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. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not a concise explanation of the invention, but repeats claim language.. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Objections Claims 1, are objected to because of the following informalities: The limitations “ HIPS ” ; “ PP ” ; “ POE ” should be spelled out. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims should be amended as follow: charact e rized in that . Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation : 230°C and the claim also recites 180°C which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 8 recites the limitation " FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT the above dosage " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. All the claims dependent of claim 8 are also rejected. 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 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-3, and 6-14 of U.S. Patent No. 1237560 B2 . (‘560 herein) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application independent claims and incorporated by the dependent claims are recited in the patent ‘560. Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference application." \d "[ 3 ]" 18/273,268 ('268 herein ). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claims and incorporated by the dependent claims are recited in the patent ‘560. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. González Montiel (US 11046801 B2) Grafted Polymers teaches A process is provided for grafting CRP synthesized polymers to dienes and polyolefins in the presence of a CRP controlling agent. Chain scission is minimal. Graft yield can be high and is proportional to the amount of CRP controlling agent added. The grafting process can be carried out either in a molten phase, preferably by reactive extrusion, or in a solvent-based process. The process provides novel families of grafted polyolefins and dienes, which show promising applications as new materials and as additives in the polymer industry , Kinoshita et al. (US 2002/0037965 A1) High Impact Thermoplastic Resin Composition teaches A high-impact thermoplastic resin composition comprising (A) 5 to 95 parts by weight of a thermoplastic elastomer comprising a partially or completely crosslinked saturated rubber-like polymer and a polyolefinic resin and/or a polystyrene-based resin, or a mixture of said thermoplastic elastomer and a polyolefinic resin; and (B) 95 to 5 parts by weight of at least one thermoplastic resin selected from the group consisting of polystyrene-based resins, polyamide-based resins, polyurethane-based resins, polycarbonate-based resins, polyphenylene ether-based resins, polyester-based resins, acrylic resins, polyacetal-based resins and polyphenylene sulfide-based resins, the total of the components (A) and (B) being 100 parts by weight, wherein the amount of the saturated rubber-like polymer in the composition is 1 to 40% by weight , and Wang et al. (US 2002/0128382 A1) Modified Biodegradable Compositions And A Reactive-extrusion Process To Make The Same teaches The present invention is a hydrolytically modified, biodegradable polymer and a method of making a hydrolytically modifiable a biodegradable polymer. In a preferred embodiment, the invention is a method of grafting polar groups onto biodegradable polymers and modified biodegradable polymer compositions produced by the method. The polymer compositions are useful as components in flushable and degradable articles. Water-sensitive polymer blends and method of making those polymer blends are also disclosed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SILVANA C RUNYAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5415 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:30-4:30 . 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 Doug Hutton can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-4137 . 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. /SILVANA C RUNYAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 02/20/2026