DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please insert “visbroken” between “the” and “polypropylene” so it is clear that recited properties are those of the visbroken polypropylene polymer.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please insert “visbroken” prior to “polypropylene”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, please insert “visbroken polypropylene” prior to “polypropylene”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6, delete “composition”. It is the visbroken polypropylene polymer, not the composition, that exhibits claimed Izod impact property. See specification, paragraph [0009].
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6, please replace “displaying” with “displays”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please replace “displaying” with “displays”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please insert “visbroken” prior to “polypropylene”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please replace “the polypropylene polymer having” with “and”. Alternatively, insert “visbroken” prior to “polypropylene” and replace “having” with “has”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please insert “visbroken” prior to “polypropylene”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please replace “the polypropylene polymer having” with “and”. Alternatively, insert “visbroken” prior to “polypropylene” and replace “having” with “has”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please insert “random” prior to “propylene”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please insert “visbroken” prior to “polypropylene”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “polymer composition” with “visbroken polypropylene polymer”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please insert “a” prior to “dicarboxylate”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please replace “being” with “is”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please insert “visbroken” prior to “polypropylene”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 6, line 1, delete “the copolymer” which precedes “containing”. Alternatively, insert “random propylene and ethylene” prior to “copolymer containing” and replace “containing” with “contains”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 6, line 2, please replace “having” with “has”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 6, line 4, please replace “having” with “has”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 6, line 5, please replace “containing” with “contains”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 6, line 6, please replace “of 1mm” with “at 1 mm”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “has been” with “is”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please insert “visbroken” prior to “polypropylene”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please insert “visbroken” prior to “polypropylene”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please replace “random olefin” with “alpha olefin”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, please replace “having” with “has”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 7, line 1, please replace “containing” with “contains”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 7, line 3, please replace “having” with “has”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 7, line 5, please replace “having” with “has”.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim is drawn to a composition in which a polypropylene polymer has a melt flow rate of from about 0.6 g/10 min to about 4 g/10 min. The specification was consulted for guidance. The disclosure at paragraph [0012] teaches that visbroken polypropylene polymer may have a melt flow rate of from about 0.4 g/10 min to about 1.5 g/10 min or from about 0.4 g/10 min to about 1.2 g/10 min. In other embodiments, the visbroken polypropylene polymer a melt flow rate of greater than about 0.8 g/10 min and generally less than about 4 g/10 min. Additionally, the specification at paragraph [0014] teaches that the polypropylene polymer (before visbreaking) may have a melt flow rate of from about 1 g/10 min to about 4 g/10 min. The specification does not teach or reasonably suggest a polypropylene polymer, visbroken or non-visbroken, having claimed range of melt flow rate of from about 0.6 g/10 min to about 4 g/10 min. Based on these observations, it is deemed that claim fails to comply with the enablement requirement.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim is drawn to a polymer composition comprising a polypropylene polymer has a molecular weight distribution of less than about 5. The specification was consulted for guidance. The disclosure at paragraph [0050] teaches a visbroken random polypropylene copolymer having a polydispersity index of greater than about 2.5, greater than about 3, or greater than about 4. The specification is devoid of teaching that a random polypropylene copolymer, and thus claimed polypropylene polymer, has a molecular weight distribution of less than about 5. Based on this observation, it is concluded that claim fails to comply with the enablement requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim is drawn to a composition in which a polypropylene polymer comprises a random propylene and ethylene copolymer containing ethylene in an amount of from about 3.7 % to about 4.6 % by weight, and wherein the polypropylene polymer has a xylene soluble content of from about 8 % to about 15 % by weight and a melt flow rate of from about 0.6 g/10 min to about 4 g/10 min.
The specification at paragraph [0014] teaches a polypropylene polymer containing ethylene in an amount from about 3.7 % to about 4.6 % by weight and having a xylene soluble content of from about 8 % to about 15 % and a melt flow rate of from about 1 g/10 min to about 4 g/10 min. From context, the specification describes properties of a polypropylene polymer prior to visbreaking. Apart from discrepancy in melt flow rate (see also paragraph 31, supra), it is clear from similarly recited properties that claim 12 refers to a polypropylene polymer prior to visbreaking.
In contrast, the polypropylene polymer of the independent claim refers to visbroken polypropylene polymer; see description of properties in paragraph [0009] of specification. While there is proper antecedent basis in the independent claim for the term “polypropylene polymer” as per claim 12, the polypropylene polymer of claim 12 is not the same species as the polypropylene polymer of claim 1. Claim is ambiguous because there is no distinction between the polypropylene polymer of claim 12 and the polypropylene polymer of claim 1.
Based on these observations, claim is deemed indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Conclusion
Subject of claims is patentably distinct over prior art cited in Applicant’s PTO-1449 and over references listed in the accompanying PTO-892. Examiner cited references have been cited to show the state of the art with respect to visbreaking of random propylene and alpha olefin copolymer.
The closest reference is Cavalieri et al. (US 8,063,160). Example 1 of Cavalieri et al. discloses a random propylene and ethylene copolymer having an ethylene content of 4.8 wt %, a melt flow rate of 0.4 g/10 min, a molecular weight distribution Mw/Mn of 4.5, and a xylene soluble content of 8.3 wt %. The random propylene and ethylene copolymer is visbroken and the resulting visbroken copolymer has an Izod impact strength of 64.5 kJ/m2. Example 4 discloses a random propylene and ethylene copolymer having an ethylene content of 6 wt %, a melt flow rate of 0.2 g/10 min, a molecular weight distribution Mw/Mn of 4.8, and a xylene soluble content of 12.4 wt %. The random propylene and ethylene copolymer is visbroken and the resulting visbroken copolymer has a melt flow rate of 6.9 g/10 min and an Izod impact strength of 10.9 kJ/m2. The random propylene and ethylene copolymer of example 4 is formulated into a composition comprising antioxidant, acid scavenger, and nucleating agent and subsequently visbroken. The visbroken copolymer has a melt flow rate of 20 g/10 min and an Izod impact strength of 12 kJ/m2. Reference does not teach the subject of instant claims.
Claims are not in condition for allowance. For purposes of filling out PTO-326, status of claims 5, 15-17, 20, and 21 are listed as “objected to.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rip A. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-1104. The examiner can be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571)270-7733. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RIP A LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 October 31, 2025