypropylene resin, virgin polypropylene and pore former comprising calcium carbonate with surfactant of Suzuki. By modifying the virgin polypropylene resin to comprise an ethylene polymers from homopolymer having a density ranging from 0.865 g/cc – 0.920 g/cc, as taught by Kozimor. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a virgin polypropylene resin to comprise an ethylene polymers from homopolymer with a density from 00.865 g/cc – 0.920 g/cc as they arepreferred because of their greater improvement of the radiation tolerance provided in the polypropylene blends, (Col. 5, lines 10 – 34). Highlighting, that the use of a known material, i.e., polypropylene, in a known environment, namely molding articles, for its intended purposes end applications that require stiffness and flowability, provide for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
J.) Claim(s) 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated over Suzuki in view of Pierini et al. (US 20050272858 A1, hereinafter Pierini)
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the optional virgin polypropylene has a xylene soluble content of from about 0.2 wt.% to about 5.0 wt.%.
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Suzuki is silent on the optional virgin polypropylene has a xylene soluble content of from about 0.2 wt.% to about 5.0 wt.%. In analogous art for a polypropylene homopolymer resin composition that comprises a melt flow rate of less than 7 g/10 min, (Abstract), Pierini suggests details regarding the optional virgin polypropylene has a xylene soluble content of from about 0.2 wt.% to about 5.0 wt.%. and in this regard, Pierini teaches the following:
(Claim 1) teaches that a polypropylene homopolymer resin composition having a melt flow rate of less than 7 g/10 min, and less than 2% by weight xylene soluble. Where a less than 2% by weight xylene soluble is found to fall within applicant’s range of xylene soluble content of from about 0.2 wt.% to about 5.0 wt.%. With ([0002]) noting that a low molecular weight fraction (sometimes referred to as a low molecular weight tail) can lead to high xylene soluble. ([0011]) adds that broad molecular weight distributions, however, can result in unacceptably high xylene solubles, especially for polymers having higher melt flow rates, because of low molecular weight polymer fractions present in the resin. These solubles result in processing and environmental problems which have to be addressed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a resin sheet of the present invention is equipped with a biaxially oriented layer containing a recycled polypropylene resin, virgin polypropylene and pore former comprising calcium carbonate with surfactant of Suzuki. By modifying the virgin polypropylene resin to comprise a virgin polypropylene has a xylene soluble content of from about 0.2 wt.% to about 5.0 wt.%, as taught by Pierini. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a virgin polypropylene has a xylene soluble content of from about 0.2 wt.% to about 5.0 wt.% as it provides for tailoring the crystallinity of polypropylene and melt strength of polypropylene, ([0009]) and tailor the low molecular weight fraction (sometimes referred to as a low molecular weight tail), ([0002]). Highlighting, that the use of a known material, i.e., polypropylene, in a known environment, namely molding articles, for its intended purposes end applications that require stiffness and flowability, provide for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07. Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grunwald et al. (US 3533727 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) This invention relates generally to the dyeing of molded plastic and more particularly, polypropylene plastic. It also relates to the coloring of polypropylene fiber by dyeing.
Ferreira et al. (Pretreatment of Plastic Waste: Removal of Colorants from HDPE Using Biosolvents, 2021)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights