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 .
The previous prior art rejection under Pellegatti (US 20100305276), in view of Pelleconi US (20040198919) maintained and therefore it is proper to make this rejection FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pellegatti (US 20100305276), in view of Pelleconi US (20040198919), cited in previous Office Action.
Amendment to claim 1 is considered.
Pellegatti teaches a flexural modulus of less than 150 MPa (see 0006).
Pellegatti and Pelleconi fail to teach the newly entered flexural modulus range of 65-90 MPa.
However, Pellegatti and Applicant teach the same component range for polyolefin composition and Pelleconi specified the structure of component B (i.e., copolymer of polypropylene and a-olefin).
As a result, Applicant’s and modified Pellegatti’s compositions have identical structures.
The claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property, which is inherently present in the prior art, does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to expect the same modulus values for Applicant’s and modified Pellegatti’s compositions, since they have identical structures.
The rejection can be found in the NON-FINAL office action mailed 12/16/2025 and is herein incorporated by reference
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/126/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Pellegatti nor Pelleconi teaches the newly entered flexural modulus range.
Examiner considerations regarding amendment to claim 1 can be found in the rejection above.
Examiner agrees with Applicant’s argument regarding rejection under 35 USC 103 over Pelleconi et al (US 20040198919) in view of Pellegatti et al (US 20100305276). As a result, the rejection above is withdrawn.
Double patenting rejection over U.S. Patent No. 7592393 in view of Pellegatti is withdrawn due to Terminal Disclaimer filed on 3/16/2026.
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 GREGORY LISTVOYB whose telephone number is (571)272-6105. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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.
GL
/GREGORY LISTVOYB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights