DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 1/30/2026.
Claim(s) 1-19 are pending in the application.
Claim(s) 9-14 are withdrawn due to a previous restriction requirement.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 15-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2017/0158788 to Wang et al. in view of US2012/0034454 to Schedenig et al.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a polypropylene composition [abstract] consisting of a propylene random copolymer [0007] with a melting temperature from 128 to 138°C [0010] i.e., melting point in the range of 110 to 140°C; a MFR2 in the range of 0.8 to 25.0 g/10min [0009] i.e., MFR2 in the range of 0.5 to 4.0 g/10 min; and an ethylene content in the range of 5.0 to 9.0 wt% [0008] i.e., a total C2 content in the range of 1 to 10 wt% based on the weight of the C2C3 copolymer. Furthermore, Wang does not teach at least one additive, thereby reading on the optional component C.
Wang does not teach the polypropylene composition further comprises 5.0 to 30.0 wt% of a component B).
However, Schedenig teaches a polymer composition comprising 50-85 wt% propylene random copolymer [abstract] with a melting point of 120°C to 175°C [0044], a melt flow rate within the range of 1 to 20 g/10min [0038], and an ethylene content equal or below 4 wt% [0035]. Schedenig further teaches including an LDPE in the amount of 15 to 50 wt% [Abstract] of the same commercially available LDPE used in the inventive examples of the instant application, CA8200 [0100]. It is reasonably expected that the same commercially available LDPE comprises the same density and melt flow rate, therefore reading on 5 to 30 wt% based on the overall weight of the polymer composition of a LDPE whereby said LDPE has a density determined according to ISO 1183 in the range of 915 to 922 kg/m3 and a MFR (190°C, 2.16 kg) determined according to ISO 1133 in the range of 0.9 to 20.0 g/10 min. Wang and Schedenig are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely film applications including polypropylene random copolymer compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add Schedenig’s LDPE into Wang’s polypropylene composition, thereby arriving at the claimed invention in which the proportions of components A) and B) add up to 100 wt%.
The motivation would have been to Schedenig suggest the presence of LDPE in this amount obtains a blown film having improved mechanical properties [Schedenig [0003]] such as mechanical strength that are used in medical and food packaging applications [Schedenig [0002]]. Wang teaches mechanical performance is desired in the field of film making [0002] and also envisions the use of the disclosed films in medical and food packaging applications [0068].
Regarding Claim 3, Wang in view of Schedenig teaches the polymer composition of claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference wherein the propylene random copolymer has a xylene cold soluble fraction in the range of more preferably 9.0 to 18.0 wt% [Wang [0033]] i.e., xylene soluble content in the range of 0.5 to 15.0 wt% that reads on the list of properties or a combination thereof of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4 and 16, Wang in view of Schedenig teaches the polymer composition of claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Wang does not teach that component A) is obtainable in the presence of a metallocene catalyst. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Wang, when modified in the manner proposed above, teaches a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. Therefore, the claimed effects - i.e. obtainable in the presence of a metallocene catalyst - would implicitly be achieved in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. See In Re Spada, 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process.
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Schedenig teaches the polymer composition according to claim 1, including same commercially available LDPE, CA8200 [0100] as applicant. It is then reasonably expected that the same commercially available LDPE comprises the same MFR, density, content of hexane solubles, and melting point, therefore reading on all limitations of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6 and 17, Wang in view of Schedenig teaches the polymer composition according to claim 1, further including up to 5.0 wt% additives, like antioxidants [Wang, 0045], reading on claims 6 and 17.
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Schedenig teaches the polymer composition according to claim 1, wherein 15 to 50wt% of the LDPE [Schedenig abstract] i.e., 6 to 25 wt% component (B) is added to a random polypropylene copolymer, therefore calculated to be 85 to 50 wt% component (A) i.e., 75 to 94 wt% of the polymer composition.
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Schedenig teaches the polymer composition according to claim 1, wherein 15 to 50wt% of the LDPE [Schedenig abstract] i.e., 6 to 25 wt% component (B) is added to a random polypropylene copolymer, therefore calculated to be 85 to 50 wt% component (A) i.e., 70 to 94.9 wt% of the polymer composition and the addition of up to 5.0 wt% of an additive such as an antioxidant [Wang, 0045] based on the propylene copolymer, therefore calculated to be an addition of up to 4.25 wt% of an antioxidant i.e., 0.1 to 5.0 wt% of an additive and reading on claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches a polypropylene composition [abstract] comprising a propylene random copolymer [0007] with a melting temperature from 128 to 138°C [0010] i.e., melting point in the range of 115 to 138°C; and an ethylene content in the range of 5.0 to 9.0 wt% [0008] i.e., a total C2 content in the range of 1.5 to 8 wt% based on the weight of the C2C3 copolymer.
Regarding claim 18, Wang in view of Schedenig teaches the polymer composition according to claim 1, wherein 15 to 50wt% of the LDPE [Schedenig abstract] i.e., 7 to 15 wt% component (B) is added to a random polypropylene copolymer, therefore calculated to be 85 to 50 wt% component (A) i.e., 84 to 92.75 wt% of the polymer composition and the addition of up to 5.0 wt% of an additive such as an antioxidant [Wang, 0045] based on the propylene copolymer, therefore calculated to be an addition of up to 4.25 wt% of an antioxidant i.e., 0.25 to 1.0 wt% of an additive, reading on claim 18.
Though the prior art ranges for components A) – C) are not identical to the claimed ranges, it does overlap. It has been held that, 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 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 19, Wang in view of Schedenig teaches a polypropylene composition of claim 8 comprising a propylene random copolymer with a melting temperature from 128 to 138°C [0010] i.e., melting point in the range of 128 to 138°C; a MFR2 in the range of 0.8 to 25.0 g/10min [0009] i.e., MFR2 in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 g/10 min; and an ethylene content in the range of 5.0 to 9.0 wt% [0008] i.e., a total C2 content in the range of 2.5 to 5.5 wt% based on the weight of the C2C3 copolymer; and the same commercially available LDPE as instant application, CA8200 [Schedenig, 0100]. It is reasonably expected that the same commercially available LDPE comprises the same density and MFR, therefore reading on a density determined according to ISO 1183 in the range of 917 to 921 kg/m3 and a MFR (190°C, 2.16 kg) determined according to ISO 1133 in the range of 6.5 to 10.0 g/10 min.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Schedenig, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of US2015/0291785 to Gahleitner.
Regarding Claim 2, Wang in view of Schedenig teaches the polymer composition of claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Wang further teaches the propylene copolymer comprises 20-80 wt% of a first polymer fraction and 20-80 wt% of a second polymer fraction [0034].
Wang in view of Schedenig does not teach component (A) is consisting of polymer fractions a1 and a2 with the same combination of C2 content, MFR, and order of MFRs associated with each polymer fraction.
However, Gahleitner also teaches a random propylene copolymer [title] comprising a 20/80 weight ratio of a first copolymer fraction [0078] that has a comonomer content of equal or below 4 wt% [0072] wherein the comonomers comprise ethylene only in a preferred embodiment [0076] and a MFR in the range of 0.3 to 5.5 g/10 min [0074]. Gahleitner further teaches 20/80 weight ratio of a second copolymer fraction [0078] that has a comonomer content in the range of 2.5 to 9.0 wt% [0075] wherein the comonomers comprise ethylene only in a preferred embodiment [0076] and a MFR in the range of 0.1 to 5.5 g/10 min [0077] whereby the melt flow rate MFR of polymer fraction a2 of 0.1 to 5.5 g/10min [0077] is lower than the MFR of polymer fraction a1 of 0.3 to 5.5 g/10 min [0074]. Gahleitner, Wang, and Schedenig are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely compositions comprising random propylene copolymer compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Wang’s random propylene copolymer with Gahleitner’s random propylene copolymer comprising the disclosed comonomer content, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation would have been to contribute good optical properties [Gahleitner [0016]] that are desired in Wang’s invention [Wang [0026]].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states Wang in view of Schedenig does not teach the newly amended claim 1 limitation of C) optionally up to 5.0 wt% of at least one additive because Schedenig is directed towards a composition comprising three components wherein Schedenig’s composition would always contains a minimum of 10 wt% additional component.
In response, it is noted that the rejection of Wang in view of Schedenig’s set forth in claim 1 is based on primary reference, Wang wherein it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add Schedenig’s LDPE and only Schedenig’s LDPE into Wang’s polypropylene composition. Therefore the composition of Wang in view of Schedenig teaches only two components, reading on the “consisting of” and “component C) optionally up to 5 wt%” language of claim 1.
Applicant states that Schedenig requires additional components that are essential to Schedenig’s intended purpose because Schedenig teaches additional components improve optical properties [Schedenig, 0015].
In response, applicant is reminded the rejection is over Wang in view of Schedenig and does not comprise all of the components taught by Schedenig. Furthermore, the improvement of optical properties via the inclusion of additional components does not constitute a teaching away, as it does not prove to be detrimental to a composition, especially the composition of Wang in view of Schedenig that does not comprise additional ingredients.
Applicant states the presently claimed invention is unexpectedly advantageous as the data in table 3 instant specification shows inventive and comparative examples wherein the inventive examples have improved dart drop impact, haze, tear strength (MD) and Tear strength (TD).
In response, Examiner agrees Table 3 of instant specification demonstrates these improved properties. However, these examples are not commensurate in scope with the instant claim 1 as there are no comparative examples that shows these improved properties are not present when the random copolymer (A) is included at an amount that is lower than the instantly claimed range of 70-95 wt%.
It is suggested that applicant submit data that demonstrates a composition does not have these improved performance properties while outside the instantly claimed range (specifically component A) in an amount below 70 wt% and component B) in an amount higher than 30 wt%).
Applicant's argument that Gahleitner does not remedy the deficiencies of Wang in view of Schedenig is not persuasive, as the alleged deficiencies have been addressed above.
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING whose telephone number is (703)756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, 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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764