DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 6/3/2026.
The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
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.
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 7 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.
Claim 7 states that the weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the acid modified polyolefin is 60000 or less. Note that this range reads on all values less than 60000. Applicant’s original disclosure, however, does not disclose that the Mw can be 60000 or less. Rather, it teaches that the upper limit of the Mw is 60000 or less; the lower limit for the Mw is taught to be 10000 (specification ¶0092).
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Delanaye et al, WO2006/041433, in view of Zama, US2004/0034147, is withdrawn in view of the amendment to independent claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The following references are relevant to the patentability of the claimed invention.
Delanaye et al, WO2006/041433, discloses the production of an insulating extrudate from polyolefin blends, wherein the prior art composition comprises a thermoplastic resin, hollow spherical fillers, and a maleated (co)polymer (¶0024 (abstract). Delanaye does not teach the use of a plastomer having the recited tensile properties or a hollow particle comprising a polymer comprising 30 to 100 parts crosslinkable monomer.
Nozue et al, JP2019014798, discloses a polyolefin resin comprising a polyolefin, a hollow particulate, and a modified polyolefin resin which may be an acid-modified polyolefin. Said hollow particulate is an inorganic material such as glass bubbles (page 4: lines 11-16). Nozue does not teach the use of a plastomer having the recited tensile properties or a hollow particle comprising a polymer comprising 30 to 100 parts crosslinkable monomer.
Kashiwazaki, JP08-017255, discloses a composition comprising an amorphous ethylene polymer, hollow particles, and a maleic anhydride containing polymer (¶0022-0023: Example 1). Note that the hollow particles are a commercial product generically disclosed to have a shell which is a vinylidene chloride-acrylonitrile-acrylate-methacrylate copolymer (¶0012). The prior art does not disclose whether there is crosslinking monomer in the shell of the particle (and if so, how much), nor has a reference been found that would provide evidence with regards to this property.
The cited references do not teach the production of a composition comprising a polymer having the tensile properties used to define the claimed plastomer. Furthermore, mechanical properties such as ductility-which is related to the degree by which the polymer can be stretched under a force of 1 to 100 MPa- or elastic recovery will depend in part on properties such as the crystallinity of the resin. The evidence in the record therefore does not establish that the polymers used in any of the cited references would necessarily meet the claimed tensile properties. The claims are therefore allowed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY S LENIHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 5:30-2:00PM.
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, 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.
/JEFFREY S LENIHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights