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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 24, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-5, 7-9, 12-14 and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (EP 2 586 801).
Regarding claims 1-4, 9, 13-14 and 16, Guo teaches a polymer composition comprising a polymer composition containing a propylene butene copolymer comprising propylene as the primary monomer ([0008]) the propylene-butene copolymer containing butene in an amount of 1-6 mol % ([0012]) which can be converted to 1.33-7.84 wt. % butene. The xylene soluble fraction is less than the following fitted line Y=0.77+0.252X (where X is the mole % of butene, and Y is the xylene soluble fraction) given the amount of butene in the copolymer, the xylene soluble fraction can be calculated to overlap the claimed amount. Guo teaches that the molecular weight distribution ranges from 3.5-8 ([0021]). It also has a nucleating agent (Millad 3998) (Table 2, comp 1). Guo teaches that the catalyst is a Ziegler-Natta catalyst ([0029]) and while phthalate-types are listed for component A ([0037]), there are numerous choices which are non-phthalate type Ziggler-Natta catalysts ([0037])
It has a haze rating of less than 10 % ([0050]). It has a heat distortion temperature greater than 105 ([0050]). Given that the material is the exact same as presently claimed and that it has excellent transparency and good heat resistance ([0004]), it would inherently have the desired haze under thermal aging property as recited as well as the desired flexural modulus and melting point.
Guo fails to specifically exemplify the exact recited polymer composition. However, Guo discloses each of the components of the polymer, and teaches that they are all suitable for use in the composition. It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to make any of the compositions suggested by a reference, including selecting materials from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare any of the polymer compositions suggested by Guo, including the claimed invention. In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to use the teachings of Guo to arrive at the presently claimed invention. It would have been nothing more than using known compounds in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, Guo teaches that the xylene soluble fraction is less than the following fitted line Y=0.77+0.252X (where X is the mole % of butene, and Y is the xylene soluble fraction). Therefore, y/x = 0.77/x + 0.252 which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claims 7- 8, Guo teaches that the melt flow rate is 0.5-50 g/min ([0020]).
Regarding claim 12, Guo teaches that the propylene-butene copolymer is present in an amount greater than 70 % by weight ([0074]).
Regarding claim 17, Guo teaches that the composition further comprises an antioxidant (Irganox) and an acid scavenger (calcium stearate) ([0074]).
Regarding claim 18, Guo teaches an injection molded article made from the composition of claim 1 ([0076]).
Regarding claim 19, Guo teaches that the articles can be made via blow molding or thermoforming ([0051]).
Regarding claim 21, Guo teaches an injection molded article ([0051]) having a melt flow rate of 0.5-50 g/10 min ([0020]).
Regarding claim 22, Guo teaches a food package container made from the polymer composition of claim 1 ([0051]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (EP 2 586 801) with evidence provided by Bernreitner et al (US 2011/0198311)
The discussion regarding Guo in paragraph 4 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 6, in the examples, Guo teaches the use a nucleating agent (Millad 3998), however it fails to teach that the nucleating agent is a nonitol.
However, in the specification, it is noted that Millad NX 8000 can be used as the nucleating agent ([0049]). Millad NX8000 is a nonitol as evidenced by Bernreitner, Table 1.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Millad NX8000 in place of the Millad 3998. It would have been nothing more than using a known compound in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below. It is noted that since the non-phthalate Ziggler-Natta catalyst is now positively recited in the claims, it is no longer considered a product-by-process limitations, the previously presented anticipatory rejection over Guo has been withdrawn (and the arguments that pertain to the 102 rejections are now considered moot). However, as Guo teaches many non-phthalates based Zeigler-Natta catalysts, Guo is continued to be used in an obviousness-type rejection.
Applicant’s argument: Guo provides no teaching to replace the phthalate internal electron donors of its disclosure with a non-phthalate-based internal electron donor as provided in the independent claims.
Examiner’s response: Guo teaches many non-phthalate alternatives for the internal electron donor ([0037]).
Applicant’s argument: The catalyst not only affects the catalyst residue, but also the oligomer and VOC content, the processability, the crystallinity, optical properties and more.
Examiner’s response: It is noted that these properties that the applicant has mentioned are not explicitly recited in the limitations of the claimed invention. As Guo teaches the non-phthalate Ziegler-Natta catalyst, all the limitations of the claims have been met by the Guo reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764