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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4-10, and 12-15 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, each of the aforementioned claims recites a range in association with a property limitation or a small genus of compounds followed by an even smaller range or sub genus, marked with the word “preferably”. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rajakumaran et al., WO 2016/200335.
Applicant is directed to the entries entitled “Comparative Examples 1 to 4” in Table 2, page 15 where EUL731-M is defined, and Table 1 where the makeup and some of the properties of PP3, PP6, and PP10 are summarized. Each of said comparative examples contains a propylene copolymer with a corresponding amount of ethylene content and a melt flow rate consistent with that attached to the claimed random propylene copolymer in claims 1 and 10. EUL731-M is, according to page 15, an ethylene-butene elastomer with a melt flow rate of 10g/10 min and a density of 0.895 g/cm3 (which converts to 895 kg/m3) satisfying this aspect of both claims 1 and 6. In each of these trials, the relative quantities of propylene copolymer and ethylene-based elastomer are within the limits of claims 1-3.
As for claims 4 and 5, while the compositions of the prior art are not characterized in terms of their overall melt flow rate and flexural modulus, it is the position of the Office that, given the strong parallels in the makeup of the claimed- and prior art compositions, including even similar quantities of a nucleating agent (claim 11), antioxidant, and neutralizing agent, the latter will inherently be in possession of these properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 13-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The Examiner searched the internet and STN for additional property information for EUL 731M but was unable to find any. Hence, while it is possible that this commercial compound is in possession of the attributes stipulated in claims 13-15, the Examiner simply could not verify. (An attempt was made to ascertain the importance of molecular weight distribution of plastomers in similar systems also used to make syringe barrels and, while CA 2254357 contemplated its plastomer having a polydispersity within the same exact range, there was no indication as to why this range had been chosen. Concerning claims 8 and 9, none of the embodiments of a propylene copolymer employed in Comparative Examples 1 to 4, also exhibited XCS content consistent with that claimed. Indeed, the XCS content was uniformly lower in each instance. As for claim 7, while it is appreciated that the page 9 of the reference contemplates a range of melt flow rate values for the elastomer component that overlaps the range of this claim, it must be emphasized that the Examiner relied on comparative embodiments of the reference to formulate the rejection and, thus, there would be nothing motivating the further modification of these experiments.
WO 2017/076412 is of interest for its description in Examples 1 and 3 of a polymer blend comprising a propylene copolymer with less than 5 wt.% ethylene content and a plastomer that
conforms with the melt index- and density limitations attached to that of the claims. However, the prescribed melt index of the propylene copolymer is too low. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0385556 teaches a mixture comprising a propylene terpolymer and a plastomer having compliant melt index and density. A favored embodiment of the propylene terpolymer contains 1.6 wt.% ethylene (Table 2) and an overlapping flow rate range, 0.5-20 g/10 min under the same conditions of measurement, is attached to this component. However, the compositions of this disclosure differ in that the weight contribution of the plastomer component is significantly higher than that claimed. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0224017, like WO ‘412, describes a olefin polymer composition that parallels that which is claimed in several respects but the melt flow index of the polypropylene copolymer is, once again, lower than that claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC S ZIMMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1096. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
February 6, 2026
/MARC S ZIMMER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765