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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 6 are amended; claim 7 is cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-6 and 8-15 are currently pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2016/0272743 A1) in view of Han et al (US 2015/0122529 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-6, Park et al disclose in example 2 (Table 1), an olefin polymer having a melt-index of 3.2 g/10 min (i.e., reads on the melt index in present claim 1, and 5), a Tm1 of 46.30C (i.e., reads on the melting temperature in present claim 1) and Tm2 of 85.20C (i.e., reads on the high temperature melting peak in present claims 1 and 6). The Tm means highest point of each peak in the temperature-heat flow graph of DSC (paragraph 0057). The olefin-based copolymer in example 2 is a copolymer of ethylene and 1-octene (paragraph 0181) which reads on the copolymer of ethylene and α-olefin comonomer of 8 carbon atoms in present claim 1. The α-olefin may be homopolymerized or alternating or random copolymerized (paragraph 0154) which reads on polymer is a random or alternating copolymer in present claim 1. Examples include copolymerization of ethylene with propylene, 1-butene (paragraph 0154).
Park et al are silent with respect to total enthalpy of fusion.
However, Park et al in the general disclosure teach that polymerization may be performed in the presence of inert gas such as hydrogen (paragraphs 0163-0164) and a transition metal catalyst (paragraph 0075). Additionally, Han et al teach polymerization of ethylene and propylene in the presence of hydrogen. The obtained polymer has a melting temperature of 134.110C and 140.500C and melt enthalpy of greater than 1.0 J/g (see Table 2). Therefore, given that olefin polymer, of Park et al, satisfies the melt-index, melting temperature, high temperature melting peak, weight average molecular weight, density and molecular weight distribution, and may be prepared in the presence of a group IV transition metal catalyst in an inert gas such as hydrogen as in present invention and Han et al has shown in examples a copolymer having melt enthalpy of greater than 1.0 J/g when prepared in the presence of hydrogen, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to prepare olefin polymer, of Park et al, in the presence of hydrogen to obtain olefin polymer having presently claimed total enthalpy of fusion (such as 1.04 to 1.61 J/g as in present claim 1), absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 2, see example 2 (Table 1) of Park et al, wherein the olefin polymer has a density of 0.870 g/cc.
Regarding claim 3, see example 2 (Table 1) of Park et al, wherein the olefin polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 117,975.
Regarding claim 4, see example 2 (Table 1) of Park et al, wherein the olefin polymer has a molecular weight distribution of 2.36.
Regarding claim 8 and 9, see example 1, of Park et al, wherein the olefin polymer is prepared using ethylene and 1-butene (paragraph 0181) which reads on the α-olefin is 1-butene of present claims 8 and 9.
Regarding claim 10, Park et al disclose in example 2 (Table 1), an olefin polymer having a melt-index of 3.2 g/10 min (i.e., reads on the melt index in present claim 10), a Tm1 of 46.30C (i.e., reads on the melting temperature in present claim 10), Tm2 of 85.20C (i.e., reads on the high temperature melting peak in present claim 10), density of 0.870 g/cc (i.e., reads on the density in present claim 10), weight average molecular weight of 117,975 (i.e., reads on the weight average molecular weight in present claim 10), and molecular weight distribution of 2.36 (i.e.; reads on the MWD in present claim 10). . The Tm means the highest point of each peak in the temperature-heat flow graph of DSC (paragraph 0057). The olefin-based copolymer in example 2 is a copolymer of ethylene and 1-octene (paragraph 0181) which reads on the copolymer of ethylene and α-olefin comonomer of 8 carbon atoms in present claim 10. The α-olefin may be homopolymerized or alternating or random copolymerized (paragraph 0154) which reads on polymer is a random or alternating copolymer in present claim 10.
Park et al are silent with respect to total enthalpy of fusion.
However, Park et al in the general disclosure teach that polymerization may be performed in the presence of inert gas such as hydrogen (paragraphs 0163-0164) and a transition metal catalyst (paragraph 0075). Additionally, Han et al teach polymerization of ethylene and propylene in the presence of hydrogen. The obtained polymer has a melting temperature of 134.110C and 140.500C and melt enthalpy of greater than 1.0 J/g (see Table 2). Therefore, given that olefin polymer, of Park et al, satisfies the melt-index, melting temperature, high temperature melting peak, weight average molecular weight, density and molecular weight distribution, and may be prepared in the presence of a group IV transition metal catalyst in an inert gas such as hydrogen as in present invention and Han et al has shown in examples a copolymer having melt enthalpy of greater than 1.0 J/g when prepared in the presence of hydrogen, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to prepare olefin polymer, of Park et al, in the presence of hydrogen to obtain olefin polymer having presently claimed total enthalpy of fusion (such as in the range of 1.0 J/g to 2.0 J/g), absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claims 11-12, claims are written in a product-by-process manner. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claims 13-15, Park et al disclose in example 2 (Table 1), an olefin polymer having a melt-index of 3.2 g/10 min (i.e., reads on the melt index in present claim 13, and Tm2 of 85.20C (i.e., reads on the high temperature melting peak in present claim 13). The Tm means the highest point of each peak in the temperature-heat flow graph of DSC (paragraph 0057). The polymerization may be performed in the presence of inert gas such as hydrogen (paragraphs 0163-0164) and a transition metal catalyst (paragraph 0075). The olefin-based copolymer in example 2 is a copolymer of ethylene and 1-octene (paragraph 0181) which reads on the copolymer of ethylene and α-olefin comonomer of 8 carbon atoms in present claim 13. The α-olefin may be homopolymerized or alternating or random copolymerized (paragraph 0154) which reads on polymer is a random or alternating copolymer in present claim 13.
Park et al are silent with respect to total enthalpy of fusion; and process of preparing the olefin polymer.
However, regarding total enthalpy of fusion, Park et al in the general disclosure teach that polymerization may be performed in the presence of inert gas such as hydrogen (paragraphs 0163-0164) and a transition metal catalyst (paragraph 0075). Additionally, Han et al teach polymerization of ethylene and propylene in the presence of hydrogen. The obtained polymer has a melting temperature of 134.110C and 140.500C and melt enthalpy of greater than 1.0 J/g (see Table 2). Therefore, given that olefin polymer, of Park et al, satisfies the melt-index, melting temperature, high temperature melting peak, weight average molecular weight, density and molecular weight distribution, and may be prepared in the presence of a group IV transition metal catalyst in an inert gas such as hydrogen as in present invention and Han et al has shown in examples a copolymer having melt enthalpy of greater than 1.0 J/g when prepared in the presence of hydrogen, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to prepare olefin polymer, of Park et al, in the presence of hydrogen to obtain olefin polymer having presently claimed total enthalpy of fusion (such as in the range of 1.0 J/g to 2.0 J/g), absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding process of preparing the olefin polymer, claims are written in a product-by-process manner. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Response to Arguments
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 103 as set forth in paragraphs 5 and 10, of Office action mailed 2/24/2026, are withdrawn in view of amendments and/or applicant arguments and/or new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office action, necessitated by amendment.
While the grounds of rejection are changed, it was still deemed appropriate to address some of the arguments which would be pertinent to new grounds of rejection in this office action (See paragraph 10 below).
Applicant's arguments, filed 5/19/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that (A), examples of present application show that the copolymer of ethylene and 1-butene is used as an olefin-based polymer. It is known in the pertinent art that physical properties do not change according to the number of carbon atoms for the case of alpha-olefin monomer of 3 to 12 carbon atoms. Examples in which ethylene and α-butene are used as the polyolefin-based polymer can be deemed to sufficiently represent the scope of copolymer of ethylene and α-olefin; and (B) As shown from Table 5 of the present application, when the polypropylene-based composites including the olefin-based polymers of the Examples having a total enthalpy of fusion ΔH(75) of the range of 75°C to 150°C is 1.04 J/g to 1.61 J/g as claimed, maintained similar degrees of impact strength at low temperature and impact strength at room temperature, and improved mechanical strength such as tensile strength and flexural strength, compared to those including the olefin-based polymers of the Examples having a total enthalpy of fusion AH(75) outside the claimed range.
With respect to (A), no evidence is provided to show that copolymers of ethylene and 1-butene in examples are representative of copolymer of ethylene and α-olefins having 3 to 12 carbon atoms and would exhibit similar properties. In fact, unexpected results to one skilled in art would mean the behavior is not expected and applicant argument that similar behavior is expected contradicts that results are unexpected.
With respect to (B), firstly, comparative examples are not with the closest prior art of Park et al, which includes polymerization in the presence of a transition metal catalyst and hydrogen as in present invention, the obtained polymer satisfying the melt-index, melting temperature, high temperature melting peak, weight average molecular weight, density and molecular weight distribution. Secondly, contrary to applicant’s position that impact strength at low temperature and room temperature are similar in inventive examples and exhibit improved mechanical strength, inventive example 5 exhibits lower impact strength at low temperature than in comparative examples 1-7, lower impact strength at room temperature than in comparative examples 1-2 and 6-7, flexural strength and tensile strength are substantially similar in inventive and comparative examples. Hence, applicant arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARUNA P REDDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6566. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/KARUNA P REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights