DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
2. Claims 1, 3-18 are currently pending. The species of a pellet comprising the propylene ethylene olefin co polymer A of claim 8 have been elected in the response filed on 08/20/2024. Claims 7, 9-14 have been withdrawn as being drawn to a non elected invention. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 15-18 are currently under examination. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 01/02/2026.
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.
3. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe (US 2011/0165416 A1).
Concerning claim 1, 3-4, 15, 17 Kawabe teaches a resin composition that comprises a propylene polymer A-1 (paragraph 0141).
The propylene polymer A-1 is indicated to preferably include from 62-88 mol% of propylene preferably 7 to 24 mol% of ethylene and preferably from 4 to 20 mol% of an alpha olefin having 4 to 20 carbon atoms, where these monomers add up to 100% by mol (paragraph 0151). The polymer is indicated to have an isotactic triad fraction of 85 to 99.9% (paragraph 0152), a B value of preferably 0.9-1.2 (paragraph 0156-0157) and a melt flow rate measured using ASTM D1238 230°C under a load of 2.16 kg of preferably 0.1 to 50 g/ 10 minutes. The melting point measured by DSC is indicated to be less than 90°C or not observed (paragraph 0145).
As such when the melting point is not observed then the difference between the claimed polymer and the polymer of Kawabe using the indicated preferred ranges is that the amount of ethylene is an overlapping range with the claimed range, and that the melt flow rate is an overlapping range with the 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). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
It would have been obvious to use the preferred ranges of the propylene polymer of Kwabe and to have the polymer have a not observed melting peak, when using the claimed values of ethylene and melt flow rate to give the claimed polymer and polymer composition because Kwabe teaches that the polymer can preferably have no melting point and teaches overlapping ranges with the claimed amounts of the ethylene content and melt flow range of the polymer.
Concerning claim 5 Kwabe teaches the polymer of claim 1 as is stated above and further teaches that the polymer composition can include from 0 to 40 parts of a propylene polymer A-2 (paragraph 0141) where the propylene polymer A-2 is indicated to have a melting point of preferably 115 to 170°C (paragraph 0170) and is indicated to preferably have an isotactic pentad fraction in the range of 90% to 99.8% (paragraph 0172). The use of the propylene polymer A-2 is preferred because the propylene polymer A-2 is highly compatible with the propylene ethylene alpha olefin copolymer of the propylene polymer A-1 and therefore the propylene resin composition X has excellent physical properties (paragraph 0173).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the claimed propylene polymer in the propylene resin composition having the claimed properties because Kwabe teaches that the resin composition preferably includes such a resin which preferably has the claimed properties.
Concerning claim 16 Kawabe teaches a resin composition that comprises a propylene polymer A-1 (paragraph 0141).
The propylene polymer A-1 is indicated to preferably include from 62-88 mol% of propylene preferably 7 to 24 mol% of ethylene and preferably from 4 to 20 mol% of an alpha olefin having 4 to 20 carbon atoms, where these monomers add up to 100% by mol (paragraph 0151). The polymer is indicated to have an isotactic triad fraction of 85 to 99.9% (paragraph 0152), a B value of preferably 0.9-1.2 (paragraph 0156-0157) and a melt flow rate measured using ASTM D1238 230°C under a load of 2.16 kg of preferably 0.1 to 50 g/ 10 minutes. The melting point measured by DSC is indicated to be less than 90°C or not observed (paragraph 0145).
As such when the melting point is not observed then the difference between the claimed polymer and the polymer of Kawabe using the indicated preferred ranges is that the amount of ethylene is an overlapping range with the claimed range, the melt flow rate is an overlapping range with the claimed range, and the amount of propylene is an overlapping range with the 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). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
It would have been obvious to use the preferred ranges of the propylene polymer of Kwabe and to have the polymer have a not observed melting peak, when using the claimed values of propylene, ethylene and melt flow rate to give the claimed polymer and polymer composition because Kwabe teaches that the polymer can preferably have no melting point and teaches overlapping ranges with the claimed amounts of the propylene content, ethylene content and melt flow range of the polymer.
Concerning claim 18 Kawabe teaches the polymer of claim 1 as is stated above.
Kawabe teaches that the propylene polymer A-1 is indicated to preferably include from 62-88 mol% of propylene preferably 7 to 24 mol% of ethylene and preferably from 4 to 20 mol% of an alpha olefin having 4 to 20 carbon atoms, where these monomers add up to 100% by mol (paragraph 0151). The polymer is indicated to have an isotactic triad fraction of 85 to 99.9% (paragraph 0152), a B value of preferably 0.9-1.2 (paragraph 0156-0157) and a melt flow rate measured using ASTM D1238 230°C under a load of 2.16 kg of preferably 0.1 to 50 g/ 10 minutes. The melting point measured by DSC is indicated to be less than 90°C or not observed (paragraph 0145).
As such the preferable range of 4 to 20 mol% of the alpha olefin repeating unit greatly overlapps with the claimed range of from 5 to 25 mol%.
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). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
It would have been obvious to use the preferred ranges of the propylene polymer of Kwabe and to have the polymer have a not observed melting peak, when using the claimed values of alpha olefin, ethylene and melt flow rate to give the claimed polymer and polymer composition because Kwabe teaches that the polymer can preferably have no melting point and teaches overlapping ranges with the claimed amounts of the alpha olefin content, ethylene content and melt flow range of the polymer.
4. Claim(s) 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe (US 2011/0165416 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Okamoto (US 2008/0085977 A1; listed in the restriction requirement filed on 07/25/2024).
Concerning claim 6 Kawabe teaches the composition of claim 4 as is stated above.
Kawabe further teaches that the propylene resin composition that includes the propylene polymer (a-1) can contain another polymer as an optional component without compromising the invention (paragraph 0181). The optional polymer is preferably an ethylene polymer or copolymer composed of 51% by mol of ethylene or more and is indicated to improve the flexibility and the low temperature characteristics of the propylene resin composition (paragraph 0182). Moreover Kawabe teaches that that maintaining high flexibility and transparency of a propylene resin composition is important (paragraph 0110)
Okamoto is drawn to a propylene based polymer composition which comprises a propylene base polymer having a Tm of not less than 120 and not more than 170°C and a propylene ethylene alpha olefin copolymer (abstract). Okamoto teaches that the composition further includes an ethylene alpha olefin random copolymer having from 50 to 99 mol% of ethylene and from 1 to 50 mol% of an alpha olefin having 3 to 20 carbon atoms (paragraph 0693). This would correspond to the claimed ethylene alpha olefin copolymer (C). The use of this polymer in the composition is indicated to particularly improve the balance between impact resistance and transparency (paragraph 0707). It should be noted that impact resistance is a mechanical property which is related to flexibility.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to alter the composition of Kawabe to include ethylene alpha olefin random copolymer of Okamoto in the propylene copolymer based composition for the purpose of improving the balance between impact resistance and transparency which Kawabe has indicated are important properties.
Concerning claim 8 Kawabe teaches the composition comprising the copolymer of claim 1 as is stated above.
Kawabe is silent as the to the copolymer being present in the form of a pellet.
Okamoto is drawn to a propylene based polymer composition which comprises a propylene base polymer having a Tm of not less than 120 and not more than 170°C and a propylene ethylene alpha olefin copolymer (abstract). This composition is taught to be formed into a pellet which provides excellent handleability (paragraphs 0063-0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to alter the composition of Kawabe to be in the form of a Pellet as is taught by Okamoto for the purpose of providing improved handleability to the polymer composition.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 15-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
6. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 15-18 are rejected. No claims are currently allowable.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph S Del Sole whose telephone number is (571)272-1130. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday - Friday, 9-5.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 5712721130. 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.
JOSEPH S. DEL SOLE
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1700
Prosecution Insights