DETAILED 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on September 26, 2023; April 12, 2024; October 21, 2024; December 4, 2024; April 21, 2025; May 28, 2025; September 9, 2025; February 18, 2026 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Office.
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 6, 14, and 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.
Claims 6, 14, and 15 contains the trademark/trade name CRYSTEX QC. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a commercially available instrument that performs an automated process (see attached Polymer Char - CRYSTEX® QC product page) and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockreiter et al. (US 20100317791, hereinafter referred to as “Stockreiter”) in view of Boragno et al. (US 20160060371, hereinafter referred to as “Boragno”).
As to Claim 1: Stockreiter teaches a glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composition comprising from less than 80 wt% to 60 wt% of a heterophasic polypropylene ([0011]) wherein said heterophasic polypropylene comprises a matrix phase ([0012]) which may be a propylene homopolymer ([0015]) having less than 1 wt% comonomer content ([0019]). Stockreiter further teaches that said heterophasic polypropylene may comprise a phase dispersed within the matrix phase that is an elastomeric rubber phase ([0018]) which may be an ethylene copolymer ([0019]). Stockreiter further teaches that the composition may comprise glass fibers in an amount of 15 to 50 wt% ([0008]). Stockreiter teaches that the melt flow rate for the overall composition may be 1 to 7.5 g/10 min ([0065]) when measured according to ISO 1133 ([0066]), which is within the claimed range.
Stockreiter is silent towards the amount of 1,2 erythron regio-defects within the matrix homo/copolymer.
Boragno teaches a propylene copolymer composition with high impact properties wherein said propylene copolymer may exhibit regio-defects including 1,2-erythro regio-defects in an amount of 0.4 to 0.7 mol% ([0038]-[0040]). Boragno further teaches that controlling the presence of such regio-defects may be leveraged to tune physical properties of the polypropylene composition (e.g., crystallinity and melting point) ([0038]). Stockreiter and Boragno are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, polypropylene compositions intended to exhibit good impact properties. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polypropylene having an amount of 1,2-erythro regio-defects within the claimed range for a propylene copolymer as an alternative to the matrix polypropylene taught by Stockreiter based on the disclosure of Boragno that such a microstructural architecture is known to tune the crystallinity and resulting crystallinity-linked properties of polypropylene copolymers. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so based on the teaching of Boragno that such microstructural features are known within the art to improve polypropylene compositions by allowing for high impact performance without sacrificing properties traditionally associated with increased impact performance ([0002], [0006]-[0007]).
As to Claim 2: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Stockreiter teaches a glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composition comprising from less than 80 wt% to 60 wt% of a heterophasic polypropylene ([0011]). Stockreiter further teaches that the composition may comprise glass fibers in an amount of 15 to 50 wt% ([0008]).
As to Claim 3: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Stockreiter teaches a glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composition comprising from less than 80 wt% to 60 wt% of a heterophasic polypropylene ([0011]). Stockreiter further teaches that said heterophasic polypropylene may comprise a phase dispersed within the matrix phase that is an elastomeric rubber phase ([0018]) which may be an ethylene copolymer ([0019]) wherein said dispersed phase may be present in an amount of 15 to 40 wt% ([0012]).
As to Claim 4: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Stockreiter further teaches that said heterophasic polypropylene may comprise a phase dispersed within the matrix phase that is an elastomeric rubber phase ([0018]) which may be an ethylene copolymer ([0019]) comprising ethylene in an amount of 30 to 60 wt% ([0028]).
As to Claim 7: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Stockreiter further teaches that the fibers may have a length of 3 to 10 mm ([0008]) and a diameter of about 10 to 15 µm ([0009]).
As to Claim 8: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Stockreiter is silent towards the claimed adhesion promoter. However, the instant claim 1 does not require an adhesion promoter and the instant claim 8 does not narrow claim 1 to select or require the presence of an adhesion promoter. Accordingly, the disclosure of Stockreiter read on the alternative limitation of claim 1 wherein an adhesion promoter is not included (i.e., optional).
As to Claim 9: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Stockreiter teaches a glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composition comprising a heterophasic polypropylene ([0011]) wherein said heterophasic polypropylene comprises a matrix phase ([0012]) which may be a propylene homopolymer ([0015]). Stockreiter further teaches that said heterophasic polypropylene may comprise a phase dispersed within the matrix phase that is a dispersed phase which may be an elastomeric copolymer of propylene and ethylene ([0028]).
As to Claim 12: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Stockreiter further teaches wherein the overall melt flow rate MFR2 of the heterophasic composition may be from 5 to 25 g/10 min when measured according to ISO 1133 ([0025]), which overlaps with the claimed range. This range overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Stockreiter suggests, that the overlapping portion is a usable range for the melt flow rate of a fiber-reinforced heterophasic polypropylene composition such that it may be further processed into articles through conventional methods, such as injection molding ([0059]).
As to Claim 13: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 9 (supra).
Stockreiter further teaches that the heterophasic propylene composition has a xylene soluble content of 7 to 30 wt% ([0039]), which is within the claimed range. Stockreiter further teaches that the xylene soluble content is determined at 25 ˚C ([0071]), and therefore is construed to meet the claimed “xylene cold soluble” content, which is measured at 25 ˚C according to the instant specification pg. 45, ln. 4-6.
As to Claim 15: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Stockreiter is silent towards the soluble fraction determined according to “CRYSTEX QC.” However, Stockreiter does measure a soluble fraction of the overall heterophasic propylene composition. Stockreiter teaches that the heterophasic propylene composition has a xylene soluble content of 7 to 30 wt% ([0039]), which is within the claimed range. Stockreiter further contemplates that the xylene soluble fraction may be adjusted by measures known to the skilled person in the art depending on the desired end-use application ([0039]). The attached evidentiary reference1 provides evidence that the CRYSTEX QC method uses a commercially available instrument that performs an automated process as an alternative to determine a soluble fraction analogous to that derived from xylene. Accordingly, the soluble fraction measured by Stockreiter is reasonably construed to correspond to the claimed range.
As to Claim 17: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Stockreiter teaches various exemplary compositions having a tensile modulus within the claimed range (e.g., Example 1 [0079]). However, it is noted that Stockreiter alone does not teach an exemplary embodiment having all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Stockreiter as modified by Boragno teaches all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amount. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. tensile modulus, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
As to Claim 18: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Stockreiter is silent towards the elongation at break of the composition.
The Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, Stockreiter as modified by Boragno teaches all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amount. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. elongation at break, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
As to Claim 20: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Stockreiter does not teach wherein the polypropylene is obtained in the presence of a solid catalyst system comprising a metallocene complex having the claimed formula (I).
Boragno teaches a propylene copolymer composition with high impact properties wherein said propylene copolymer may exhibit regio-defects including 1,2-erythro regio-defects in an amount of 0.4 to 0.7 mol% ([0038]-[0040]). Boragno further teaches that controlling the presence of such regio-defects may be leveraged to tune physical properties of the polypropylene composition (e.g., crystallinity and melting point) ([0038]). Boragno further teaches that the propylene copolymer may be synthesized in the presence of a solid metallocene catalyst system ([0104]) comprising a transition metal compound having the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
876
493
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein M may be Zr and wherein constituents R7 may be different and selected from a group comprising OR10, hydrogen, linear unsaturated C1 to C20 alkyl ([0120]-[0131]), thus reading on the claimed —OR3 and R6 substitution pattern. Boragno further teaches identities for substituents L and R1 through R9 that substantially overlap with the claimed substituents L and R1 through R7 ([0120]-[0131]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a solid metallocene catalyst system, such as that contemplated by Boragno, as an alternative to the Ziegler-Natta catalyst system contemplated by Stockretier to synthesize a propylene copolymer composition based on the finding that Boragno teaches that solid metallocene catalyst systems having the claimed structure are known within the art as suitable for synthesizing the same polymers as that of Ziegler-Natta catalyst system of Stockreiter while offering microstructural control over insertion of comonomers ([0038] and [0007]), allowing for tuning of crystallinity-linked physical properties (e.g., melting point). Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so based on the teaching of Boragno that such microstructural features improve polypropylene compositions by allowing for high impact performance without comprising other properties of the composition ([0006]-[0007]).
Claims 5, 6, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockreiter et al. (US 20100317791, hereinafter referred to as “Stockreiter”) in view of Boragno et al. (US 20160060371, hereinafter referred to as “Boragno”) and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20170145199, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”).
As to Claim 5: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (see above).
Stockreiter is silent towards the melting temperature of the overall heterophasic polypropylene composition.
Wang teaches a related heterophasic propylene composition having a multiphase structure based on an elastomeric propylene copolymer dispersed within a polypropylene matrix ([0046] and [0051]). Wang further teaches that the heterophasic composition may have a melting temperature within the range of 139 to 150 ˚C ([0049], determined via DSC, [0265]), which is within the claimed range. Stockreiter and Wang are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, heterophasic polypropylene compositions. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a heterophasic polypropylene composition having a melting temperature within the claimed range, such that taught by Wang, and the motivation would have been that Wang teaches that such a range is known within the art to provide thermomechanical stability to the polymer ([0049]).
As to Claim 6: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Stockreiter is silent towards the intrinsic viscosity of the overall heterophasic polypropylene composition measured according to ISO 1628/1 (at 135 ˚C in decalin) of the soluble fraction determined according to CRYSTEX QC.
Wang teaches a related heterophasic propylene composition having a multiphase structure based on an elastomeric propylene copolymer dispersed within a polypropylene matrix ([0046] and [0051]). Wang further teaches that the xylene cold soluble fraction of the heterophasic propylene copolymer may have an intrinsic viscosity of 1.5 to 2.0 dl/g ([0083]), which overlaps with the claimed range, and wherein the measurement is in accordance with ISO 1628/1 at 135 ˚C in decalin ([0083]). In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a heterophasic polypropylene composition having a xylene cold soluble fraction having an intrinsic viscosity within the claimed range within the overlapping portion of the claimed range for the composition of Stockreiter based on the finding that Wang teaches that such a range is recognized within the art as usable ranges the same for heterophasic propylene compositions having desirable mechanical properties such as stiffness and impact properties ([0002] and [0003]). The attached evidentiary reference2 provides evidence that the CRYSTEX QC method uses a commercially available instrument that performs an automated process as an alternative to determine a soluble fraction analogous to that derived from xylene. Accordingly, the soluble fraction measured by Wang is reasonably construed to correspond to the claimed range.
As to Claim 10: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 9 (see above).
Stockreiter is silent towards the melting temperature of the overall heterophasic polypropylene composition.
Wang teaches a related heterophasic propylene composition having a multiphase structure based on an elastomeric propylene copolymer dispersed within a polypropylene matrix ([0046] and [0051]). Wang further teaches that the heterophasic composition may have a melting temperature within the range of 139 to 150 ˚C ([0049], determined via DSC [0265]), which substantially overlaps with the claimed range. Stockreiter and Wang are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, heterophasic polypropylene compositions. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a heterophasic polypropylene composition having a melting temperature within the claimed range, such that taught by Wang, and the motivation would have been that Wang teaches that such a range is known within the art to provide thermomechanical stability to the polymer ([0049]).
As to Claim 14: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 9 (see above).
Stockreiter is silent towards the xylene cold soluble content of the overall heterophasic polypropylene composition and the ethylene content of a soluble fraction.
Wang teaches a related heterophasic propylene composition having a multiphase structure based on an elastomeric propylene copolymer dispersed within a polypropylene matrix ([0046] and [0051]). Wang further teaches that the xylene cold soluble fraction of the overall composition may be 10 to 40 wt% ([0005]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Wang further teaches that the ethylene content based on the weight of the xylene cold soluble fraction is in the range of 30 to 90 wt% ([0023]), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a heterophasic polypropylene composition having a xylene cold soluble content and ethylene content of a soluble fraction within the overlapping portion of the claimed range for the composition of Stockreiter based on the finding that Wang teaches that such ranges are recognized within the art as usable ranges the same for heterophasic propylene compositions having desirable mechanical properties such as stiffness and impact properties ([0002] and [0003]). The attached evidentiary reference3 provides evidence that the CRYSTEX QC method uses a commercially available instrument that performs an automated process as an alternative to determine a soluble fraction analogous to that derived from xylene. Accordingly, the soluble fraction measured by Wang is reasonably construed to correspond to the claimed range.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockreiter et al. (US 20100317791, hereinafter referred to as “Stockreiter”) in view of Boragno et al. (US 20160060371, hereinafter referred to as “Boragno”) and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20170066912, hereinafter referred to as “’912”).
As to Claim 11: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 9 (see above).
Stockreiter does not teach a copolymer content of the overall heterophasic polypropylene composition in mol%.
‘912 teaches a related heterophasic propylene copolymer comprising a propylene copolymer matrix and an elastomeric propylene copolymer dispersed therein ([0010]). ‘912 further teaches that the heterophasic propylene copolymer composition has a comonomer content of 1.5 to 14 mol% ([0042]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Stockreiter and ‘912 are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, heterophasic polypropylene compositions and articles formed thereof. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range taught by ‘912 for the comonomer content of Stockreiter, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as ‘912 suggests, that the overlapping portion is a usable range for a comonomer content in mol% for an overall heterophasic polypropylene composition having material properties suitable for manufacturing consumer articles while also imparting “softness” to the resultant materials ([0042]). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art based on the disclosure of ‘912 would reasonably predict that lowering the amount of comonomer content of Stockreiter would (1) not render the composition of Stockreiter unsuitable for its intended use of forming articles from the heterophasic polypropylene compositions, and (2) modulating the comonomer content of heterophasic polypropylene compositions represents a routine design choice that would predictably modulate the stiffness/softness of resultant materials ([0042]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockreiter et al. (US 20100317791, hereinafter referred to as “Stockreiter”) in view of Boragno et al. (US 20160060371, hereinafter referred to as “Boragno”) and further in view of Grein et al. (EP1510547, hereinafter referred to as “Grein”).
As to Claim 19: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (see above).
Stockreiter teaches that the composition may further comprise additional polymeric components ([0061]), but does not explicitly teach wherein said additional polymeric component is low density polyethylene (LDPE) or the density thereof.
Grein teaches a related polypropylene composition having improved balance of impact strength and resistance to stress whitening comprising a heterophasic propylene copolymer composition further comprising an ethylene polymer having a density of less than or equal to 930 kg/m3 ([0010]) having a lower limit of 910 kg/m3 ([0016]), thus reading on the claimed low density polyethylene. Stockreiter and Grein are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, heterophasic polypropylene compositions and articles formed thereof. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include a low density polyethylene component, such as that taught by Grein, as the additional polymeric component contemplated by Stockreiter and the motivation would have been that Grein teaches that low density polyethylene is recognized within the art as suitable for blending with heterophasic compositions and is known to improve the balance between impact strength and stress whitening resistance of compositions comprising the same ([0038]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockreiter et al. (US 20100317791, hereinafter referred to as “Stockreiter”) in view of Boragno et al. (US 20160060371, hereinafter referred to as “Boragno”).
As to Claim 21: Stockreiter teaches a glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composition suitable for forming articles (e.g., molded articles such as automotive parts) ([0059]) comprising from less than 80 wt% to 60 wt% of a heterophasic polypropylene ([0011]) wherein said heterophasic polypropylene comprises a matrix phase ([0012]) which may be a propylene homopolymer ([0015]) having less than 1 wt% comonomer content ([0019]). Stockreiter further teaches that said heterophasic polypropylene may comprise a phase dispersed within the matrix phase that is an elastomeric rubber phase ([0018]) which may be an ethylene copolymer ([0019]). Stockreiter further teaches that the composition may comprise glass fibers in an amount of 15 to 50 wt% ([0008]). Stockreiter teaches that the melt flow rate for the overall composition may be 1 to 7.5 g/10 min ([0065]) when measured according to ISO 1133 ([0066]), which is within the claimed range.
Stockreiter is silent towards the amount of 1,2 erythron regio-defects within the matrix homo/copolymer.
Boragno teaches a propylene copolymer composition with high impact properties wherein said propylene copolymer may exhibit regio-defects including 1,2-erythro regio-defects in an amount of 0.4 to 0.7 mol% ([0038]-[0040]). Boragno further teaches that controlling the presence of such regio-defects may be leveraged to tune physical properties of the polypropylene composition (e.g., crystallinity and melting point) ([0038]). Stockreiter and Boragno are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, polypropylene compositions intended to exhibit good impact properties. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polypropylene having an amount of 1,2-erythro regio-defects within the claimed range for a propylene copolymer as an alternative to the matrix polypropylene taught by Stockreiter based on the disclosure of Boragno that such a microstructural architecture is known to tune the crystallinity and resulting crystallinity-linked properties of polypropylene copolymers. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so based on the teaching of Boragno that such microstructural features improve polypropylene compositions by allowing for high impact performance without comprising other properties of the composition ([0006]-[0007]).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CULLEN L. G. DAVIDSON IV whose telephone number is (703)756-1073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571) 272-1197. 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.
/C.L.G.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
1 Polymer Char - CRYSTEX® QC product page
2 Polymer Char - CRYSTEX® QC product page
3 Polymer Char - CRYSTEX® QC product page