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 .
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.
3. Claim 8 has been amended and claims 1-15 are pending as amended on 11/18/25.
4. Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
5. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Priority
6. This application is a This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/079556 10/25/2021.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application EP 20203896.4 10/26/2020 filed on 02/28/23.
Response to Amendment
7. Applicant's amendment filed on 11/18/25, has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments with respect to rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph filed on 11/18/25, have been fully considered but are moot in view of amendment. Previous rejection has been withdrawn.
9. Applicant's arguments with respect to rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 101 filed on 11/18/25, have been fully considered but are moot in view of amendment. Previous rejection has been withdrawn.
10. Applicant's arguments with respect to rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tynys (US 2017/0002187) filed on 11/18/25, have been fully considered. Applicants have provided reasonable arguments regarding the critical temperature as claimed in rapid crack propagation test would have not derived from the prior art. Accordingly, the previous rejections of claims 1-8, 11-15 have been withdrawn. Claim 9 does not require any such properties of critical temperature in rapid crack propagation test. As such no arguments have been filed against the rejection of independent claim 9. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 9-10 have been maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tynys (US 2017/0002187; IDS filed on 01/15/25).
Regarding claims 9-10, Tynys discloses a polyethylene composition obtainable by a multistage process (para [0020]-[0026], [0100]-[0130]), the multistage process comprising the steps of a) polymerizing ethylene in the presence of - a Ziegler-Natta catalyst, - in one or more loop reactor(s), in the presence of an alkyl aluminium compound and a chain transfer agent for obtaining fraction (A), the fraction (A) having a melt flow rate, MFR2, in an amount of equal to or more than 200 g/10min (para [0012]-[0014], [0045]), overlapping claimed range of 100 to 600 g/10min; and b) transferring fraction (A) to a gas phase reactor - feeding ethylene and comonomer to the gas phase reactor, - further polymerizing to obtain a base resin comprising fraction (A) obtained in step a) and fraction (B) obtained in step b), wherein first fraction has a lower molecular weight than second fraction and wherein second fraction is present in an amount of from 53 to 47 wt% (para [0055]-[0058]), overlapping claimed range of 50 to 58 wt.%, wherein the base resin has a content of units derived from 1-hexene from 0.3 to 2.5 mol% (para [0055]-[0058]), encompassing claimed range of 0.81 to 1.60 mol%; extruding the base resin into the polyethylene composition has a melt flow rate MFR5 from equal to or less than 0.2 g/10min (para [0076], overlapping claimed range of 0.10 to 0.25 g/10min; MFR21 of equal to or less than 7 g/10min (para [0079]) results in a melt flow rate ratio, FRR21/5, 35 or less (overlapping claimed range of from 30 to 42), wherein the process comprises prepolymerization step before step a) (para [0123]), wherein the ratio of Mw/Mn is from 32 to 42 (para [0092]), encompassing claimed range of 32 to 40. It is well-settled that where 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, 267 (CCPA 1976).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 11-15 are allowed.
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 KUMAR R BHUSHAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4807. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00 AM to 5.50 PM (EST).
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, RANDY P GULAKOWSKI can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/KUMAR R BHUSHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766