DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 5/19/2026.
The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 depends from claim 1 through claim 6, and states that the grafting ratio is in the range of 0.1 to 3%. Note, however, that amended claim 1 recites this same limitation (see claim 1: lines 19-20). Claim 14 therefore fails to further limit the invention of the parent claim as required, since it does not recite any limitations that are not already recited by independent claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 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), and Okada et al, WO2020/044920.
A machine translation of Zheng was used for the preparation of this rejection. Additionally, Okada et al, US2021/0301182, has been used as an equivalent English translation of Okada.
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 use of a polyisocyanate (for claim 1) as the coupling agent.
PNG
media_image1.png
100
104
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1, 14, 15) (see Tables 1 and 2).
Regarding the claimed melt flow rate: Zheng teaches that the polyolefin used in the grafting reaction has a melt flow rate (MFR) (230 °C, 2.16 kg) in the range of 0.1 to 50 g/10 min (¶0010, 0030). Furthermore, note that the examples of Zheng disclose the use of a commercial polymer having a MFR of 2.7 g/10 min to form graft polymers having MFR in the range of 2.9 to 4.6 g/10 min (see Tables 1 and 2).
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Given that
the base polymer used in the prior art grafting reaction has a MFR of 0.1 to 50 g/10 min, and
the prior art Examples demonstrate that the grafting reaction of Zheng results in a grafted polymer having a MFR that is up to 70% higher than the MFR of the vase polymer,
one of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that the grafted polymer of Zheng can have a MFR that is ≥ 0.1 g/10 min, overlapping the claimed range (for claim 1).
Zheng is silent regarding the claimed drying after granulation in the prior art melt process and the use of diphenylmethane diisocyanate or 2,4-tolylene diisocyanate as the crosslinking agent.
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.
Okada discloses the production of a composition comprising polymers (A) and (B), wherein each of polymer (A) and polymer (B) is an olefin polymer functionalized with a carboxylic acid or its derivative (¶0036, 0037), and a crosslinking agent. Said carboxylic acid derivative may be (meth)acrylic acid amide-i.e., (meth)acrylamide (¶0039, 0045). As taught by Okada, it was known in the art that polyisocyanate compounds such as diphenylmethane diisocyanate (for claim 1) were suitable for use as crosslinking agents for such polymers (¶0082, 0084).
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.
Furthermore, 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). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious) (MPEP § 2144.07). As noted above, Zheng discloses a composition wherein an amide-functionalized olefin polymer is reacted with a polyisocyanate compound as a crosslinking agent. As taught by Okada, diphenylmethane diisocyanate was a known crosslinking agent for such polymers. It therefore would have been obvious to modify the process of Zheng by using diphenylmethane diisocyanate as the crosslinking agent, with the reasonable expectation of obtaining a crosslinked polymer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Zheng does not teach the use of diphenylmethane diisocyanate or 2, 4-tolylene diisocyanate as recited in the instant claims. As noted earlier in this Action, however, Okada teaches that diphenylmethane diisocyanate was a known crosslinking agent for olefin polymers having functional groups such as amides. Applicant’s argument therefore is not persuasive in view of the new rejection over Zheng in view of the teachings of Trombetta and Okada as discussed earlier in this Action.
Applicant argues that Zheng discloses a method of coupling polyolefin chains, and alleges that the presence of a long chain-branched structure is the prior art product is a non-trivial difference between the claimed invention and the prior art.
In response to applicant's argument, 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) and that the component (A) is chosen from the group consisting of diphenylmethane diisocyanate, 2,4-tolylene diisocyanate, and combinations thereof. As currently written, the claimed invention does not recite any limitations prohibiting the presence of long chain branching in the product obtained by the recited process. Arguments regarding the presence of such branching in the prior art polymer therefore are not persuasive.
Similarly, applicant’s arguments regarding results obtained by combining conventional polypropylene with 2 to 20% of the disclosed modifier under specified conditions are not persuasive, as they are not directed towards the invention as defined in the claims under examination. The elected invention is a process of making a modified polypropylene comprising the steps of reacting a grafted polypropylene with one of the recited diisocyanates. The claimed invention does not recite a process of making a composition wherein a modified polypropylene is blended with polypropylene. It is therefore not persuasive to argue that allegedly unexpected results are obtained from a composition that is not required by the claims under examination; see In re Van Geuns cited above.
Applicant argues that the claimed modifier is characterized by a high crosslinking degree and gel content, as well as a low melt flow rate that distinguishes it from the prior art coupled polymer. In response, it is noted that the claimed invention does not recite any limitations regarding the degree of crosslinking, gel content, and/or melt flow rate of the polypropylene modifier produced by the claimed process. Arguments regarding these limitations therefore are not persuasive, as they are directed towards limitations which are not required by the instant claims; see In re Van Geuns cited earlier in this Action.
Applicant argues that the declaration submitted on 3/3/2026 demonstrates that the claimed process results in a different structure from that obtained by the process of Zheng. 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)).
Note that examples 1 and 8-12 do not disclose processes utilizing either diphenylmethane diisocyanate or 2, 4-tolylene diisocyanate as component (A) as required by independent claim 1; data obtained from these examples therefore is not relevant to the patentability of the claimed invention. The remaining examples discloses reactions wherein grafted polypropylene is reacted with a polyisocyanate-specifically, a grafted polymer having a grafting ratio of 1.0 to 1.8 wt% and a MI of 64, 67, 76, or 159 g/10 min was reacted with one of the claimed diisocyanates in a ratio of 98.5:1.5 (example 2), 99:1 (example 3-6) or 95:5 (example 7).
In contrast, independent claim 1 broadly states that the grafting ratio is 0.1 to 3 wt% and the MI of the grafted polypropylene is 30 to 600 g/10 min. The limited values disclosed in the examples are not commensurate in scope with the claimed ranges. Furthermore, note that the claimed invention does not include any limitations with regards to the ratio of grafted polymer to component (A); the claimed invention therefore reads on the use of these two components in any ratio as opposed to the limited range of ratios represented in the disclosed examples. The cited data therefore is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights