DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Applicant’s amendment dated 10 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-24 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.
New grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by amendment dated 10 April 2026. 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
Claim 1, 5-6, 8-11, 15-16 and 18-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SUN (WO-2011159552-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, SUN teaches a metallocene-catalyzed propylene-based polymer with a nonitol-based clarifying agent (Abstract). SUN teaches that its polymer is blended with 5-4500 ppm, or 1000-3500 ppm of nonitol-based modifier ([0032]) which calculates to 0.0005-0.45 wt%, or 0.1-0.35 wt%, of the nonitol additive leaving the remaining polymer in amounts of 99.55-99.9995wt%, or 99.65-99.9wt%, which satisfies the requirement of the metallocene-catalyzed polypropylene being present in amounts of at least 95 wt%.
The claim recites two quantitative tests against comparative compositions which are separated by “and/or”, so only one of the tests is required to satisfy the claim. SUN teaches that its compositions using metallocene-catalyzed polypropylene show a reduction in haze (80 mil thickness) of at least of 5%, or at least 6% or at least 10% compared to Ziegler-Natta-catalyzed polypropylene ([0048]). SUN exemplifies 1900 ppm (0.19 wt%) and 4000 ppm (0.4 wt%) of its clarifying agents ([0050], [0052]), which are both over the 0.1 wt% recited for the second test, and teaches hazes for metallocene vs Ziegler-Natta of 13.9% vs 10.5% at 60 mils thickness and 25% vs 19.2% at 80 mils thickness ([0054]). The claim does not recite whether the percentage difference is calculated based on the first haze value, the second haze value or the average of the two haze values. Using each calculation method, the exemplary values taught above by SUN calculate to 24.5%/27.9%/32.4% at 60 mils and 23.2%/26.2%/30.2% at 80 mils. These are all well over at least 10% that is recited by the claim. One would inherently expect that the percentage difference in haze would still be over 10% for the narrower thickness of 50 mils.
Regarding Claim 5, SUN teaches that its composition may contain a polypropylene homopolymer ([0041]). SUN exemplifies in Polymer “B” a metallocene formed polypropylene homopolymer ([0052]).
Regarding Claim 6, SUN teaches the invention of Claim 1, SUN teaches that its polypropylene can include a propylene-based random copolymer ([0042]). SUN exemplifies in Polymer “A” propylene random copolymer ([0050]).
Regarding Claim 8, SUN teaches the invention of Claim 1 where SUN teaches the inclusion of a clarifying agent (Abstract) and exemplifies clarifiers ([0050]).
Regarding Claims 9-11, SUN teaches the invention of Claim 8. SUN teaches that its clarifying agent may be a nonitol-based clarifying agent ([0031]), and may include nonitol, 1,2,3-trideoxy-4,6: 5,7-bis-O-[ ( 4-propylphenyl)methylene], or Millad NX8000 ([0031]) and exemplifies NX8000 ([0050]) This satisfies Claim 9, Claim 10 and Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 15, SUN teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUN generally teaches that its propylene-based polymers may have melt flow rate (ASTM D1238) of from 1-100 dg/min (equivalent of 1-100 g/10min) which is within the 0.2-150 g/10 min that is recited by the claim. SUN exemplifies polypropylenes with 30 g/10 min ([0050]) and 12 g/10 min ([0052]).
Regarding Claim 16, SUN teaches the invention of Claim 15 where SUN exemplifies a metallocene-catalyzed polypropylene random copolymer (Polymer “A”) having a melt flow rate of 30 g/10 min ([0050]) which is within the 20-30 g/10 min recited for the claimed polymeric composition. The comparative second polymeric composition is not being claimed.
Regarding Claim 18, SUN teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUN generally teaches that its metallocene-catalyzed propylene-based polymer has a melting point of from about 130°C to about 160°C ([0007]) which largely overlaps the 140-160°C range recited by the claim. SUN exemplifies in polymer “A” a melting point of 140°C ([0050]) which satisfies the claim.
Regarding Claim 19, SUN teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUN teaches measuring haze in its composition at a thickness of 80 mil ([0080]) and performs haze tests at 20 mil, 40 mil, 60 mil and 80 mil (Fig. 2). These are all within the 20-100 mil range recited by the claim.
Regarding Claim 20, SUN teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUN teaches molded articles formed from its composition ([0045]) and exemplifies a packaging container ([0050]).
Claims 1-5, 8-16, 18, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SCHRADER (US-20130023755-A1) as evidenced by ISHIDA (JP-2015201616-A).
Regarding Claim 1, SCHRADER teaches a metallocene polypropylene (PP) and an organophosphate clarifying agent (Abstract). SCHRADER teaches that its polypropylene comprises at least 97wt% of the composition ([0017]) which satisfies the requirement that the metallocene polypropylene is at least 95 wt% of the composition. SCHRADER teaches adding a clarifier to polypropylene polymers to obtain good transparency in the composition ([0009]).
SCHRADER teaches that metallocene catalysts are used as an alternative to conventional Ziegler-Natta catalysts ([0012]) and SCHRADER teaches exemplary compositions which are both metallocene-catalyzed and not-metallocene-catalyzed (Table 3). SCHRADER measures transparency instead of 50-mil-thickness haze, and SCHRADER does not set up side-by-side comparisons of a metallocene-catalyzed PP and a Ziegler-Natta-catalyzed PP, but one would inherently expect the compositions taught by SCHRADER to exhibit the recited difference in haze between its metallocene and comparative Ziegler-Natta-catalyzed compositions because SCHRADER teaches examples which are so close to those disclosed in the instant specification. In exemplary Test 30, SCHRADER teaches the M3766 polypropylene and 0.17 wt% of NA-21 organophosphate clarifier (Table 3). Instant Example 2 discloses the same M3766 polypropylene and 0.1 wt% of the NA27 nucleation agent (cur spec: [0050]). The instant specification discloses that the NA27 nucleation agent is the NA-11 nucleation agent, 2,2'-methylenebis (4,6,-di-tertbutylphenyl) phosphate, plus a dispersant. SCHRADER teaches that its NA-21 an organophosphate clarifier similar to NA-11 ([0016]) but does not teach its structure. Here, ISHIDA is used as an evidentiary reference to disclose the molecular structure of the NA-21 organophosphate taught by SCHRADER (see MPEP 2131.01-III. for this use of a secondary evidentiary reference in 102 rejections). ISHIDA discloses that NA-21 is 2,2'-methylenebis (4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl) phosphate with an aluminum counterion, while NA-11 is the same 2,2'-methylenebis (4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl) phosphate with a sodium counterion ([0025], see JP document for structures of both). The exemplary Test 30 taught by SCHRADER is the same organophosphate added in a similar amount to the same polypropylene as instant Example 2. Note that the claim does not positively recite an amount of clarifying/nucleating agent, a test article with a thickness, or a second polymeric composition, these are recited as part of tests performed on the composition. SCHRADER does not perform the side-by-side haze tests with a comparative composition, but one would inherently expect the its compositions would pass the recited comparative tests as SCHRADER teaches the same organophosphate clarifier added to the same M3766 metallocene polypropylene as disclosed in instant Example 2. Also, SCHRADER provides further evidence by way of its transparency measurement. Exemplary tests 3, 5, 13 and 30 all teach 0.17 wt% NA-21 in metallocene-catalyzed PP (Table 3) with transparency values of 49.45, 52.54, 59.38 and 52.87% (Table 4) while exemplary tests 7 and 23 teach 0.17 wt% NA-21 in Ziegler-Natta PP (Table 3) with transparency values of 39.41 and 32.42% (Table 4). The higher transparency in the metallocene PP exemplary tests suggests lower haze.
Regarding Claim 2, SCHRADER teaches the invention of Claim 1 where SCHRADER teaches the same clarifying agent, 2,2'-methylenebis (4,6,-di-tertbutylphenyl) phosphate, in about the same amounts, in the same M3766 polypropylene (Ex. Test 30, Table 3), as is used in instant Example 2 (cur spec: [0050]). One would inherently expect the same behavior recited in Claim 2 where the comparative effect of the clarifying agent increase with increasing amounts.
Regarding Claim 3, SCHRADER teaches the invention of Claim 2. SCHRADER teaches that its compositions contain 0.03-0.4 wt% of the clarifying agent ([0017]) which is within the recited range of 0.02-0.4wt%. SCHRADER exemplifies 0.17wt% in the exemplary Test 30 cited in the Claim 1 rejection (Table 3).
Regarding Claim 4, SCHRADER teaches the invention of Claim 3. SCHRADER teaches that its clarifying agent may be used in amounts between 0.03-0.4 wt% ([0017]) which includes the 0.2wt%, and 0.4wt% amounts recited for the comparative tests. SCHRADER does not perform side-by-side haze comparisons with a comparative composition, but one would inherently expect the same behavior as SCHRADER teaches the same organophosphate clarifier added to the same M3766 metallocene polypropylene as disclosed in instant Example 2.
Regarding Claim 5, SCHRADER teaches the invention of Claim 1. SCHRADER generally teaches that its polypropylene can be a homopolymer ([0086]). SCHRADER exemplifies M3766 polypropylene homopolymer in exemplary test 30 (Table 3).
Regarding Claim 8, SCHRADER teaches the invention of Claim 1. SCHRADER characterizes its organophosphate additive as a clarifier (Abstract, [0017], Table 3).
Regarding Claims 9-11, SCHRADER teaches the invention of Claim 8. SCHRADER also performs exemplary tests using the NX8000 clarifier (Tables 2-3). SCHRADER teaches in exemplary test 4, a metallocene-catalyzed PP including 0.4wt% NX8000 (Table 3) which has a transparency of 64.05wt% (Table 4). SCHRADER teaches three exemplary tests, 8, 9 and 24 which include Ziegler-Natta-catalyzed PP with 0.4wt% NX8000 (Table 3) that have transparencies of 62.58, 55.43 and 49.38%. The metallocene-catalyzed sample has a higher transparency than each of the three Ziegler-Natta-catalyzed samples which suggests a lower haze in the metallocene-catalyzed sample. The Ziegler-Natta-catalyzed sample with the lowest transparency can be selected to satisfy the claim.
SCHRADER does not teach the structure of its NX8000 clarifier. Here, the specification of the current invention is used as evidence that the NX8000 clarifier taught by SCHRADER is 1,2,3-trideoxy-4,5:5,7-bis-O-[(4-propylphenyl)methylene]-nonitol (cur spec: [0039]). That NX8000 is nonitol-based satisfies Claim 9 and that it is 1,2,3-trideoxy-4,5:5,7-bis-O-[(4-propylphenyl)methylene]-nonitol satisfies Claims 10-11.
Regarding Claims 12-14, SCHRADER teaches the invention of Claim 1 where SCHRADER teaches an organophoshate clarifier ([0016]), exemplifies NA-21 (Table 3) which the evidence of ISHIDA discloses is an aluminum salt of 2,2'-methylenebis (4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl) phosphate which is a phosphate ester that satisfies Claims 13-14 and is the same compound used in instant Example 2 (cur spec: [0050]) and is characterized by the instant specification as a nucleating agent (cur spec: [0042]) which satisfies Claim 12.
Regarding Claims 15-16, SCHRADER teaches the invention of Claim 1. SCHRADER teaches that its metallocene polypropylene generally has a melt flow rate suitable for injection molding ([0013]) and teaches several specific polypropylenes with a melt flow rate (230° C/2.16 kg) within the recited ranges of Claims 15-16 (Table 1) including the M3766 which has a melt flow rate of 23 g/10 min (Table 1) which is within the ranges recited for both claims. The second polymeric composition is not being claimed, but SCHRADER teaches MFR’s for non-metallocene-catalyzed polypropylenes within the recited range for the second polymeric composition (Table 1) including the same comparative Ziegler-Natta polyproplene 3835 (Table 1) used in Instant Example 1.
Regarding Claim 18, SCHRADER teaches the invention of Claim 1 where SCHRADER teaches and exemplifies the M3766 metallocene-catalyzed polypropylene homopolymer (Table 1). SCHRADER does not teach the melting point of this component. Here, the specification of the current invention is used to disclose that the melting point of the M3766 polypropylene homopolymer taught by SCHRADER is 151°C (cur spec: [0036]) which is within the 140-160°C range recited by the claim.
Regarding Claim 20, SCHRADER teaches the invention of Claim 1. SCHRADER testing making syringe barrels from its test polymer compositions ([0087]).
Regarding Claim 22, SCHRADER teaches the invention of Claim 1. SCHRADER teaches making syringe barrels from its test compositions by injection molding ([0087]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 7, 12 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN (WO-2011159552-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, SUN teaches the invention of Claim 1 above. SUN teaches and exemplifies a polypropylene homopolymer ([0041], [0052]). SUN also teaches and exemplifies a propylene-based random copolymer ([0042], [0050]). SUN generally teaches that its composition may be a blend ([0035]) but SUN does not exemplify a blend. 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 SUN and include a blend of metallocene homopolymer and copolymer based on the teachings of the specification.
Regarding Claim 12, SUN teaches the invention of Claim 1. SUN teaches that its composition may include commercially available nucleators, clarifiers and combinations thereof ([0030]). SUN does not exemplify a nucleating agent, but it would be obvious of ordinary skill in the art to at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the examples of Sun and include a nucleating agent based on the teachings of the specification.
Regarding Claim 21, SUN teaches the invention of Claim 20 above. SUN generally teaches that injection molding can be used to form its polymers and blends ([0045]), but SUN does not specify whether injection molding is used to form its exemplified articles. 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 SUN and use injection molding to create its exemplary articles based on the teachings of its specification. SUN teaches creating of samples for measuring haze at a thickness of 80 mil ([0080]) and performs haze tests at 20 mil, 40 mil, 60 mil and 80 mil (Fig. 2). These are all within the 20-100 mil range recited by the claim. SUN also exemplifies containers with thickness of 2.33 mm on the bottom and 1.48 mm on the side (Table 1). This corresponds to 92 mil and 62 mil, respectively.
Regarding Claim 22, SUN teaches the invention of Claim 21. SUN generally teaches that its composition may be formed by many methods including blow molding injection molding, rotary molding, stretch film, or extrusion of thermoformed sheets, and extrusion of profiles ([0045]).
Claims 17 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN (WO-2011159552-A1) in view of SUZUKI (JP-2010121126-A).
Regarding Claim 17, SUN teaches the invention of Claim 1 above. SUN teaches that its polymeric composition may contain additives ([0030]) but does not teach specific additives. SUZUKI, in an invention of a propylene (co)polymer and a nucleating agent (Abstract), including the nonitol-based nucleating agents such as NX8000 ([0083],[0084]) classified by SUN and the instant specification as clarifying agents, teaches and exemplifies a number of different additives ([0142]) including hydrotalcite (DHT-4C)([0173], Table 4), antioxidants (IF168) ([0173], Table 4) and UV stabilizers (TNV622)([0173])(Table 4). SUZUKI also generally teaches inclusion of a neutralizing agent ([0173]), antistatic agent ([0142]), UV absorbers ([0134]), lubricant ([0132]), calcium carbonate ([0142]), mica ([0142]), filler ([0142]), slip agent ([0142], pigment ([0142]) and dye ([0142]). 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 invention of SUN and use one of the specific additives taught by SUZUKI. One would have been motivated to do so because it would be nothing more than using a known compound in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claims 23-24, SUN teaches the invention of Claim 1 above where SUN teaches the compositional limitations of the at least 95wt% polypropylene and the clarifying agent. SUN teaches blending the polymer with the modifying clarifier in a manner known to one skilled in the art ([0030]). SUN teaching that following polymerization, its polypropylene may undergo further processing such as addition of additives and/or extrusion ([0030]), but SUN does specifically teach the recited method. SUZUKI, in an invention of a propylene (co)polymer and a nucleating agent (Abstract), including the nonitol-based nucleating agents such as NX8000 ([0083],[0084]) classified by SUN and the instant specification as clarifying agents, teaches mixing the polymer and nucleating/clarifying agents in an extruder ([0143]), which satisfies the process recited in Claim 23, and SUZUKI teaches extruding at temperatures of 190-260°C ([0143]) and exemplifies this extrusion method at 230°C which is within the 200-260°C recited by Claim 24. SUZUKI teaches that this method mixes and melt-kneads the additives and the polypropylene ([0143]). 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 invention of SUN with the teachings of SUZUKI and use the recited extruder method for producing the polymeric composition of Claim 1 for the purpose of mixing and melt-kneading the additives and the polypropylene.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendments to Claims 9-11 and 14 have addressed informalities set forth in the previous office action. The objections to these claims have been withdrawn.
The amendment to Claim 23 has resolved antecedency issues pointed out in the previous office action. The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) for this claim and its dependent claim have been withdrawn.
The amendment to Claim 10 and Claim 21 have resolved the issue where Claim 10 and Claim 22 did not contain all of the limitations of the claims from which they depend. The rejections under 35 USC 112(d) have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that SUN does not disclose the at least 40% lower haze limitation, and that it only discloses 26-27% lower haze. In response, the claim recites the at least 40% lower haze for the at least 0.4wt% clarifier test “and/or” at least 10% lower haze for the at least 10% case. Only one of those is required, so applicant’s arguments that SUN discloses 26-27% lower haze shows that its satisfies the comparative haze tests recited by the claim.
Applicant argues that SUN performs 60 mil and 80 mil haze measurements and not the 50 mil recited by the claim. In response, SUN teaches an absolute difference of 24.5%/27.9%/32.4% at 60 mil, depending on how the percentage difference is calculated, and 23.2%/26.2%/30.2% at 80 mils. Given that all of these numbers are well over the recited amount of 10%, one would presume obtaining percentage difference amounts of at least 10% when tested at a thickness of 50 mils.
Applicant argues that SCHRADER does not disclose the “at least 40% lower” haze limitation, either expressly or inherently and that SCHRADER does not measure haze. In response, the claims positively recites a polymeric composition comprising at least 95wt% of a metallocene-catalyzed polypropylene and at least one of a clarifying agent or a nucleating agent. The second Ziegler-Natta composition is not being claimed, that is, it is not part of the recited composition in that there is no mixture or layering of this second composition with the first claimed composition. The molded test article with a thickness of 50 mil is not being claimed. Only Claims 3-4 positively recite amounts of the clarify/nucleating agent. Only Claims 21-22 positively recite the thickness of articles formed from the composition. Claim 1 is anticipated by SCHRADER because it teaches, in exemplary Test 30, the same organophosphate clarifier added to the same M3766 metallocene polypropylene as disclosed in instant Example 2. One would inherently expect the composition in exemplary Test 30 taught by SCHRADER would have the same properties as that of instant Example 2 including passing the comparative haze tests that are recited in Claim 1.
Applicant argues that its “at least 40%” haze limitation represents an unexpected result, that the data of SUN only discloses ~26% difference in haze and that the “at least 10%” haze reduction generally taught by SUN would have provided no basis for the skilled user to predict the magnitude of improvement in the instant invention. In response, Claim 1 is still rejected under 35 USC 102, so arguments of unexpected results do not apply. For any dependent claims which are rejected under 35 USC 103, the “at least 40%” test is recited with an “and/or” clause, so it not required. Claim 1 only requires passing the “at least 10%” haze test which is generally taught by SUN. To the extent that the instant application obtains higher measured percentage differences for its comparative tests than those taught by, or are inherently present in, the prior art, it is limited to specific compounds recited in the examples and is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. It has not been shown that any improvements would hold over the full range of metallocene polypropylenes which can homopolymers (isotactic, syndiotactic, atactic) copolymers and terpolymers, with different melt flow indices, molecular weights, and molecular weight distributions (cur spec: [0035]), and tested against the full range of unclaimed comparative Ziegler-Natta polypropylenes which can independently be homopolymers (isotactic, syndiotactic, atactic) copolymers and terpolymers, with different melt flow indices, molecular weights, and molecular weight distributions, and also considering all of the available additives for each which are not recited (cur spec: [0015]), some of which, such as pigments and dyes, can have an effect on the haze measurement. The basic limitations argued here, that is, the recited quantitative comparison of the claimed composition with a Ziegler-Natta catalyzed polypropylene, does not provide patentable distinction since any Ziegler-Natta catalyzed polypropylene can be selected as the comparison material. The prior art clearly shows that metallocene-catalyzed polypropylenes have lower haze than Ziegler-Natta-catalyzed polypropylenes having the same nucleating agent. The quantitative numbers largely depend on a broadly specified Ziegler-Natta-catalyzed comparison material which is not part of the recited composition.
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 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