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 statement s (IDS) submitted on September 26, 2023; April 12, 2024; October 21, 2024; December 4, 2024; April 15 , 2025; May 28, 2025; September 9, 2025; February 18, 2026 w ere filed. The submission s are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement s are being considered by the Office. 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 . Claim s 1-11, 14-16, 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 8 0 wt % to 6 0 wt % of a heterophasic polypropylene ([0011]) wherein said heterophasic polypropylene comprises a matrix phase ([0012]) which may be a propylene copolymer ([0015]). 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] and [0061] ). 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 erythro regio-defects within the matrix 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 50 wt % to 7 0 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 20 to 80 wt % ([0028]). 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 an ethylene content of an elastomeric ethylene rubber phase within a heterophasic polypropylene composition having balanced impact and stiffness properties ([0006]) . As to Claim 5: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (supra). Stockreiter teaches a glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composition a heterophasic polypropylene ([0011]) wherein said heterophasic polypropylene comprises a matrix phase ([0012]) which may be a propylene copolymer ([0015]). Stockreiter further teaches wherein the propylene copolymer comprises up to 10 mol% of an ethylene comonomer ([0033]-[0034]). As to Claim 6 : Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (supra). Stockreiter teaches a glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composition a heterophasic polypropylene ([0011]) wherein said heterophasic polypropylene comprises a matrix phase ([0012]) which may be a propylene copolymer ([0015]). Stockreiter further teaches wherein the propylene copolymer comprises up to 10 mol% of an ethylene comonomer ([0033]-[0034]). 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 an ethylene content of a propylene copolymer matrix phase within a heterophasic polypropylene composition having balanced impact and stiffness properties ([0006]) . As to Claim 7: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (supra). Stockreiter further teaches wherein the composition may comprise an elastomeric ethylene copolymer that is an ethylene-1-octene copolymer ([0061]). As to Claim 8 : Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (supra). Stockreiter further teaches that the glass fibers may have a length of 3 to 10 mm ([0008]) and a diameter of about 10 to 15 µm ([0009]). As to Claim 9 : 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 10 : Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (supra). Stockreiter teaches a glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composition a heterophasic polypropylene ([0011]) wherein said heterophasic polypropylene comprises a matrix phase ([0012]) which may be a propylene copolymer ([0015]). Stockreiter further teaches wherein the propylene copolymer comprises up to 10 mol% of an ethylene comonomer ([0033]-[0034]). Stockreiter further teaches wherein the composition may comprise an elastomeric ethylene copolymer that is an ethylene-1-octene copolymer ([0061]) with a high ethylene content of up to 80 mol% ([0061]). These range s overlaps with the claimed range s . 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 an ethylene content of matrix and dispersed phases within a heterophasic polypropylene composition having balanced impact and stiffness properties ([0006]) . As to Claim 1 1 : Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (supra). Stockreiter further teaches wherein the matrix phase which may be a propylene copolymer may have a melt flow rate (ISO 1133) of from 0.5 to 100 g/10 min ([0024]). 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 matrix phase 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 1 4 : Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (supra). Stockreiter further teaches wherein the overall melt flow rate MFR 2 of the overall composition may be from 0.5 to 100 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 n overall 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 15: Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 9 (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 16: 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: wherein M may be Zr and wherein constituents R 7 may be different and selected from a group comprising OR 10 , hydrogen, linear unsaturated C1 to C20 alkyl ([0120]-[0131]) , thus reading on the claimed —OR 3 and R 6 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]). Claim 13 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 Zhu et al. (WO2015077902, hereinafter referred to as “Zhu”). As to Claim 1 3 : Stockreiter and Boragno teach the composition of claim 1 (see above). Stockreiter is silent towards the density of the elastomeric ethylene copolymer. Zhu teaches a related heterophasic polypropylene copolymer blend which may comprise at least a heterophasic propylene copolymer and an elastomeric ethylene copolymer (pg. 2, ln. 18-26). Zhu further teaches wherein the elastomeric ethylene copolymer preferably exhibits a density of 860 to 890 kg/m 3 (pg. 27, ln. 32-34), which Zhu contemplates is known in the art and commercially available (pg. 28, ln. 1-2). Stockreiter and Zhu 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 density within the claimed range for the elastomeric ethylene component of Stockreiter and the motivation would have been that Zhu teaches that elastomeric ethylene components having the claimed density are recognized within the art as suitable for use as a dispersed phase within polypropylene copolymer matrices (pg. 5, ln. 21-27 of Zhu) resulting in composite materials with improved/balanced impact properties, stiffness, and shrinkage properties (pg. 1, ln. 1-20). It has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination — see MPEP 2144.07 . Claim s 17-19 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 Grein et al. (EP1510547, hereinafter referred to as “ Grein ”). As to Claim s 1 7 and 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/m 3 ([0010]) having a lower limit of 910 kg/m 3 ([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]). As to Claim 18 : Stockreiter , Boragno , and Grein teach the composition of claim 1 7 (s upra ). 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/m 3 ([0010]) having a lower limit of 910 kg/m 3 ([0016]), thus reading on the claimed low density polyethylene. Grein teaches an exemplary embodiment comprising a polyethylene component having a density of 0.920 g/cm 3 and an MFR determined according to ISO 1133 ([0038]) of 0.25 g/10 min (Table 1, PE1), which is within the claimed range. 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 such a 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 copolymer ([0015]). 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] and [0061]). 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 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]). Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-4, 7-8, 11-12, and 17-21 of copending Application No. 18/260,623 (hereinafter “’623”) in view of Stockreiter et al . (US 20100317791, hereinafter referred to as “ Stockreiter ”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim a fiber reinforced composition comprising the same or substantially overlapping amount of a heterophasic polypropylene composition comprising: i) a matrix which may be a propylene copolymer having the same range of 1,2-erythro regio-defects, ii) an elastomeric ethylene copolymer being dispersed in said matrix, the same range for an amount of fibers, and the same melt flow rate range ( c laim s 1 -3 , 11, and 14 of instant application, claim 1 -3 of ‘623) . ‘623 claims wherein the elastomeric ethylene copolymer has an ethylene content in the range of 15.0 to 85.0 wt %, based on the overall weight of the elastomeric ethylene copolymer (claim 4 of ‘623), which embraces the instantly claimed range for the same (instant claim 4). Both applications claim wherein the fibers are glass fibers having the same range for average length and average diameter (claim 8 of instant application, claim 7 of ‘623). Both applications claim wherein the composition further comprises the same amount of a low density polyethylene (LDPE) (instant claim 17-19, ‘623 claim 19). Both applications claim wherein the propylene copolymer is obtained in the presence of a solid catalyst system comprising a metallocene complex having the same structure (claim 20 of instant application, claim 20 of ‘623). Both applications claim a n article comprising a fiber reinforced composition comprising the same amount of a heterophasic polypropylene composition comprising: i) a matrix which may be a propylene copolymer having the same range of 1,2-erythro regio-defects, ii) an elastomeric ethylene copolymer being dispersed in said matrix, the same range for an amount of fibers, and the same melt flow rate range (Claim 2 1 of instant application, claim 2 1 of ‘623). ‘623 does not expressly embrace or claim a specific species of propylene copolymer ( cPP ) (instant claims 5-6) or wherein the elastomeric ethylene copolymer is a copolymer of ethylene and 1-octene (claim 7 of instant application) . However, 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 or copolymer ([0015]). 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] and [0061]). Stockreiter further teaches wherein the composition may comprise an elastomeric ethylene copolymer that is an ethylene-1-octene copolymer ([0061]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that copolymers of ethylene and 1-octene are a known copolymer species suitable for use as a matrix phase within reinforced heterophasic polypropylene compositions based on either propylene copolymers or propylene homopolymers. It has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination — see MPEP 2144.07 . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejectio n. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT CULLEN L. G. DAVIDSON IV whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1073 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mark Eashoo can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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