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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 2 and 5 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 2: Claim 2 states that the rate of change of the low mobility component is “-5% or more 10% or less”. As written, there is no conjunction between the phrases “-5% or more” and “10% or less”. It is therefore unclear whether these two limitations are intended to define a single range (e.g., the rate of change is in the range of -5% or more and 10% or less) or if they are intended to be alternative ranges (e.g., the rate of change is in the range of -5% or more or in the range of 10% or less). The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. Regarding claim 5: Claim 5 states that the viscosity average molecular weight (Mv) is in the range of 200,000 or more an 10,000,000 or less; however, the claim does not state the units for this value. A polymer’s Mv may be reported in measurements of different units such as g/mol (see for instance US2019/0359740: ¶0144, 01455) or kg/mol (see EP3037471: abstract). The absence of units for the recited Mv therefore renders the scope of the claimed invention unclear. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 1, 3, 4, and 6-11 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. Bremner et al, published in Journal of Polymer Science Part B: Polymer Physics vol. 34, discloses the results of three component decay analysis for a polyethylene measured via the Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill (CPMG) method at a temperature of 140 °C (abstract, Tables I and II). Bremner does not disclose the entanglement index and abundance of the intermediate component at a temperature of 180 °C as recited in the claimed invention. Mochizuki et al, US2020/0017614, discloses a polyethylene characterized by free induction decay at 90 °C (abstract, ¶0084-0085). Mochizuki does not disclose the entanglement index and abundance of the intermediate component at a temperature of 180 °C as recited in the claimed invention. Mochizuki et al, US2019/0248979, discloses a polyethylene characterized by free induction decay at 130 °C (abstract, ¶ 0094-0095 ). Mochizuki does not disclose the entanglement index and abundance of the intermediate component at a temperature of 180 °C as recited in the claimed invention. Yanagimoto et al, US2017/0101492, discloses a polyethylene characterized by four component analysis free induction decay and the CPMG method at 200 °C (abstract, ¶0489). Yanagimoto does not disclose the entanglement index and abundance of the intermediate component at a temperature of 180 °C as recited in the claimed invention. Uehara et al, published in Polymer Journal vol. 44, discloses characterization of a polyethylene by free induction decay at room temperature (abstract, Figure 4, Table 3). Uehara does not disclose the entanglement index and abundance of the intermediate component at a temperature of 180 °C as recited in the claimed invention. Li et al, published in Journal of Polymer Research vol. 25, discloses characterization of a polyethylene by free induction decay at 293 K (i.e., about 20 °C) (abstract ; page 239: left column , last paragraph; Table 2 ). Li does not disclose the entanglement index and abundance of the intermediate component at a temperature of 180 °C as recited in the claimed invention. None of the cited references disclose the entanglement index and abundance of the intermediate component at a temperature of 180 °C as required by the claimed invention. Furthermore, note that the results of free induction decay analysis are dependent on the temperature at which the measurement is taken. See for instance Uehara’s Figure 6, which shows that the free induction decay curve of a polyethylene changes as temperature increases. As such, there is no evidence in the record that would provide a reasonable basis for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that any of the polyethylenes taught by the cited references would inherently be characterized by both an entanglement index and abundance of the intermediate component in the recited ranges when a free induction decay analysis is performed at a temperature of 180 °C. The claimed invention is therefore allowable. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JEFFREY S LENIHAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5452 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Heidi Riviere Kelley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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/ Examiner, Art Unit 1765