DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Applicant’s amendment dated 1 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-23 are pending.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The arguments set forth in the amendment dated 1 April 2026 are not persuasive. For this reason, this action is properly made final.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SUZUKI (JP-2010121126-A).
Regarding Claim 1, SUZUKI teaches a propylenic resin comprising a propylene (co)polymer and a nucleating agent (Abstract). SUZUKI generally teaches that its composition contains 60-99 parts of a propylene homopolymer of propylene copolymer where the comonomer is less than 1% by weight ([0007]) and 1-40 parts of a propylene-ethylene block copolymer ([0007]). Both of these would satisfy the requirement of a polypropylene component recited in (a). SUZUKI requires 0.01-0.6 wt% nucleating agent ([0007]) with no other required additives, suggesting that the polypropylene component is present in at least 95 wt%. SUZUKI teaches many examples with 100 parts polypropylene and less than 1 parts of other additives (Table 4), for example, Example 8 includes 90+10 = 100 parts of polypropylene and 0.3+0.15+0.015+0.02+0.1+0.05 = 0.635 parts of other additives. This calculates to 100/100.635 ≈ 99.37 wt% which satisfies the requirement of 95% of a polypropylene.
SUZUKI teaches five classes of nucleating agents, (A) to (E) ([0008]), which can be used in many specific combinations ([0126]). Among these include an (A) compound which is the Milliken NX8000 nucleating agent ([0083], [0084]):
PNG
media_image1.png
277
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which is also known as 1,2,3-trideoxy-4,6:5,7-bis-O-((4-propylphenyl)methylene)-nonitol and is one of the compounds used in the instant examples (cur spec: Table 1). SUZUKI characterizes NX8000 as a nucleating agent and not as a clarifying agent. Here the instant specification is used as evidence that the 1,2,3-trideoxy-4,6:5,7-bis-O-((4-propylphenyl)methylene)-nonitol (NX8000) taught by SUZUKI is a clarifying agent (cur spec: [0008], p. 4, line 2). It is presumed that NX8000 would act as a clarifying agent in polypropylene compositions because it is the same compound used in the instant specification and examples.
SUZUKI teaches that its nucleating agent can be (B) an organic phosphoric acid metal salt ([0088]) and teaches many specific organic phosphoric acid metal salts ([0090]) including Adeka NA11 (sodium-2, 2’-methylene-bis -(4, 6-di-t-butylphenyl) phosphate) ([0090]) which is the same nucleating agent disclosed as a phosphate ester nucleating agent in the instant specification (cur spec: [0046]) and the instant examples use NA-27 (cur spec: Table 1) which is NA-11 plus dispersant (cur spec: [0046]).
SUZUKI teaches in Example 8 (Table 4), a combination of the nonitol-based NX8000 clarifying agent and the NA-11 phosphate ester nucleating agent (Table 4) which satisfies the claim.
SUZUKI teaches that its Example 8 combination of NX8000 clarifying agent and NA-11 nucleating agent has the lowest pre-sterilization haze (9%) measured at 1 mm (equivalent to 39.4 mil) of all of its examples (Table 4). SUZUKI does not provide exemplary evidence that its NX8000+NA-11 example would have lower haze than a composition including the NX8000 clarifying agent without the NA-11 nucleating agent, but one would inherently expect this to be true because SUZUKI teaches compositions that are so close to the instant examples. SUZUKI teaches in Example 8 (Table 4) the same combination of the nonitol-based NX8000 clarifying agent and phosphate ester nucleating agent in very similar amounts (0.3wt%, 0.15 wt%) as those disclosed in instant example 4 (0.2 wt%, 0.1wt%) (cur spec: Table 4). One would inherently expect that Example 8 taught by SUZUKI would have a lower haze than the same composition with the phosphate ester nucleating agent removed.
Regarding Claim 2, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUZUKI generally teaches 0.01-0.6 wt% of nucleating agents (some of which are also clarifying agents as recited). SUZUKI generally teaches similar amounts for each of its five types of nucleating agents including 0.01-0.6 parts by weight per 100 parts polypropylene of the (A) nonitol type agent ([0086]) and 0.005-0.3 parts by weight of its (B) phosphate ester ([0091]). SUZUKI teaches in Example 8 (Table 4) 0.3wt% of NX8000 clarifying agent and 0.15wt% of NA11 nucleating agent which are both within the recited 0.01-0.5 wt% ranges for each component
Regarding Claim 3, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUZUKI teaches in Example 8 (Table 4) 0.3wt% of NX8000 clarifying agent and 0.15wt% of NA11 nucleating agent which are both within the recited ranges. Both of these are within the narrower 0.1-0.3 wt% and 0.05-0.2 wt% ranges recited for the first option of the claim. Also, the 0.3/0.15 ratio taught by SUZUKI for these components in Example 8 (Table 4) corresponds to a ratio of 2/1 which is within the 0.01/5 to 0.5/0.01 ratio range (corresponding to 1/500 to 50/1) recited in the section option of the claim.
Regarding Claim 4, SUZUKI teaches the example of Claim 3 where SUZUKI teaches in Example 8 (Table 4), a combination of the nonitol-based NX8000 clarifying agent and the NA-11 phosphate ester nucleating agent (Table 4) which satisfies the claim.
Regarding Claim 5, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 4 where SUZUKI teaches the nonitol-based NX8000 clarifying agent which is 1,2,3-trideoxy-4,6:5,7-bis-O-((4-propylphenyl)methylene)-nonitol.
Regarding Claim 6, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 4 where SUZUKI teaches the NA-11 phosphate ester nucleating agent which is sodium 2, 2’-methylene-bis -(4, 6-di-t-butylphenyl) phosphate ([0090], Table 4).
Regarding Claim 7, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 4 where SUZUKI teaches the combination of the nonitol-based NX8000 clarifying agent and the NA-11 phosphate ester nucleating agent (Table 4) which are 1,2,3-trideoxy-4,6:5,7-bis-O-((4-propylphenyl)methylene)-nonitol and sodium 2, 2’-methylene-bis -(4, 6-di-t-butylphenyl) phosphate ([0090], Table 4), respectively.
Regarding Claim 8, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUZUKI does not measure the tensile modulus, but SUZUKI teaches exemplary compositions that are extremely close to those disclosed in the instant specification. SUZUKI teaches in Example 8 (Table 4) the same combination of the nonitol-based NX8000 clarifying agent and phosphate ester nucleating agent in very similar amounts (0.3wt%, 0.15 wt%) as those disclosed in instant example 4 (0.2 wt%, 0.1wt%) (cur spec: Table 4). One would inherently expect that Example 8 taught by SUZUKI would have a higher tensile modulus than the same composition with the phosphate ester nucleating agent removed.
Regarding Claim 9, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 1 where SUZUKI teaches in Example 8 (Table 4) a combination of nonitol-based NX8000 clarifying agent and phosphate ester NA11 nucleating agent which has a lower pre-sterilization haze (9%) by 2% or more than any of its other inventive examples (Table 4). SUZUKI does not teach an example with only the NX8000 clarifying agent and not the NA11 phosphate ester, but one would inherently expect that behavior because SUZUKI teaches in Example 8 (Table 4) a composition that is so close to the instant Example 4 (cur spec: Table 4).
Regarding Claim 10, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 1 where SUZUKI teaches in Example 8 (Table 4) a combination of nonitol-based NX8000 clarifying agent and phosphate ester NA11 nucleating agent which has a lower pre-sterilization haze (9%) which is less than the 20% recited by the claim. SUZUKI does not teach an example with only the NX8000 clarifying agent and not the NA11 phosphate ester, but one would inherently expect that behavior because SUZUKI teaches in Example 8 (Table 4) a composition that is so close to the instant Example 4 (cur spec: Table 4).
Regarding Claim 11, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 1 where SUZUKI teaches a blend between a polypropylene homopolymer and copolymer ([0007]) and exemplifies blends between propylene homopolymers ([0159]) and propylene-ethylene copolymers ([0160])(Table 4). Although, SUZUKI teaches that its propylene-ethylene copolymer are block copolymers ([0007]), SUZUKI teaches that each block of its copolymer is obtained by random copolymerization ([0163]-[0165], so the copolymer is random within each block (e.g. [0167]).
Regarding Claim 12, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 1 where SUZUKI teaches that its polypropylene can be made using either a Ziegler catalyst or a metallocene catalyst ([0031]). SUZUKI exemplifies Ziegler catalysts for its propylene homopolymers HPP1 and HPP2 ([0159]).
Regarding Claim 13, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUZUKI exemplifies compositions with melt flow rates of 19-22 g/10min (Table 4) which are measured at 230°C and 21.2 N ([0151]) which calculates to 21.2N/9.81m/s2 = 2.16 kg. This is within the 2-150 g/10 min (230°C, 2.16 kg) that is recited by the claim.
Regarding Claim 14, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUZUKI further teaches that its composition may contain other additives ([0134]). SUZUKI exemplifies several additives including hydrotalcite (DHT-4C), antioxidants (IF168) and UV stabilizers (TNV622)([0173])(Table 4).
Regarding Claim 15, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 14 where SUZUKI teaches and exemplifies several additives including hydrotalcite (DHT-4C), antioxidants (IF168) and UV stabilizers (TNV622)([0173])(Table 4) which satisfies the claim. SUZUKI also generally teaches inclusion of a neutralizing agent ([0173]), antistatic agent ([0142]), UV absorbers ([0134]), lubricant ([0132]), montmorillite clay in one of the copolymers ([0161]), calcium carbonate ([0142]), mica ([0142]), filler ([0142]), slip agent ([0142], pigment ([0142]) and dye ([0142]).
Regarding Claim 16, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 1. In the Example 8 cited in the Claim 1 rejection, SUZUKI teaches a flexural modulus of 1500 MPa (Table 4, [0156]) which converts to 218,000 psi which is within the 180,000-220,000 psi recited by the claim.
Regarding Claim 17, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUZUKI teaches a test for the haze property of its composition with 1 mm samples ([0180]) which converts to 39.4 mil which satisfies the requirement that the composition has a thickness of at least 2 mil.
Regarding Claim 18, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUZUKI teaches a tests for the haze property of its composition using a sample created by injection molding ([0180]).
Regarding Claim 19, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUZUKI teaches molded articles formed from its composition ([0144], [0181]).
Regarding Claim 20-21, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUZUKI teaches various molding methods such as injection molding, extrusion molding and blow molding ([0144]). SUZUKI exemplifies injection molding to create 1 mm (39.4 mil) sample articles ([0180]).
Regarding Claim 22, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUZUKI teaches mixing the polymers, the nucleating/clarifying agents and other additives in an extruder ([0143]) and exemplifies this process ([0174]).
Regarding Claim 23, SUZUKI teaches the invention of Claim 22. SUZUKI generally teaches extrusion conditions of 190-260 °C ([0143]) which overlaps the 200-260°C range recited by the claim. SUZUKI exemplifies 230 °C ([0174]) which is within the recited range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI (JP-2010121126-A).
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC 102 based on the interpretation that SUZUKI teaching a block copolymer consisting of random copolymer segments satisfies the requirement of a random copolymer. To the extent that SUZUKI does not teach a blend between a polypropylene homopolymer and a random copolymer, SUZUKI generally teaches that its composition contains 60-99 parts of a propylene homopolymer of propylene copolymer where the comonomer is less than 1% by weight ([0007]), 1-40 parts of a propylene-ethylene block copolymer ([0007]) and 0.01-0.6 wt% nucleating agent ([0007]) with no other required additives. This calculates to 60-99 wt% propylene homopolymer which overlaps the requirement of 95wt% polypropylene which is either a homopolymer, random copolymer or blend thereof. SUZUKI does not exemplify 95 wt% propylene homopolymer, but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the examples of SUZUKI and use amount of propylene homopolymer that are within the amounts taught in its specification that are also within the range recited by the claim. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). For more discussion see MPEP 2144.05-I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendment to Claim 12 fixes an informality noted in the previous office action. The objection to this claim has been withdrawn.
Claim 3 has been amended to depend upon Claim 1. This addresses the issue where Claim 3 did not include all of the limitations of Claim 2. The rejections under 35 USC 112(d) of Claim 3 and its dependent claims has been withdrawn.
Claims 5, 9, 17 and 21 have been amended to remove the use of the term “preferably” which is indefinite. The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the claims are not anticipated by SUZUKI because SUZUKI does test for haze under the recited conditions and because SUZUKI does not report haze for compositions which contain only the clarifying agent. In response, the claims are directed to a polymeric composition containing polypropylene, clarifying agent and nucleating agent. The molded test article with a thickness of 40-80 mil (which is very close to 1 mm=39.4 mil) used for measuring the haze value is not being claimed. The implied second composition which does not contain the nucleating agent is not being claimed, that is, there is no mixture or layering of this second composition with the first claimed composition. Claim 1 is anticipated by SUZUKI because it teaches, in Example 8, a composition which is essentially the same as that instant Example 4, which uses the same clarify agent, the same nucleating agent, in the same ratio in almost the same amount. One would inherently expect that the composition in Example 8 taught by SUZUKI would have the same properties as that of instant example 4 including passing the comparative haze test that is recited in Claim 1. Also note that SUZUKI generally teaches that the functions of a nucleation agent include improvement of transparency ([0025]), which results in a reduction of haze. SUZUKI also teaches that when its nucleation agents are included below the recited range, transparency may not be exhibited ([0080]) and that when total amounts of its nucleating agents are included within its recited range, that the performance improvement is commensurate with the added amount ([0080]) and SUZUKI teaches five different types of nucleating agents (A) to (E) ([0080]). It seems to follow from this teaching that adding another nucleating agent within the range would further improve transparency and reduce haze which is consistent with the recited comparison test where the haze measurement is compared to a composition where a nucleating agent is removed.
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 DAVID R FOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-4821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
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, ARRIE L REUTHER can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/D.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights