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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/05/2026, with respect to Dabbous et al (US 20130144011 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 11/06/2025 has been withdrawn.
Dabbous does not disclose the claimed vinyl ester (co)polymers.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Luo et al (US 6287692 B1).
Luo discloses a melt-processable composition comprising (a) 55 to 82 phr of high-density polyethylene and (b) 45 to 18 phr of a high VA content ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer [abstract, col 4 lines 28-37]. Examples include 30 phr of EVA with 70% vinyl acetate content and 70 phr of HDPE [Table II]. The composition is useful for preparing insulating material for wire coatings [abstract], similar to Applicant’s invention, and is blended and applied to the wire/cable by extrusion [col 4 line 59 to col 5 line 7]. Since the composition is not crosslinked until it is irradiated after the extrusion [col 5 lines 7-14] it is capable of being used as a masterbatch.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Luo et al (US 6287692 B1).
The compositions of Luo may include per 100 parts of (a) and (b), 0.2 to 10 parts of one or more antioxidants, exemplified as hindered phenolic antioxidant [col 4 line 49, col 6 line 65], as well as 5 parts of a zinc oxide accelerator [col 7 line 11, Table I]. The composition also includes antiblock agents, antioxidants, lubricants, and ultraviolet stabilizers wherein the total amount of additives is less than or equal to 120 phr [col 4 lines 11-20].
It is the opinion of the Office that the disclosed ranges of less than 120 phr, 0.2 to 10 phr of antioxidants, 5 phr of zinc oxide are disclosed with sufficient specificity to anticipate the corresponding claimed range of 5 to 95 wt% of the claimed additives. See MPEP 2131.03 for anticipation of ranges. Alternatively, there can be no argument that the disclosed ranges overlap the corresponding claimed range. 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), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al (US 6287692 B1) in view of Bauer et al (US 6048937 A).
Luo does not disclose the claimed polyester component.
Bauer discloses thermoplastic molding compositions of ethylene polymer [abstract], similar to Luo, also comprising up to 5% by weight of a thermoplastic polyester [abstract]. The polyester is exemplified with monomers of butane diol, adipic acid, and terephthalic acid [col 4 line 60 to col 5 line 5] and has a molecular weight greater than 5000 [col 3 lines 37-39]. Bauer teaches that the polyester improves the processability and surface properties of the ethylene polymer molding materials [col 1 lines 23-26].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have added a polyester polymer according to the claims to the composition of Luo because Bauer teaches that the polyester improves the processability and surface properties of the ethylene polymer molding materials.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
the closest prior art includes US 5707569 A, which discloses a polar side group containing adjuvant for polyolefin compositions wherein the adjuvant includes polymers such as polyvinylacetate and ethylene/vinyl acetate copolymer [col 3 line 67]. However, these are explicitly used in combination with fluoropolymer processing aids [ col 2 lines 7-13], and so do not meet the claim limitation requiring the polymer processing aid to be substantially free of PFAS.
Luo et al (US 6287692 B1), discussed above, discloses a higher amount of polyvinyl ester polymer than the claims.
Dabbous et al (US 20130144011 A1), previously discussed, does not disclose a vinyl ester polymer as the processing aid, but rather an acrylate , and in fact discloses that the major component of the extrudable composition, the thermoplastic polymer, can be a vinyl acetate polymer [0017, 0022].
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights