DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 6/17/2026.
Claim(s) 9-13 have been added.
Claim(s) 5-7 are withdrawn due to a previous restriction requirement.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-13 are now pending in the application.
The previous 35 USC 112 rejections of claim(s) 3 and 4 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment and remarks.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 of the claimed should be amended to recite “the heterophasic propylene polymeric material”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Instant specification is silent regarding “formed without intermediate separation” and therefore does not convey to one skilled in the art that applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2013/0079470 to Nojiri et al. (as found on the IDS dated 11/8/2022) in view of US2018/0298175 to Fukuroda et al.
Regarding Claims 1, 3-4, and 12, Nojiri teaches a polymeric resin composition [title] made by multi-stage polymerization [0048] (i.e., heterophasic and sequential multistage polymerization of claim 12) wherein example 1 comprises 60 wt% polymer (A1) [Table 1, Example 1] that is preferred as a propylene homopolymer [0027] i.e., a polymer containing 100 mass% propylene-derived monomer units, that has an intrinsic viscosity of 0.73 dl/g [Table 1, Example 1] (reading on all limitations of Polymer A, i.e., 60-75 mass%, propylene monomer unit of 80 mass or more, and limiting viscosity of 0.3-1.2 dl/g);
20 wt% of polymer (A2) [Table 1, Example 1] that is preferred as a propylene homopolymer [0027] with an intrinsic viscosity of 2.7 dl/g [Table 1, Example 1] (reading on limitations of Polymer B, i.e., propylene monomer unit of 80 mass% or more, and limiting viscosity of 2.5-4.0 dL/g); and
20 wt% of copolymer (B) [Table 1, Example 1] that is a copolymer produced by copolymerizing ethylene with propylene [0038] that comprises 20-80 wt% ethylene [0041] and has an intrinsic viscosity of most preferably higher than 2.0 dl/g [0042] (reading on limitations of polymer C, i.e., propylene ethylene copolymer, 7-33 mass% of claim 1, 41-51 mass% ethylene content of claim 1, 41-48 mass% ethylene of claim 3, 41-45 mass% ethylene of claim 4 and limiting viscosity of 2.0-2.3 dL/g).
As known to one of ordinary skill in the art, limiting viscosity and intrinsic viscosity are interchangeable terms.
Nojiri does not particularly teach the propylene-based polymer B (corresponding to Nojiri’s (A2)) in an amount of 7-18 mass % in the specified embodiment of Example 1. However, in the general disclosure, Nojiri teaches amounts of A2 anywhere in the range of 5-55% by weight may be provided [0020]. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a lower range of 5-55% by weight as taught by the general disclosure of Nojiri’s (A2) polymer. The motivation would have been that a lower amount of (A2) would increase the MFR of the polypropylene resin composition and therefore increase flowability [0020].
Though the prior art limiting viscosity range of polymer C ,ethylene content of polymer C and amount of polymer B are not identical to the claimed ranges i.e., (2.0-2.3 dL/g), (41-51 mass% ethylene of claim 1, 41-48 mass% ethylene of claim 3, 41-45 mass% ethylene of claim 4), and (7-18 mass%) respectively, they do 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].
Nojiri does not particularly teach the propylene-based polymer A has an isotactic pentad fraction of 0.97 to less than 1.
However, Fukuroda teaches a propylene resin composition including propylene homopolymer (A) [abstract] that is preferable to have an isotactic pentad fraction of 0.970 or more and 1.000 or less [0042]. Nojiri and Fukuroda are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely propylene resin compositions comprising heterophasic polypropylene.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce Nojiri’s polypropylene with an isotactic pentad fraction of 0.970 or more and 1.000 or less as taught by Fukuroda.
The motivation would have been that an isotactic pentad fraction of 0.970 or more and 1.000 or less is ideal for rigidity and dimensional stability of the molded article formed from the resin composition [Fukuroda, 0042]. Additionally, this range is considered to have high steroregularity of the molecular structure and is highly crystalline [Fukuroda, 0042]
Regarding Claim 8, Nojiri in view of Fukuroda teaches the heterophasic propylene polymeric material according to claim 1, and a molded article using the same [title].
Regarding Claim 9, Nojiri in view of Fukuroda teach the heterophasic propylene polymeric material of claim 1, as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Nojiri does not particularly teach the propylene-based polymer A (corresponding to Nojiri’s (A1)) in an amount of 65-72 mass % in the specified embodiment of Example 1. However, in the general disclosure, Nojiri teaches amounts of A1 anywhere in the range of 20-80% by weight may be provided [0019]. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the range of 20-80% by weight as taught by the general disclosure of Nojiri’s (A1) polymer. The motivation would have been that the range of 20-80% by weight maintains flowability and toughness [0019].
Nojiri does not particularly teach the propylene-based polymer C (corresponding to Nojiri’s (B)) in an amount of 10-23 mass % in the specified embodiment of Example 1. However, in the general disclosure, Nojiri teaches amounts of B anywhere in the range of 10-50% by weight may be provided [0040]. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the range of 10-50% by weight as taught by the general disclosure of Nojiri’s (B) polymer. The motivation would have been that the range of 10-50% by weight maintains impact resistance and rigidity so that sufficient mechanical property balance can be obtained [0040].
Regarding Claim 10, Nojiri in view of Fukuroda teach the heterophasic propylene polymeric material of claim 9, as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Nojiri in view of Fukuroda does not teach a linear thermal expansion coefficient of an injection molded article formed from the heterophasic propylene polymeric material. However, Nojiri, 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 and physical properties - i.e. a heterophasic propylene polymeric material which has an average linear thermal expansion coefficient in the instantly claimed range when formed into an injection-molded article - 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 11, Nojiri in view of Fukuroda teach the heterophasic propylene polymeric material of claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Nojiri in view of Fukuroda does not teach a gel count of 700-1080 count/100cm2 of an sheet extruded from the heterophasic propylene polymeric material. However, Nojiri, 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 and physical properties - i.e. a heterophasic propylene polymeric material which has an gel count in the instantly claimed range when extruded into a sheet - 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 13, Nojiri in view of Fukuroda teach the heterophasic propylene polymeric material of claim 1, that is made by multi-stage polymerization [0048].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states Nojiri does not teach the newly amended claim 1 or new claims 9-13.
In response, attention is directed to the updated rejection of claims 1 and 9-13 over Nojiri in view of Fukuroda wherein Fukuroda teaches the propylene resin composition having an isotactic pentad fraction of 0.970 or more and 1.000 or less [Fukuroda, 0042].
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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.
Correspondence
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
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights