DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “such as” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitations of exemplary embodiments of xylene solubles content (three occurrences) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, the word “generally” is superfluous and may be deleted.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “such as” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitations of exemplary embodiments of particle size distribution (three occurrences) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “such as” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitations of exemplary embodiments of particle size distribution (two occurrences) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “such as” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of exemplary embodiment of particle size distribution as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, please replace “exhibiting” with “exhibits” so that language is consistent with that in remainder of claim.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “such as” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitations of exemplary embodiments of xylene solubles content (three occurrences) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, the word “generally” is superfluous and may be deleted.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please insert “solid” prior to “catalyst component” so that there is antecedent basis for the term in line 4.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6, the word “any” is superfluous and may be deleted.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 8, please insert “that” prior to “exhibits”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, the word “any” is superfluous and may be deleted.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “such as” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitations of exemplary embodiments of xylene solubles content (three occurrences) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, the word “generally” is superfluous and may be deleted.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “of any two or more” is superfluous and may be deleted.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please insert “Ziegler-Natta” prior to “exhibits”.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “such as” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of exemplary embodiment of molar ratio as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, the word “generally” is superfluous and may be deleted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim states that propylene monomer is polymerized in the presence of a solid catalyst component and the activity limiting agent without use of silicon-based external electron donors. Independent claim 15 states that the propylene monomer is polymerized in the presence of a solid catalyst component and activity limiting agent and in the absence of silicon-containing external electron donors. Despite a difference in wording, there appears to be no difference between terms “silicon-based external electron donors” and “silicon-containing external electron donors”. Therefore, it is deemed that claim 16 fails to limit the subject of independent claim 15.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morini et al. (US 7,022,640).
Comparative example 5 of Morini et al. discloses a polypropylene homopolymer having a melt index of 5.2 g/10 min and a xylene insoluble fraction of 95.2 %. The xylene soluble fraction is 4.8 %. The polypropylene homopolymer is prepared in the presence of a Ziegler-Natta catalyst with no silicon-containing internal electron donor or external electron donor. It follows that the polypropylene homopolymer is free of silicon.
Present claim 7 is drawn to a polypropylene polymer that is described in product-by-process format. It is well settled that where product by process claims are rejected over a prior art product that appears to be the same, the burden is shifted to the Applicant to establish an unobviousness difference, even if the production processes are different. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Furthermore, the patentability of a product claim rests on the product formed, not on the method by which it was produced. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 1, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 8,222,357).
The last entry in Table 7 of Chen discloses procatalyst 1332-21-1 comprising a magnesium component, a titanium component, and diether internal electron donor. This procatalyst is made specifically to exclude use of silyl diol ether as the internal electron donor. The last entry in Table 8 shows use of the procatalyst for polymerization of propylene in absence of silicon-based external electron donor. The resulting polypropylene homopolymer exhibits a melt flow rate of 6.6 g/10 min, a xylene solubles content of 4.40 %, and a molecular weight distribution Mw/Mn of 5.3. Since the polypropylene homopolymer is prepared without use of silicon-based electron donors, it may be concluded that the polypropylene homopolymer is free of silicon.
Present claim 7 is drawn to a polypropylene polymer that is described in product-by-process format. It is well settled that where product by process claims are rejected over a prior art product that appears to be the same, the burden is shifted to the Applicant to establish an unobviousness difference, even if the production processes are different. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Furthermore, the patentability of a product claim rests on the product formed, not on the method by which it was produced. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 8, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 8,222,357) in view of Lin et al. (US 7,235,618).
The discussion of the disclosure of the prior art from the preceding paragraph is incorporated here by reference. Chen does not disclose a use for the polypropylene homopolymer. Lin et al. teaches use of polypropylene for manufacture of biaxially oriented film. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make a biaxially oriented film from the polypropylene homopolymer of Chen. It is noted that the term “about” allows for flexibility in the range, and since the specification provides no guidance regarding the specific boundaries of the range covered by the description “about 4.5 % by weight,” it was deemed that 4.4 % by weight reads on “about 4.5 % by weight”.
Present claim 11 is drawn to a polypropylene polymer that is described in product-by-process format. It is well settled that where product by process claims are rejected over a prior art product that appears to be the same, the burden is shifted to the Applicant to establish an unobviousness difference, even if the production processes are different. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Furthermore, the patentability of a product claim rests on the product formed, not on the method by which it was produced. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 8,222,357) in view of Lin et al. (US 7,235,618), and further in view of Mueller (US 4,352,849).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious from Mueller to use a polypropylene homopolymer in the manufacture of single and multi-layer film where the polypropylene constitutes at least one layer of the latter. The person of ordinary skill art also would have found it obvious from the title of Mueller to use film specifically for packaging applications.
Claims 1-3, 7, 15-17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 9,796,796).
Chen et al. teaches a catalyst composition for the polymerization of propylene wherein the catalyst composition comprises a Ziegler-Natta procatalyst, a cocatalyst, an activity limiting agent (ALA), and a selectivity determining agent (SDA), and wherein the catalyst composition is silane free. Tables 1-3 show that polypropylene homopolymers prepared in the presence of the catalyst composition consistently exhibit xylene solubles contents of greater than 4 % by weight.
Entry 2 in Table 1 discloses a catalysts containing a substituted phenylene diester (DiBP) internal electron donor and wherein a ratio of cocatalyst/(SDA + ALA) is 3.0. Since the ratio of SDA/ALA is 5/95, it follows that a ratio of cocatalyst/ALA is about 3. The polypropylene homopolymer prepared therefrom has a xylene cold solubles content of 5.63 %.
Reference is silent with respect to melt flow rate of all samples disclosed in Tables 1-3, however, reasonable basis exists to believe that inventive polypropylene homopolymers exhibit claimed and unexceptional rheological feature, especially since they have been prepared with substantially the same catalyst composition. Since the PTO cannot perform experiments, the burden is shifted to the Applicants to establish an unobviousness difference. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112-2112.02.
Claims 8-10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 9,796,796) in view of Lin et al. (US 7,235,618).
The discussion of the disclosure of the prior art from the preceding paragraph is incorporated here by reference. Chen et al. does not disclose a use for the polypropylene homopolymer. Lin et al. teaches use of polypropylene for manufacture of biaxially oriented film. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make a biaxially oriented film from the polypropylene homopolymer of Chen et al.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US US 9,796,796) in view of Lin et al. (US 7,235,618), and further in view of Mueller (US 4,352,849).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious from Mueller to use a polypropylene homopolymer in the manufacture of single and multi-layer film where the polypropylene constitutes at least one layer of the latter. The person of ordinary skill art also would have found it obvious from the title of Mueller to use film specifically for packaging applications.
Claims 4-6 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to obviate claim objections, supra, and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. None of cited references teaches claimed polymer composition having the particle size distribution characteristics set forth in instant claims. None of cited references teaches claimed process for producing polypropylene polymer having a xylene soluble content of greater than about 4 % by weight and a melt flow rate of from about 0.5 g/10 min to about 20 g/10 min in the presence of isopropyl myristate and/or pentyl valerate as activity limiting agent and in the absence of silicon-containing external electron donor.
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 February 4, 2026