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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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. Claims 15 and 16 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 15 depends from claim 3, but only requires the limitations directed towards the definitions of the variables . As such, it fails to include all the limitations of the claim 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 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. Claim s 1- 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO 2019013595) . Note: US 2020/0190238 is being used as an English language equivalent for WO 2019013595. Considering Claim s 1 , 2 , and 11-14 : Lee et al. teaches a polyethylene copolymer (¶0021) that is preferably polyethylene-co-1-hexene (Examples) having a density of 0.940-0.943, a melt index (I2.16) of 0.20 to 0.33 and a ratio of the melt index (I21.6) to melt index (I2.16) of 44.8 to 66.2 (Table 2). Lee et al. teaches the polyolefin as being prepared with a hybrid supported metallocene catalyst (¶0038) in the presence of an aluminum co-catalyst (¶0060). Lee et al. teaches that the second metallocene catalyst of the hybrid catalyst increases the melt tension of the polymer by increasing the amount of high molecular weight material and distributing the co-monomer in the high molecular weight chains (¶0054). The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. Lee et al. teaches the claimed structural features, i.e. the density and melt index properties, and teaches that the polymer would have excellent melt tension properties. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the melt tension and maximum velocity at the break, would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not 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. 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 enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation. Considering Claims 3-10 : Lee et al. does not teach the claimed catalyst structures. However, the instant claims are a product by process claim. "[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) . See MPEP § 2113. As Lee et al. teaches the same structural features as claimed, it would meet the instant claims despite the difference in catalyst used. 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. Claim s 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2019013595) in view of Park et al. (WO 2020204480) . Note: US 2020/0190238 is being used as an English language equivalent for WO 2019013595 and US 2022/0169757 is being used as an English language equivalent for WO 2020204480). Considering Claims 15 and 16 : Lee et al. teaches a polyethylene copolymer (¶0021) that is preferably polyethylene-co-1-hexene (Examples) having a density of 0.940-0.943, a melt index (I2.16) of 0.20 to 0.33 and a ratio of the melt index (I21.6) to melt index (I2.16) of 44.8 to 66.2 (Table 2). Lee et al. teaches the polyolefin as being prepared with a hybrid supported metallocene catalyst (¶0038) in the presence of an aluminum co-catalyst (¶0060). Lee et al. teaches that the second metallocene catalyst of the hybrid catalyst increases the melt tension of the polymer by increasing the amount of high molecular weight material and distributing the co-monomer in the high molecular weight chains (¶0054). The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. Lee et al. teaches the claimed structural features, i.e. the density and melt index properties, and teaches that the polymer would have excellent melt tension properties. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the melt tension and maximum velocity at the break, would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not 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. 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 enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation. Lee et al. does not teach the specific catalyst of claim 15. However, Park et al. teaches a hybrid catalyst comprising a three part mixture having compounds of the formula (which reads on Chemical Formula 1), the formula (which reads on Chemical Formula 2), and the formula (which reads on Chemical Formula 3) (¶0043-47). Lee et al. and Park et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely metaollocene catalysts for polyethylene production. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the catalyst of Park et al. for the catalyst of Lee et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Park et al. suggests, to maintain the mechanical strength while improving the processabiltiy (¶0007-08; 0124). Claims 3 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2019013595) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (WO 2020204480) . Note: US 2020/0190238 is being used as an English language equivalent for WO 2019013595 and US 2022/0169757 is being used as an English language equivalent for WO 2020204480). Considering Claim s 3 and 7 : Lee et al. teaches the polymer of claim 1 as shown above. Lee et al. does not teach the specific catalyst of claim 15. However, Park et al. teaches a hybrid catalyst comprising a three part mixture having compounds of the formula (which reads on Chemical Formula 1), the formula (which reads on Chemical Formula 2), and the formula (which reads on Chemical Formula 3) (¶0043-47). Park et al. teaches the ratio of the first and second compounds as being 1:1 to 5:1 in the example (Table 1). Lee et al. and Park et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely metaollocene catalysts for polyethylene production. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the catalyst of Park et al. for the catalyst of Lee et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Park et al. suggests, to maintain the mechanical strength while improving the processabiltiy (¶0007-08; 0124). Considering Claim 8 : Lee et al. teaches a cocatalyst of the formula or (¶0060-63). Considering Claims 9 and 10 : Lee et al. teaches the catalyst as comprising a carrier that is silica or alumina (¶0071-73). Considering Claim 11 : Lee et al. teaches the ratio of the catalyst to the carrier as being 1:1 to 1:1,000 and the ratio of cocatlyst and carrier as being 1:100 to 100:1 (¶0067-68). Lee et al. teaches the amount of carrier and the catalysts as controlling the activity and cost of the catalyst (¶0067), and thus would consider the ratios to be a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the ratio of the catalyst and the co-catalyst with the carrier, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Lee et al. suggests, to control the activity and the cost of the catalyst system. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3297 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:30-5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mark Eashoo can be reached at 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. /LIAM J HEINCER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767