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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed December 12, 2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn. Regarding claims 6, 9 and 10, Applicant is directed below to “Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 112.” Also see paragraph 4 in the Office Action mailed September 15, 2025.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 9 and 10 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.
Claim 6 recites the use of two different nucleating agents; however, amended claim 1 now recites two nucleating agents one being a clarifier and one a non-clarifier which implies they are distinct components. Thus, it is not clear how claim 6 is further limiting?
Claim 9 recites limitation “least one secondary layer” in line 2. There does not appear to be a first/primary layer previously recited in claim 9 or in the independent claim. Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and is also indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Inaba (US 20200078717 A1) and Song (US 20170241054 A1) considered to be the closest prior art of record. The prior art discloses each limitation accept for 1(c) “at least one two nucleating agents, with a first nucleating agent being a clarifier and a second nucleating agent being a non-clarifier.” Song fails to disclose “at least one two nucleating agents.” Inaba teaches multiple nucleating agents that are clarifiers (i.e., at least two nucleating agents); however, none of the disclosed nucleating agents are non-clarifiers (i.e., “a second nucleating agent being a non-clarifier” ). Additionally, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to provide a non-clarifier nucleating agent to substitute for any of the clarifier nucleating agents disclosed in Inaba nor Song because none of the prior art suggests motivations that would modify the prior art and arrive at the present apparatus/invention. Accordingly, claim(s) 1 is/are allowable. Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8, and 11-14, 16-19 that depend from claim 1 are allowable.
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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 March 13, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776