DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a response filed on July 6, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 15, 17, 19, and 20 were amended. Claim 16 was canceled. Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 13 and 14, please replace “Sieve” with “sieve” (two occurrences).
Claim 4 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because it is a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6, please replace “Sieve” with “sieve” (two occurrences).
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please replace “Sieve” with “sieve”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please replace “Sieve” with “sieve” (two occurrences).
Claim 7 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because it is a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, line 2, please insert “wherein” prior to “the polypropylene”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, line 3, please replace “exhibiting” with “exhibits”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, line 4, please replace “exhibiting” with “exhibits”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, line 5, please insert “and” prior to “the polypropylene”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, line 5, please replace “containing” with “contains”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, line 6, please replace “being” with “is”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “soluble” with “solubles”.
Claim 11 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because it is a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim 12 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because it is a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim 13 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because it is a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because it is a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, delete “a” which precedes “propylene monomer”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, please replace “being” with “is”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, please replace “soluble” with “solubles”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 11, please replace “Sieve” with “sieve” (two occurrences).
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim depends from canceled claim 16.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, please replace “soluble” with “solubles”.
Claim 18 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because it is a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Claim also depends from canceled claim 16.
Claim 19 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because it is a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Claim also depends from canceled claim 16.
Claim 20 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because it is a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Claim also depends from canceled claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-11 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).
Chen et al. teaches a catalyst composition for the polymerization of propylene in the presence of a silane-free Ziegler-Natta catalyst composition. Tables 1-3 show that polypropylene homopolymers prepared in the presence of the catalyst composition consistently exhibit xylene solubles contents of greater than 4 % or 4.5 % by weight, and in some cases, greater than 5 % by weight. Entry 2 in Table 1 discloses a catalyst containing a substituted phenylene diester (DiBP) internal electron donor. The polypropylene homopolymer prepared therefrom has a xylene cold solubles content of 5.63 %. Since prior art catalysts are free of silane, it is reasonable to expect propylene homopolymers prepared therefrom to be free of silicon.
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, broad 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.
Chen et al. does not disclose a use for the polypropylene homopolymer, but one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious from Lin et al. to use of polypropylene for manufacture of biaxially oriented film (paragraph [0217], wherein the biaxially oriented film has a thickness of about 15 µm (Table 4).
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 et al. (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.
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten to obviate claim objection, supra, and if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Subject of claims 1-7, 15, and 17-20 is patentably distinct over cited references. Claims are not in condition for allowance but will be allowable upon minor revisions to obviate claim objections, supra. For purposes of completing PTO-326, the status of claim 2 is listed as “objected to”.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), set forth in paragraph 20 of the previous office action dated February 6, 2026, has been withdrawn in view of claim cancelation.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morini et al. (US 7,022,640), set forth in paragraph 24 of the previous office action, has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 8,222,357), set forth in paragraph 25 of the previous office action, has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 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), set forth in paragraph 26 of the previous office action, has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 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), set forth in paragraph 27 of the previous office action, has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 9,796,796), set forth in paragraph 28 of the previous office action, has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 9,796,796) in view of Lin et al. (US 7,235,618), set forth in paragraph 29 of the previous office action, has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 9,796,796) in view of Lin et al. (US 7,235,618), and further in view of Mueller (US 4,352,849), set forth in paragraph 30 of the previous office action, has been withdrawn.
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 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.
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 September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights