CTNF 18/263,409 CTNF 97503 DETAILED ACTION Summary This is a non-final office action for application 18/263,409. The response to the restriction/election requirement dated 28 May 2026 is acknowledged. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 28 May 2026 is acknowledged. 08-06 AIA Claim s 6-15 , withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 28 May 2026 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITED (WO-2019118461-A1) . The WHITED (WO-2019118461-A1) reference is included in the IDS dated 28 July 2023. Regarding Claim 1 , WHITED teaches a polyethylene composition with a high molecular weight component and a low molecular weight component (Abstract). WHITED teaches that this its composition is bimodal ([0037]). WHITED teaches that its high molecular weight component has a density of 0.924-0.930 g/cc and an I21 of 0.3-0.9 g/10 min (Abstract) which each overlap with the recited ranges of 0.917-0.929 g/cc and 0.85-4.00 g/10 min. WHITED teaches that its overall composition has a density of 0.950-0.956 g/cc (Abstract; Claim 1) which is within the recited range of 0.933-0.960 g/cc, and an I21/I2 (MFR21) of at least 85 (Abstract) which satisfies the recited requirement of at least 70.0. WHITED generally teaches an I21 of 15-28 g/10 min (Abstract) which when coupled with requirement that I21/I2 of at least 85 (Abstract) corresponds to an upper bound of I2 which is 28/85 ≈ 0.33. A range with an upper bound of 0.33 overlaps the recited range of 0.3-0.9 g/10min. WHITED teaches that its polyethylene contains 45-60 wt% of its high molecular weight component ([0074]) which is within the recited range. WHITED teaches in Example 5 (Table 2) a bimodal composition with 55.5% HMW, overall-density=0.9520 g/cc, overall-MFR21=86 and HMW-I21 =0.9 g/10min which are all within the recited range, an overall-I2 of 24.2/86 which, when considering the amount of recited significant digits, rounds to 0.3 which satisfies the claim. This example has a HMW-density of 0.9295 g/cc which is just outside the recited range, but it would be obvious of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the current invention to modify the examples of WHITED and create a bimodal composition which a HMW density property that is within the 0.924-0.930 g/cc range taught it its specification that is also within the range recited by the claim. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). For more discussion see MPEP 2144.05-I. Regarding Claim 4 , modified WHITED teaches the invention of Claim 1. WHITED teaches that its overall composition has a density of 0.950-0.956 g/cc (Abstract; Claim 1) which is within the 0.945-0.960 g/cm3 range recited by the claim. WHITED is silent on short chain branching, but WHITED teaches bimodal compositions which have high molecular weight regions that are very similar to those in the instant invention. WHITED teaches a two-reactor process using the same catalyst, co-catalyst, and temperatures (Table 1B) as the one disclosed in the instant specification (cur spec: Table 1). Note that the split value in the (Table 1B) matches the wt% HMW values in Table 2, so it is presumed that the HMW component is formed in the first reactor. In Example 5 used in the Claim 1 rejection, WHITED teaches very similar values for the first reactor (Table 1B) as those disclosed for the first reactor in BP-2 of the instant specification (cur spec: Table 1) for pressure (2.40 vs 2.392), C2 partial pressure (0.25 vs 0.227), H2/C2 ratio (0.045 vs 0.041), C6/C2 molar ratio (0.0670 vs 0.070), IC5% (11.83 vs 12.0). The instant specification discloses that its BP-2 has a high molecular weight SCBD of 5.1 branches/1000 carbons which is well over the 3.0 branches per 1000 carbons that is recited by the claim. Since WHITED teaches a very similar first reactor for forming its HMW component as that disclosed in the instant specification, one would inherently expect it to have the HMW-component SCBD of greater than equal to 3.0 average number of branches per 1000 carbons and satisfy the claim . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JAKER (US-20060281867-A1) . Regarding Claim 1, JAKER teaches a bimodal polyethylene composition (Abstract) that has a high molecular weight component and a low molecular weight component (Abstract) and has a density of 0.94 g/cc and above (Abstract) which overlaps the recited range of 0.933-0.960 g/cc. JAKER teaches examples which have a density of 0.948-0.957 which are all within the recited range. JAKER teaches the same ASTM-1238 at 190°C measurements for MFR, I2 and I21 ([0038]) as is recited by the claim. JAKER generally teaches that its melt index (I2) for its blended composition is from 0.05-1.2 g/10 min ([0045]) preferably 0.07-1.0 g/10 min ([0045]) which encompasses the recited requirement of 0.3-0.9 dg/min. JAKER teaches several examples (Examples 4-5,7-8, 12) which a blended-composition I2 within the recited range (Table 1). JAKER teaches a blended composition melt flow ratio (MFR) of 50-150, preferably 67-119 ([0040]) which largely overlaps the requirement that the MFR is greater than 70. JAKER teaches several examples (1-6,9-12) with a blend MFR of over 70. JAKER generally teaches that its bimodal polyethylene contains 35-60 wt% of the high-molecular-weight component HMWC ([0033]). JAKER teaches many examples (Examples 1-12) within the 40-60 wt% HMWC range (Table 1). JAKER generally teaches that its high-molecular-weight component (HMWC) has a density from 0.920-0.945 g/cc ([0035]) that overlaps the recited range of 0.917-0.929 g/cc. JAKER does not exemplify a HMWC density within the recited range. In Example 12, JAKER exemplifies 50wt% HMWC with a blend density of 0.9539 g/cc, a blend MFR of 84, and a HMWC melt index (I21) of 1.1 dg/min, but does not exemplify a HMWC density within the recited range. 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 JAKER and use a HMWC with a density within the range taught by JAKER that is also within the range recited by the claim. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). For more discussion see MPEP 2144.05-I. Regarding Claim 2, modified JAKER teaches the invention of Claim 1. JAKER generally teaches that its composition has a flow index (I21) of 5-60 dg/min, preferably 5-40 dg/min ([0043]; [0038] for “FI” meaning I21). JAKER teaches examples with a blend I21 of above 35 dg/min (Examples 4, 7, 9). It would be obvious to further modify the examples of JAKER and form bimodal polyethylenes with a blend I21 that is within the range taught by JAKER that is also within the range recited by the claim . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 3 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, WHITED (WO-2019118461-A1), cited in the rejections above, teaches bimodal polyethylene compositions with high and low molecular weight components which have the recited high molecular weight content, melt index (I2), high load melt index (I21), melt flow ratio and high molecular weight density properties, but WHITED does not teach compositions which have an overall density of 0.933-0.945 g/cm3 as is recited by Claim 3. WHITED also teaches a shear thinning index of 30-50 which is outside the scope of Claim 5. JAKER (US-20060281867-A1), also cited in the rejections above, teaches bimodal polyethylene compositions with the recited high molecular weight content, melt index (I2), high load melt index (I21), melt flow ratio and high molecular weight density properties, but JAKER does not teach compositions which have an overall density within the 0.933-0.945 g/cm3 that is recited by Claim 3, teaches short chain branch content of less than about 2 branches per 1000 carbons which is outside the range recited by Claim 3 and does not teach the shear thinning index property which is required by Claim 5 . 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 Application/Control Number: 18/263,409 Page 2 Art Unit: 1764 Application/Control Number: 18/263,409 Page 3 Art Unit: 1764 Application/Control Number: 18/263,409 Page 4 Art Unit: 1764 Application/Control Number: 18/263,409 Page 5 Art Unit: 1764 Application/Control Number: 18/263,409 Page 6 Art Unit: 1764 Application/Control Number: 18/263,409 Page 7 Art Unit: 1764
Prosecution Insights