DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action follows a reply filed on 04/07/2026. Per the reply, claims 1, 3, 9, and 15-16 have been amended, and claims 4-6 cancelled. No new claims have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-3 and 7-17 remain pending and under examination herein.
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 .
Withdrawn Objection(s)/Rejection(s)
The outstanding provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection has been obviated by the proper terminal disclaimer filed with the aforementioned reply,
The outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/103 over Jensen has been obviated by the amendments to claims 1 and 15, and Applicant’s related arguments, see pages 14-15, filed 04/07/2026.
The outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) over WO ‘252 or WO ‘233 has been withdrawn in view of the proper Common Ownership Statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) submitted with the aforementioned reply, see page 11, filed 04/07/2026.
Further, the Applicant’s reply has addressed all outstanding formality issues by way of appropriate amendments to claims 1 and 9.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 7-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al (US 2022/0017665 A1) ('Park') as evidenced by IP.com: "Exceed™ XP Performance Polyethylene in Soft
Hand Wrap for Low Stretch Force, Low NDR and High Puncture Resistance ED - Darl Kuhn" (June 18,
2020; Cite No. 5 of 11/05/2024 IDS) ('IP.com') and Ruocco et al (US 2024/0400804 A1) (‘Ruocco’).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 12-14, Park in Comparative Example 5 (see ¶¶ [0161] and [0186]
(Table 3)) discloses an ethylene/1-hexene copolymer (per claims 12-14) produced in a gas phase
process, and which is sold under the tradename Exxon XP8318™. IP.com provides evidence that this
product was publicly available before the priority date (12/08/2020) of the present application
(publication date: 06/18/2020). Park reports in Table 3 for comparative example 5 (i.e., Exxon XP8318™)
that the ethylene/1-hexene copolymer has a density of 0.918 g/cm³ (per claim 1); a melting point of
122.1°C; and a crystallization temperature of 107.4°C. This ethylene/1-hexene copolymer therefore
fulfills the requirements of satisfying Equations 1a/1b and 2a/2b of present claims 1 and 2 as shown
below:
[Equation 1a]
224.02 X 0.918 - 86.257 = 119.4, which is < Tm (= 122.1)
[Equation 1b]
Tm (= 122.1) < 224.02 X 0.918 - 82.257 (=123.4)
[Equation 2a]
219.64 X 0.918 - 95.767 = 105.9, which is < Tc (=107.4)
[Equation 2b]
Tc (= 107.4) < 219.64 X 0.918 - 91.767 (= 109.9).
In addition, Ruocco provides evidence that the polymer sold under the same tradename also has a Melt index I2.16 of 0.94, a Melt index I21.6 of 29.12 and a Melt Index Ratio, MIR, of 31 (see ¶¶ [0161] and [0171] (Table 1), Sample C-2 (Exceed XP8318)). The reported MIR expresses a ratio of I21.6/ I2.16 (29.12/0.94 = 30.9) in the same manner as the instant melt flow ratio (MFR) is calculated (cf., Spec., ¶ [0019]). Therefore, the copolymer of Comparative Example 5 of Park (i.e., Exxon XP8318™) is considered to intrinsically fulfill the added claim requirement for a MFR of 17 or more, as well as satisfying recited Equations 1a/2a and 1b/2b. Furthermore, since Ruocco is cited to show a universal fact, namely the MIR property of a commercially available material, the reference need not be available as prior art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention. See MPEP § 2124.
Regarding Claims 3 and 7-11, it is acknowledged that Park does not describe the process/hybrid catalyst features of these claims; however, there is no record evidence establishing that the recited process parameters necessarily yield a different product vis-à-vis Park's ethylene/1-hexene copolymer as discussed above. Accordingly, any difference in the claimed olefinic polymer preparation has not been shown to be of patentable significance such that the resulting product differs substantially from that obtained by the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/07/2026 with respect to Park have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that since the copolymer of Comparative Example 5 of Park corresponds to the polymers of Comparative Examples 1-2 of the subject application, it can be reasonably concluded that the copolymer of Comparative Example 5 of Park will have the same MI21.6 with the MI21.6 of the
polymers of Comparative Examples 1-2 of the subject application; and MFR of the copolymer of
Comparative Example 5 of Park will be less than 17 as in the case of the polymers of Comparative Examples 1-2 of the subject application (Reply at 19).
However, the Office finds this inferential conclusion to be effectively rebutted by the evidence presented in Ruocco showing the XP8318 polymer to have a MIR (calculated in the same manner as instant MFR) significantly higher than the polymers of Comparative Examples 1 (MFR = 16.3) and 2 (MFR = 16.4) herein, and well within the claimed range for MFR (viz., 31). In light of this evidence, the copolymer of Comparative Example 5 of Park is considered to implicitly possess the requisite MFR value as claimed. Accordingly, the continued rejection is still deemed tenable and therefore must be maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 are allowed.
The closest prior art to Jensen et al, WO ‘252 and WO ‘233, discussed in the previous Office action, do not describe the process inventions of present claims 15-17, or provide proper rationale for modifying any of their respective inventions into the invention of any of said claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner F. M. Teskin whose telephone number is (571) 272-1116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571) 270-7733. The appropriate fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/FRED M TESKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/FMTeskin/06-16-26
Prosecution Insights