DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claim 1 is supported by the specification.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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.
No new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a fraction soluble in xylene” which measures the content of crystalline polymer or crystallinity. However, crystallinity depends on sample preparation conditions. A slower cooling rate allows more time for polymer chains to re-organize into a crystalline structure, resulting in a higher degree of crystallinity. Conversely, a faster cooling rate gives the chains less time to organize, which leads to a lower degree of crystallinity and a larger amorphous (non-crystalline) phase. Therefore, the fraction soluble in xylene is an extrinsic property which depends on the cooling rate, i.e. sample preparation conditions. A fraction soluble in xylene without a sample preparation conditions is meaningless from scientific point of view. For purposes of expediting prosecution, any value would read on the claimed range.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 recite the content of ethylene in the fraction soluble in xylene ranging from 51-74wt% based on the total weight of the polypropylene composition. The composition contains maximum 21.6wt% of ethylene (24% * 90%). It is unclear how the ethylene content in the soluble fraction can be 51-74wt%. Clarification is required. For purposes of expediting prosecution, this limitation is not addressed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collina et al (US 2012/0083576).
Collina teaches an injection molded article comprising a composition comprising 30-90 wt% of a propylene polymer and 10-70 wt% of an ethylene copolymer [0077, 0105]. The propylene polymer is a homopolymer which has a xylene soluble s of 1.9-2.7 and MFR of 0.01-300g/10 min [0123, table 1, 0074]. The ethylene copolymer is propylene/ethylene copolymer having 25-85 wt% of ethylene [0075-0076, table 1]. The ethylene copolymer is at least 60% soluble in xylene [0076-0077], therefore the xylene soluble fraction of the composition would overlap the claimed range. The intrinsic viscosity of the xylene soluble fraction of the composition is 0.5-6 dl/g [0079]. The ethylene content in the soluble fraction is diluted by the propylene polymer soluble fraction, therefore it is lower than the ethylene content in ethylene copolymer. Propylene homopolymer inherently has a melting temperature of 160-165°C. Collina uses the same catalyst system as the instant application, TEAL/DCPMS, and the ethylene content in the copolymer overlaps the claimed range; therefore the claimed lower melting temperature is expected. The composition has a melt flow rate of 0.01-100 g/10 min [0080]. Case law holds that in the case where the 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument regarding the 112(b) rejection, it is noted that the claim is missing sample preparation conditions, however the newly added limitation relates to sample measuring conditions.
In response to applicant's argument that Collina does not teach the propylene composition has a xylene soluble fraction as claimed, it is noted that 1) the claimed xylene soluble fraction is meaningless from scientific point of view, see 112(b) rejection above; 2) case law holds that the disclosure of a reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or specific working examples therein. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 570 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976). A reference is relevant for all that it contains, including non-preferred embodiments because a non-preferred portion of a reference is just as significant as the preferred portion in assessing the patentability of claims. In re Heck, 669 F.2d 1331, 1333, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). 3) Collina teaches the composition comprising 30-90 wt% of a propylene polymer and 10-70 wt% of an ethylene copolymer, the propylene polymer has a xylene soluble s of 1.9-2.7, the ethylene copolymer is at least 60% soluble in xylene. For a composition of 80wt% of a propylene polymer with a xylene soluble of 2, and 20wt% of an ethylene copolymer with a xylene soluble of 60%, the composition has a xylene soluble of 13.6. Therefore the xylene soluble fraction of Collina’s composition would overlap the claimed range.
In response to applicant's argument regarding melting points, it is noted that in Collina’s composition, one melting point comes from propylene homopolymer, the other comes from crystalline portion of the ethylene copolymer.
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 extension fee 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 WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on (571)272-1130. 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.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763