DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 3/3/2026.
The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al, WO2010/099645, in view of Trombetta, Condensation and Polypropylene (2018).
A machine translation of was used for the preparation of this rejection.
Zheng a process of preparing a modified polyolefin, wherein said process comprises the steps of 1) grafting 100 parts of a polyolefin resin with 0 to 15 parts of a polyfunctional monomer to form a grafted polyolefin (¶0013, 0038, 0040-0041), 2) coupling the grafted polyolefin by reacting it with a multifunctional organic compound to form a coupled polyolefin (¶0050), and 3) pelletizing (i.e., granulating) the coupled polyolefin (¶0050). Zheng teaches that the reaction between the grafted polyolefin and the multifunctional organic compound is performed in an extruder, corresponding to the claimed step of reactive extrusion (for claim 1), at a temperature in the range of 160 to 190 °C (for claim 7) (¶0050).
Regarding the claimed grafted polypropylene: Zheng teaches that the polyolefin used in the prior art process may be polypropylene (¶0010). See also the use of polypropylene in Examples 1-4 (¶0053, 0056, 0059, 0062). Zheng therefore teaches the use of a grafted polypropylene (for claim 1) in the prior art process.
Regarding the claimed polar monomer: Zheng teaches that acrylamide, corresponding to the claimed polar monomer (for claim 1), may be used as the polyfunctional monomer which is grafted onto the polyolefin (¶0010).
Regarding claimed component (A): Zheng teaches that the multifunctional organic compound corresponds to the structure shown below wherein F is a functional group such as isocyanate (¶0014-0015). The prior art structure therefore reads on the claimed component (A) which is a polyisocyanate (for claim 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
100
104
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zheng further teaches the use of hexamethylene diisocyanate (for claim 2) as the multifunctional organic compound in the coupling step (¶0056).
Regarding the amounts of grafted polypropylene and component A: Zheng teaches that the prior art coupling reaction is performed using 100 parts of the grafted polyolefin and 1 to 20 parts of the multifunctional organic compound. Based on these numbers, it is calculated that the prior art process is performed using a combination of about 83.3 to 99 wt% grafted polyolefin and about 1.0 to 16.7 wt% multifunctional organic compound. Note that these ranges overlap the claimed ranges (for claims 1, 5).
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists; see 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). The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages; see In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (" (MPEP § 2144.05). Barring a showing of evidence demonstrating unexpected results, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to perform the process of Zheng using the grafted polyolefin and multifunctional organic compound in the required amounts.
Regarding the claimed grafting rate: Zheng teaches that the teaches the production of grafted polymers wherein the grafting rate is in the range of 1.2 to 1.6% (for claims 14, 15) (see Tables 1 and 2).
Zheng is silent regarding the claimed drying after granulation in the prior art melt process.
As taught by Trombetta, it was known in the art that conventional methods of pelletizing polypropylene can result in the presence of residual moisture/condensation on the pellet surface (page 2: line 5 through page 4). Trombetta further teaches that it was known that the presence of such residual moisture on the pellet surface can result in issues such as loss of physical properties and splay during later processing steps (page 1: lines 1-6). It was therefore known to dry polypropylene pellets to remove residual moisture.
As discussed above, Zheng discloses a process that results in a final product which is a pelletized polypropylene resin. As disclosed by Trombetta it was known that 1) the presence of residual moisture on such pellets results in undesirable changes in properties during later processing steps (page 1) and 2) that conventional pelletizing methods include steps of drying the polymer (page 2). Barring a showing of evidence demonstrating unexpected results, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Zheng by drying the pelletized resin (for claim 1), in order to remove residual water and reduce the occurrence of loss of physical properties and splay.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose a polypropylene modifier which is a polyolefin having a high degree of crosslinked structure and gel content.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The claimed invention is a process comprising the steps of
bringing a polar monomer-grafted polypropylene into contact with component (A) to carry out reactive extrusion and granulation, and
then drying.
The claimed process further specifies that the polar monomer-grafted polypropylene can chemically react with component (A). As currently written, the claimed invention does not recite any limitations requiring that the process must result in a final product having any specific level of crosslinking or gel content. So long as the prior art teaches a process wherein the required amounts of a polar monomer-grafted polypropylene and compound within the scope of component (A) are combined and processed via reactive extrusion followed by granulation and drying of the resulting product, the claimed invention is met regardless of the amount of crosslinking/gel content.
As discussed earlier in this Action, Zheng renders obvious wherein an acrylamide-grafted polypropylene, corresponding to the claimed polar monomer-grafted polypropylene, is reacted with a polyisocyanate, corresponding to the claimed component (A), via reactive extrusion and granulated. Furthermore, Trombetta taches that conventional methods of pelletizing polypropylene were known to result in the presence of residual moisture/condensation on the pellet surface that can result in issues such as loss of physical properties and splay during later processing steps. As such, it was known to dry polypropylene pellets to remove residual moisture. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Zheng by drying the pelletized resin, in order to remove residual water and reduce the occurrence of loss of physical properties and splay. The prior art renders obvious all of the limitations used to define the claimed invention. It is therefore unpersuasive to argue that the prior art does not teach a specific a high degree of crosslinking/gel content or that Zheng discloses a branched structure, as these arguments are not directed towards any limitation(s) required by the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that the Zheng teaches that the group Fn in the structure of multifunctional organic compound can be groups other than isocyanate. It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious; see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). As acknowledged by applicant in the submitted remarks (page 7: lines 8-12), Zheng teaches that 1) the functional group F may be an isocyanate and 2) n is ≥ 1. The prior art structure therefore reads on a compound containing more than 1 isocyanate group-i.e., a polyisocyanate. Furthermore, as noted earlier in this Action, Zheng specifically discloses the use of hexamethylene diisocyanate as the multifunctional organic compound. It therefore would have been obvious to use a polyisocyanate such as hexamethylene diisocyanate as the multifunctional compound reacted with the grafted polypropylene in the prior art process.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention yields unexpected results, citing the examples from the specification and the declaration of submitted on 3/3/2025.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range; see In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP § 716.02(d)).
With regards to the data from Table 1 of the specification, it is noted that the data presented in the instant specification was obtained from a composition made by combining a polypropylene resin and a modifier; however, the claimed invention does not recite such a composition. The claimed invention is a process of reacting a polar monomer-grafted polypropylene with a component (A); it does not require the combination of a polypropylene resin and the product obtained from the recited process. The data presented in the specification therefore is not commensurate in scope with the claims being examined, as it does not demonstrate that any allegedly unexpected results are obtained from the recited process alone.
The nonobviousness of a broader claimed range can be supported by evidence based on unexpected results from testing a narrower range if one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine a trend in the exemplified data which would allow the artisan to reasonably extend the probative value thereof; see In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) (MPEP §716.02(d)(I)). Applicant previously elected the process wherein the polar monomer grafted to the polypropylene is acrylamide and component (A) is a polyisocyanate; see the reply submitted 9/19/2025.
As reported in the instant specification, Examples 3 and 7 are the only examples which disclose a process wherein an acrylamide-grafted polypropylene is reacted with a polyisocyanate-specifically, a grafted polymer having a grafting ratio of 1.0 wt% and a MI of 64 g/10 min was reacted with 4,4’-diphenylmethane diisocyanate in a ratio of 99/1 (example 3) or 95/5 (example 7). Note that independent claim 1 does not place any restrictions on the grafting ratio or the MI of the grafted polypropylene; the claim therefore reads on the use of grafted polymers having any values for these properties. Furthermore, the claimed invention only requires that component (A) is a polyisocyanate-this reads on compounds having any structure (i.e., linear, branched, cyclic; aliphatic or aromatic, etc.) containing 2 or more isocyanate groups. The disclosure of the sole use of 4,4’-diphenylmethane diisocyanate-which is an aromatic compound containing 2 isocyanate groups-does not provide a reasonable basis to conclude that the allegedly unexpected results could be obtained using all compounds that fall within the scope of the generic terms used to describe the compounds in the claimed invention. The allegedly unexpected results cited in the submitted declaration therefore are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
If the evidence is to be given substantial weight in the determination of obviousness or nonobviousness, evidence of secondary considerations must be relevant to the subject matter as claimed, and therefore the examiner must determine whether there is a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations (emphasis added); see Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 305 n.42, 227 USPQ 657, 673-674 n. 42 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986). The term "nexus" designates a factually and legally sufficient connection between the objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention so that the evidence is of probative value in the determination of nonobviousness; see Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 956 (1988). See also Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, 69 F.4th 1356, 1363, 2023 USPQ2d 667 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (MPEP § 716.01(b)).
Note that applicant’s arguments attribute the allegedly unexpected results to the degree of crosslinking and gel content in the modifier of the cited examples (see remarks page 8: line 14 to page 9, line 1). As noted earlier in this Action, these parameters are not required by the process as defined in the instant claims. Furthermore, the evidence in the record does not demonstrate that the required crosslinking and gel content necessarily result from the process as defined in the currently pending claims. Given that applicant specifically states that the allegedly unexpected properties of melt flow rate and storage modulus are dependent on the unclaimed structural characteristics of degree of crosslinking and gel content, the evidence in the record does not demonstrate that there is a nexus between the allegedly unexpected results and the invention as claimed. The rejection is therefore maintained.
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 JEFFREY S LENIHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 5:30-2:00PM.
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, Heidi Riviere Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/JEFFREY S LENIHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765