DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/230,007. The amendment in the RCE dated 14 July 2026 is acknowledged.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 July 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites “The polymeric composition of Claim 14”. Claim 14 has been cancelled. Without knowing the limitations contained in claim from which Claim 15 depends, the scope of the Claim 15 is not clear. Please amend the claim so that it is either an independent claim or change the claim dependency so that it depends on a claim which has not been cancelled. For the purpose of the prior art rejections below, Claim 15 is presumed to depend upon Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-10, 12, and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI-2012 (JP-2012046692-A) as evidenced by GAO (Journal of Polymer Research 29.5 (2022)).
Regarding Claim 1, SUZUKI-2012 teaches a propylenic resin composition comprising 75-98 wt% of a propylene homopolymer or a propylene-based polymer (A) and a propylene-based copolymer (B) which is a propylene-α-olefin random polymer ([0008]). SUZUKI-2012 exemplifies in Example 9 a mixture of MA3U homopolymer (Table 2, [0134]) and Verisify2400 propylene-based copolymer (Table 2, [0135]) in amounts of 90+10 =100 out of 100.6 total parts which calculates to 99.4wt% which satisfies the requirement of at least 95wt% of propylene homopolymer, copolymer or blend thereof.
SUZUKI-2012 further teaches a nucleating agent in amounts of 0.01-0.6wt% ([0010]) where the nucleating agents can be used in combination ([0103]). SUZUKI-2012 includes teachings for sorbitol-based nucleating agents ([0057]) including the Milliken NX8000 compound ([0059]) which is the clarifying agent used in the instant examples (cur spec: Table 1). SUZUKI-2012 exemplifies NX8000 in Example 9 in an amount of 0.3 parts per 100.6 total parts (Table 2), which calculates to 0.289 wt% which is within the 0.01-0.5 wt% range for the clarifying agent recited by the claim. SUZUKI-2012 further teaches that its nucleating agent can be an organic phosphoric acid metal salt ([0063]) and teaches many specific compounds including Adeka NA-11 (sodium-2, 2’-methylene-bis -(4, 6-di-t-butylphenyl) phosphate) ([0065]) 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-2012 exemplifies NA-11 the same Example 9 in an amount of 0.1 parts per 100.6 total parts (Table 2), which calculates to 0.099 wt% which is within the 0.01-0.5 wt% range for the nucleating agent that is recited by the claim.
SUZUKI-2012 further teaches that its composition may contain other additives ([0114]). SUZUKI-2012 exemplifies several additives including DHT4C hydrotalcite, M360-1000 silicone oil, PHA25B peroxide, antioxidants Irganox 1010 and Irgafos 168 ([0138]-[0139]) in amounts of 0.03+0.05+0.02+0.005+0.05 = 0.2 parts per 100.6 total parts (Table 2), which calculates to 0.199wt% which is within the 0.01-5wt% recited by the claim.
SUZUKI-2012 teaches that its (A) component polypropylene blend has a melt flow rate of 0.5-100 g/10 min, more preferably 2-30 g/10min ([0030]) and a (B) component polypropylene has a melt flow rate of 0.5-80 g/10 min ([0042]). Each of these overlaps the 0.2-15 g/10 min which is recited by claim. SUZUKI-2012 exemplifies polypropylene blends with melt flow rates of 8-20 g/10 min (Table 1, Table 2), which overlaps the recited range, but SUZUKI-2012 does not exemplify a melt flow rate within the recited range is the same exemplary composition that contains both the recited clarifying agent and nucleating agent, 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-2012 and use a polypropylene blend with a melt flow rate within the range taught by SUZUKI-2012 that is also within the range recited by the claim, and with the recited clarifying agent and nucleating agent, based on the teachings of the specification.
SUZUKI-2012 teaches that its Example 9 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 2). SUZUKI-2012 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-2012 teaches compositions that are so close to the instant examples. SUZUKI-2012 teaches in Example 9 (Table 2) the same combination of the nonitol-based NX8000 clarifying agent and phosphate ester nucleating agent in very similar amounts (0.3wt%, 0.1 wt%) as those disclosed in instant example 4 (0.2 wt%, 0.1wt%) (cur spec: Table 4). One would inherently expect that Example 9 taught by SUZUKI-2012 would have a lower haze than the same composition with the phosphate ester nucleating agent removed. Here, GAO is used to provide further evidence. GAO, in a study of the effects of NA11 in isotactic polypropylene (Abstract), teaches that the addition of the NA11, which is taught by SUZUKI-2012, to polypropylene reduces the haze (Fig 4d) and that this haze reducing effect increases with the amount of NA11 added (Fig. 5d). Since it is known that the nucleating agent NA11 reduces the haze of polypropylene compositions based on the evidence of GAO, one would expect that the haze of the compositions taught by SUZUKI-2012 would be lower when this component is included than when this component is left out. This satisfies the requirement that presence of the clarifying agent and nucleating agent decreases the haze when compared to compositions having the clarifying agent but not the nucleating agent.
Regarding Claim 3, SUZUKI-2012 teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUZUKI-2012 teaches in Example 9 (Table 2) 0.3wt% of NX8000 clarifying agent and 0.1wt% 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 0.3/0.1 ratio taught by SUZUKI-2012-2012 for these components in Example 8 (Table 4) corresponds to a ratio of 3/1 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-2012 teaches the example of Claim 3 where SUZUKI-2012 teaches in Example 8 (Table 2), a combination of the nonitol-based NX8000 clarifying agent and the NA-11 phosphate ester nucleating agent (Table 2) which satisfies the claim.
Regarding Claim 5, SUZUKI-2012 teaches the invention of Claim 4 where SUZUKI-2012 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-2012 teaches the invention of Claim 4 where SUZUKI-2012 teaches the NA-11 phosphate ester nucleating agent, which is sodium 2, 2’-methylene-bis -(4, 6-di-t-butylphenyl) phosphate ([0065], Table 2).
Regarding Claim 7, SUZUKI-2012 teaches the invention of Claim 4 where SUZUKI-2012 teaches the combination of the nonitol-based NX8000 clarifying agent and the NA-11 phosphate ester nucleating agent (Table 2) 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 ([0065], Table 2), respectively.
Regarding Claim 8, SUZUKI-2012 teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUZUKI-2012 does not measure the tensile modulus, but SUZUKI-2012 teaches exemplary compositions that are extremely close to those disclosed in the instant specification. SUZUKI-2012 teaches in Example 9 (Table 2) the same combination of the nonitol-based NX8000 clarifying agent and phosphate ester nucleating agent in very similar amounts (0.3wt%, 0.1 wt%) as those disclosed in instant example 4 (0.2 wt%, 0.1wt%) (cur spec: Table 4). One would inherently expect that Example 9 taught by SUZUKI-2012 would have a higher tensile modulus than the same composition with the phosphate ester nucleating agent removed. GAO also provides evidence that adding NA11 to polypropylene increases both the tensile strength (Fig. 4a) and the flexural modulus (Fig 4b) which suggests that adding NA11 also increases the tensile modulus.
Regarding Claim 9, SUZUKI-2012 teaches the invention of Claim 1 where SUZUKI-2012 teaches in Example 9 (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 4% or more than any of its other inventive examples (Table 4).
Regarding Claim 10, SUZUKI-2012 teaches the invention of Claim 1 where SUZUKI-2012 teaches in Example 9 (Table 2) a composition containing the same clarifying agent and nucleating agent used in the instant examples and having a haze of 9% (Table 2). This is the lowest exemplary haze taught by SUZUKI-2012 (Table 1, Table 2). SUZUKI-2012 teaches that the nucleating agents of its invention when used in total amounts of 0.01-0.6 parts by weight per 100 parts polymer will see a performance improvement that is commensurate with the amount added ([0053]). This suggests that the haze reduction from the addition of the NX8000 and NA11 is commensurate with the amount added. The evidence of GAO is consistent with this teaching as it discloses that increasing the content of NA11 results in more haze reduction (Fig 5d). SUZUKI-2012 teaches in Example 9 teaches 0.3wt% NX8000 and 0.1 wt% NA11 (Table 2) and the general teachings for these components are 0.01-0.6 wt% ([0053]). SUZUKI-2012 also teaches several other compositions with haze above 20%, some as high as 34% (Table 1, Table 2). So, compositions which include proportionally less of NX8000 and NA11 that are still above the 0.01wt% lower bound taught in general teachings of SUZUKI-2012 would have a haze within the 10-20% range recited by the claim. It would be obvious to modify the examples of SUZUKI-2012 and use amounts of clarifying agent and nucleating agent that are within the ranges taught by SUZUKI-2012 that are also in the range recited by the claim that would have a haze within the 10-20% recited by the claim, based on the teachings of the specification. Then, from the Claim 1 rejection, fully removing the NA11 component results in a larger haze value, as SUZUKI-2012 teaches the same clarifying and nucleating agents in about the same amounts as that disclosed in instant example 4, and the evidence of GAO discloses that the NA-11 nucleating agent reduces the haze of polypropylene.
Regarding Claim 12, SUZUKI-2012 teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUZUKI-2012 teaches that its (A) polypropylene can be obtained using either a Ziegler-Natta catalyst of a metallocene catalyst ([0031]) and that its (B) polypropylene is obtained from a metallocene catalyst ([0044]). SUZUKI-2012 exemplifies both Ziegler-Natta and metallocene catalysts for (A) ([0134]) and metallocene for (B)([0135]).
Regarding Claim 15, SUZUKI-2012 teaches the invention of Claim 1 where SUZUKI-2012 teaches and exemplifies several additives including DHT4C hydrotalcite neutralizing agent, M360-1000 silicone oil lubricant, and antioxidants Irganox 1010 and Irgafos 168 ([0138]-[0139]) which satisfies the claim. SUZUKI-2012 also generally teaches an antistatic agent ([0122]), UV absorbers ([0114]), talc ([0101]), calcium carbonate ([0123]), mica ([0123]), fillers ([0123]), slip agent ([0122]), pigment ([0122]), and dye ([0122]).
Regarding Claim 16, SUZUKI-2012 teaches the invention of Claim 1. In the example 9 which includes the recited clarifying and nucleating agent, SUZUKI-2012 teaches a flexural modulus of 1550 MPa which corresponds to 224,800 psi which is just outside the 180,000-220,000 psi which is recited by the claim. But SUZUKI-2012 teaches examples which encompass the recited range having flexural modules as low as 1230 MPA (178,396.4)(Table 1, Example 4) which has the same MA3U/Versify2400 polypropylenes in an 80/20 ratio instead of the 90/10 ratio in Example 9 (Table 2). It would be obvious to modify the examples of SUZUKI-2012 and form a polypropylene blend with the recited clarifying nucleating agents which has a flexural modulus within the range taught by SUZUKI-2012 in its examples that are also within the range recited by the claim.
Regarding Claim 17, SUZUKI-2012 teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUZUKI-2012 teaches a test for the haze property of its composition with 1 mm samples ([0130]) 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-2012 teaches the invention of Claim 1 where SUZUKI-2012 teaches injection molding ([0125], [0128], [0133]).
Regarding Claim 19, SUZUKI-2012 teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUZUKI-2012 teaches molded articles formed from its composition ([0133]).
Regarding Claim 20-21, SUZUKI-2012 teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUZUKI-2012 teaches various molding methods such as injection molding, extrusion molding and blow molding ([0125]). SUZUKI-2012 exemplifies injection molding to create sample articles ([0133]).
Regarding Claim 22, SUZUKI-2012 teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUZUKI-2012 teaches mixing the polymers, the nucleating/clarifying agents and other additives in an extruder ([0124]) and exemplifies this process ([0140]).
Regarding Claim 23, SUZUKI-2012 teaches the invention of Claim 22. SUZUKI-2012 generally teaches extrusion conditions of 190-260 °C ([0125]) which overlaps the 200-260°C range recited by the claim. SUZUKI-2012 exemplifies 230 °C ([0140]) which is within the recited range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-10, 12 and 15-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The amendment cancels Claim 14, but Claim 15 still depends on Claim 14. A new rejection under 35 USC 112(b) for Claim 15 because it now depends upon a canceled claim.
Conclusion
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 LANEE 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