DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/234,634 filed on 16 August 2023.
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 Objections
Claims 9-11 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In four places in Claims 9-11, please replace “Nonitol” with “nonitol”.
In Claim 14, please remove “(Phosphate ester)” as it is redundant.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 23-24 are 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 23 twice recites the limitation "the polypropylene composition of claim 1". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 is directed to a “polymeric composition”. There is a metallocene-catalyzed polypropylene recited as (a) in Claim 1, but it is not characterized as a composition. Examiner recommends reciting “the polymeric composition of claim 1” in both locations to set up proper antecedent basis. Claim 24 is also rejected because it depends upon, and therefore includes, Claim 23.
Claim 23 is also rejected for reciting “a clarifying agent” or “a nucleating agent”. Claim 23 depends upon, and therefore includes, Claim 1. Claim 1 already recites “a clarifying agent” or “a nucleating agent”. It is not clear whether the Claim 23 components are the same as those that are recited in Claim 1, or if they are different. Examiner recommends reciting “the clarifying agent” or “the nucleating agent” in Claim 23 to set up a proper antecedent basis. Claim 24 is also rejected because it depends upon, and therefore
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 recites that the nonitol-based clarifying agent is selected from a group containing three sorbitol derivatives and a nonitol derivative. Since sorbitol has six carbon atoms and nonitol has nine carbon atoms, it is not clear how the three sorbitol derivatives could be characterized as being nonitol-based. Claim 10 depends upon, and therefore includes Claim 9. Claim 9 requires that the clarifying agent is either nonitol-based or trisamide-based. The three sorbitol derivatives recited in Claim 10 appear to be outside the scope of Claim 9. Claim 10 does not contain all of the limitations of Claim 9 from which it depends. Claim 11 is not rejected as it recites only the nonitol-based clarifying agent.
Claim 22 recites a method for making the article of manufacture of Claim 21 including many molding, forming and extrusion methods. Claim 21 already recites that the article is formed by injection molding. The other options recited in Claim 22 are outside of the scope of Claim 21. Claim 22 does not include all of the limitations of Claim 21 upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-11, 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SUN (WO-2011159552-A1).
The SUN (WO-2011159552-A1) reference is in the IDS dated 17 January 2024
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 of nonitol-based modifier ([0032]) which calculates to 0.0005-0.45 wt% of the nonitol additive leaving the remaining polymer in amounts of 99.55-99.9995wt% which satisfies the requirement of the metallocene-catalyzed polypropylene being present in amounts of at least 95 wt%. 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]). The 80 mil thickness is interpreted as being equivalent to the recited 50 mil thickness for this qualitative test.
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).
The SCHRADER (US-20130023755-A1) reference is in the IDS dated 17 January 2024
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. One would expect the same recited reduction in haze compared to Ziegler-Natta catalyzed polypropylene with the same clarifying agent. Also, SCHRADER provides 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 0.1wt%, 0.2wt%, and 0.4wt% amounts recited. SCHRADER does not do 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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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
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.
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 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