DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/28/26 has been entered.
The amendment filed 4/28/26 has been considered and entered. Claims 3,4,13, 15 and 18-20 have been canceled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1,2,5-12,14,16,17 and 21 remain in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Considering the amendment filed 4/28/26, the 35 USC 103 rejections have been withdrawn, however, the following rejections have been necessitated by the amendment.
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.
Claims 1,2,5-12,14,16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubin et al. (9,809,644) in combination with Luo (10,329,360) further in combination with Stadlbauer et al. (8,142,902) still further in combination with Tranninger et al. (9,988,523).
Lubin et al. (9,809,644) teaches a bimodal propylene polymers and sequential polymerization (abstract). Lubin et al. (9,809,644) teaches a melt flow rate of 230C/2.16 kg of 0.1dg/min to 300 dg/min which equals 0.01g/min to 30g/min and MWD of 1-5 (col. 13, lines 20-40. Lubin et al. (9,809,644) teaches a melting temperature of 150C or more and 160 C or more (col. 44, lines 1-20). Lubin et al. (9,809,644) teaches using an extruder (col. 44, lines 43-53). Lubin et al. (9,809,644) teaches regio defects of from 0.01-1.2 mol% (col. 3, lines 10-20). Lubin et al. (9,809,644) teaches a catalyst including silica supported (col. 14, lines 44-60 and col. 22, lines 40-56).
Lubin et al. (9,809,644) fails to teach the regio defects to be 2,1 and 3,1 regio defects.
Luo (10,329,360) teaches a catalyst system comprising a catalyst system including single site catalyst metallocene catalyst system whereby regio defects are less than 200/10,000 units and those defects are 2,1 threo insertions and 3,1 isomerizations (col. 34, lines 41-48). Luo (10,329,360) teaches a catalyst system comprising a catalyst system including single site catalyst metallocene catalyst system which is silica supported (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have modified Lubin et al. (9,809,644) polypropylene composition to include 2,1 and 3,1 regio defects as evidenced by Luo (10,329,360) with the expectation of similar success as both polypropylene compositions are formed using a single site catalyst including a metallocene catalyst which is silica supported.
Lubin et al. (9,809,644) in combination with Luo (10,329,360) fails to teach extruding the polypropylene on an article of paper, paperboard, fibrous or metal foil.
Stadlbauer et al. (8,142,902) teaches extrusion coated substrate with a propylene coating using a metallocene catalyst whereby the substrate is paper, paperboard, or metal foils (abstract, col. 1, lines 28-44 and claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lubin et al. (9,809,644) polypropylene material coating to apply to a substrate including paper paperboard or metal film as evidenced by Stadlbauer et al. (8,142,902) with the expectation of producing similar success of a propylene coated substrate having good processability and sealing properties.
Lubin et al. (9,809,644) in combination with Luo (10,329,360) further in combination with Stadlbauer et al. (8,142,902) fails to teach the claimed hexane extractables to be less than 2 wt%.
Tranninger et al. (9,988,523) teaches a polypropylene composition combining low sealing initiation temperature, low haze, low hexane solubles and improved tear resistance and melting temperature. Tranninger et al. (9,988,523) teaches hexane solubles content to be determined with FDA section 177.1520 of at most 1% preferably at most 0.9 wt.% or 0.7 wt.% (col. 2, lines 48-49 and col. 5, lines 24-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lubin et al. (9,809,644) in combination with Luo (10,329,360) further in combination with Stadlbauer et al. (8,142,902) polypropylene polymer composition to include a low hexane soluble content as evidenced by Tranninger et al. (9,988,523) with the expectation of properties of low haze and beneficial optical properties.
Regarding claim 1, Lubin et al. (9,809,644) teaches a catalyst including silica supported (col. 14, lines 44-60 and col. 22, lines 40-56) while Stadlbauer et al. (8,142,902) teaches the claimed branching index of less 1.0 which would meet the claimed limitation of .8-1.0. (col. 4, lines 12-35). It has been well settled that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Stadlbauer et al. (8,142,902) branching index range that corresponds to the claimed range absent a showing of criticality thereof. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 2, Lubin et al. (9,809,644) teaches the polypropylene is a propylene homopolymer (col. 44, lines 1-20).
Regarding claims 5-8, Lubin et al. (9,809,644) teaches a melting temperature of 150C or more and 160 C or more (col. 44, lines 1-20) and MWD of 1-5 (col. 13, lines 20-40 as it can teach one of the limitations as the claim recites “and/or”.
Regarding claims 9-11, Lubin et al. (9,809,644) teaches the crystallization temperatures Tc of 100C-150C which is within the claimed 100-130C, 105-125C and 110-120C as it can teach one of the limitations as the claim recites “and/or”.
Regarding claims 12,16 and 17, Lubin et al. (9,809,644) teaches the propylene polymer has a copolymer [0084] or a comonomer which would suggest that the claimed polypropylene would include PPH-1 and a PPH-2 [0158]. Lubin et al. (9,809,644) teaches percentages of the monomers and co-monomers 60:95 and 40:5 wt% (col. 9, lines 44-57) as well as 25% to 85% (col. 45, lines 34-45).
Regarding claim 14, Stadlbauer et al. (8,142,902) teaches a paper, paperboard or metal foil substrate (col. 1, lines 30-44).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubin et al. (9,809,644) in combination with Luo (10,329,360) further in combination with Stadlbauer et al. (8,142,902) further in combination with Tranninger et al. (9,988,523) still further in combination with Yang et al. (10,723,821).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Lubin et al. (9,809,644) in combination with Luo (10,329,360) further in combination with Stadlbauer et al. (8,142,902) still further in combination with Tranninger et al. (9,988,523) are incorporated here.
Lubin et al. (9,809,644) in combination with Luo (10,329,360) further in combination with Stadlbauer et al. (8,142,902) still further in combination with Tranninger et al. (9,988,523) fail to teach the polypropylene composition to have a flexural modulus of from 1200MPA to 1800MPA measured by ASTM D 790.
Yang et al. (10,723,821) teaches supported metallocene catalyst systems for polymerization whereby impact polymer produced include a flexural modulus of from 300-3,000MPA or a low as 900MPA to 1500MPA measured by ASTM D 790.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lubin et al. (9,809,644) in combination with Luo (10,329,360) further in combination with Stadlbauer et al. (8,142,902) still further in combination with Tranninger et al. (9,988,523) extrusion coating polypropylene to have the claimed flexural modulus of from 1200-1500MPA as evidenced by Yang et al. (10,723,821) with the expectation of producing an improved extruded polypropylene.
While the Examiner acknowledges the fact that the measured flexural modulus is by ATSM and not the claimed ISO, the Examiner takes the position that the measured flexural modulus would be similar regardless of the measurement utilized.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,2,5-12,14,16,17 and 21 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.
Applicant argued the prior art fails to teach the cow claimed hexane extractables of less than 2 wt% and the polypropylene branching index of 0.8-1.0.
. Tranninger et al. (9,988,523) teaches hexane solubles content to be determined with FDA section 177.1520 of at most 1% preferably at most 0.9 wt.% or 0.7 wt.% (col. 2, lines 48-49 and col. 5, lines 24-30). Stadlbauer et al. (8,142,902) teaches the claimed branching index of less 1.0 which would meet the claimed limitation of .8-1.0. (col. 4, lines 12-35).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached on 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights