DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a response filed on February 20, 2026. Claims 1, 28, 29, 38, and 43-46 were amended. Claims 27, 31-35, and 37 were canceled and new claims 48-54 were added. Claims 1-26, 28-30, 36, and 38-54 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please replace “an retained” with “a retained”.
Claim 47 is objected to because of the following informalities: The preamble is incorrect because claim depends ultimately from claim 38, which is drawn to a modified olefin polymer composition rather than a chemical recycling feedstock.
Claim 51 is objected to because of the following informalities: The preamble is incorrect because claim depends ultimately from claim 43, which is drawn to a modified olefin polymer composition rather than a chemical recycling feedstock.
Claim 54 is objected to because of the following informalities: The preamble is incorrect because claim depends ultimately from claim 44, which is drawn to a modified olefin polymer composition rather than a chemical recycling feedstock.
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, 2, 4, 6-12, 21-26, 28-30, 36, and 38-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota et al. (US 4,552,930).
Hirota et al. teaches a process of visbreaking a propylene-ethylene random copolymer in the presence of a peroxide compound. The peroxide compound is used an amount of 0.002 to 0.5 parts based on 100 parts by weight of starting copolymer (col. 7, line 28). Example 1 shows that visbreaking is carried out using an organic peroxide in an extruder in three zones operating at 190 ºC, 230 ºC, and 240 ºC, whereupon chain scission would be expected to occur. The crude polymer has an initial MFI of 0.08 g/10 min and MFI of 8.2 g/10 min after visbreaking. This increased melt flow rate reflects a reduced viscosity and reduced molecular weight of the polymer product. Inventors teach that the process may be carried out using alkaline earth metal peroxides (i.e., magnesium peroxide and calcium peroxide); see col. 7, line 22. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to carry out visbreaking using an alkaline earth metal peroxide, and since inventors teach this embodiment, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the process to work with a reasonable expectation of success. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a combination (organic and alkaline earth metal) of peroxide in order to achieve desired rheological properties of the polymer product. In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980); In re Lindner, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
The data in Table 1 show that visbroken and non-visbroken propylene-ethylene random copolymer exhibit substantially the same stiffness, brittle temperature and tensile parameters. Therefore, it can be concluded that inventive process results in production of propylene-ethylene random copolymer having increased MFI and retained mechanical strength. In the example discussed above, the visbroken polymer exhibits an order of magnitude increase in MFI. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect comparable increase using alkaline earth metal peroxides. Hirota et al. is silent regarding flexural modulus, Izod impact strength, and VOC content, but in light of the fact that prior art process is substantially the same as that recited in instant claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to observe claimed properties. 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.
The visbroken propylene-ethylene random copolymer is a solid and therefore may be used to make injection molded, extrusion molded, or blow molded articles (col. 9, line 1).
Claims 8, 10, 11, 47, 51, and 54 are subsumed under the rejection as they merely limit optional components.
Claims 38 and 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirota et al. (US 4,552,930).
Example 1 of Hirota et al. discloses a crude polymer having an initial MFI of 0.08 g/10 min and MFI of 8.2 g/10 min after visbreaking. Table 1 shows that visbroken and non-visbroken propylene-ethylene random copolymer exhibit substantially the same stiffness, brittle temperature and tensile parameters. Therefore, it can be concluded that inventive process results in production of propylene-ethylene random copolymer having increased MFI and retained mechanical strength. The polymer is a solid was molded into text pieces for determination of strength and tensile properties. Claim 47 is rejected as it merely limits an optional component. Present claims are drawn to a 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 43 and 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2017/0313865).
Example CE2 in Table 4 Wang et al. discloses a heterophasic polypropylene that was visbroken using an extruder and an organic peroxide, wherein the polypropylene has a VOC content (394 ppm) that is reduced by about 28 % compared with that of untreated polypropylene (CE3, 553 ppm and CE4, 455 ppm). The polypropylene is a solid and can be used to make injection molded articles (paragraph [0193]). Claim 51 is rejected as it merely limits an optional component. Present claims are drawn to a 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 44 and 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brandhorst et al. (WO 2019/092378; equivalent US 2021/0155770 relied upon for translation).
Example 10 in Table 3 of Brandhorst et al. discloses a polypropylene that was melt mixed with an organic peroxide and inorganic peroxide, wherein the polypropylene has a VOC content (135 µgC/g) that is 1.2 times larger than that of untreated polypropylene (example 5, 110 µgC/g). The polypropylene is a solid and can be used to make injection molded articles (paragraph [0153]). Claim 54 is rejected as it merely limits an optional component. Present claims are drawn to a 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 3, 5, and 13-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Hirota et al. (US 4,552,930) does not teach the subject of these claims.
Response to Arguments
The rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 over Aguirre (US 5,580,931), set forth in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the previous office action dated December 18, 2025, have been overcome by amendment. Reference teaches use of alkaline earth metal peroxide for carrying out grafting bulk polymer with ionizable metal salt of an organic acid monomer. Such process is different using metal peroxide to carry out chain scission as recited in instant claims.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sala et al. (US 2010/0222454), set forth in paragraph 6 of the previous office action, has been withdrawn. Reference does not teach or suggest the invention described in instant claims.
The rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brandhorst et al. (WO 2019/092378), set forth in paragraph 7 of the previous office action has been withdrawn in view of claim cancelation.
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.
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 April 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights