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. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 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 1,2,4,5 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2003031188 as evidenced by the Medium Article . The reference exemplifies (#3) produc ing a laminate with one of the layers being an acid modified polypropylene adhesive having a melt index of 30g/10min and a melt strength ( ie melt tension) of 0.5 cN ( ie 5mN). The acid modified polypropylene qualifies as applicant’s propylene polymer modified with a polar compound. The density of the acid modified polypropylene is not reported. However, virtually all grades of polypropylene have a density within applicant’s 0.89-0.93g/cm 3 range (see page 5 of the Medium article). For this reason, applicant’s claimed density is assumed to be inherently present in the reference. Claim s 1-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2011021123 as evidenced by the Umex Bulletin and Medium article . The reference exemplifies (#9 of table 2) a lend of 95 parts A-1, 5 parts B-5 and 0.09 parts of C-1. A-1 is a propylene/ethylene block polymer (paragraph 51). B-5 is Umex1001(paragraph 54). Inherently, Umex1001 is a maleated polypropylene having a density of 0.91g/cm 3 (see page 6 of the Umex Bulletin). Collectively, the A-1 and B-5 qualify as applicant’s “A” with B-5 being the polar modified fraction of applicant’s “A”. The MFR of the blend is 43g/10min (table 2). The melt tension is said to 0.16g (table 2). Because “melt tension” is a measurement of force, this is believed to be a “gram-force” value. Converting to Newtons: 0.16g x 9.8m/s 2 x 1kg/1000g = 0.00157N = 1.57mN The density of the blend is not reported. However, virtually all grades of polypropylene have a density within applicant’s 0.89-0.93g/cm 3 range (see page 5 of the Medium article). For this reason, applicant’s claimed density is assumed to be inherently present in the reference. Claim s 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Klimke 2016/0071628 as evidenced by the Medium article . Klimke exemplifies (IE2 of table 1a) a blend of 98.5 parts XPP1, 1.5 parts maleated polypropylene and 0.25% nucleating agent. XPP1 (paragraph 186) is a propylene polymer of MFR 3.9g/10min (table 1). Collectively, the XPP1 and maleated polypropylene qualify as applicant’s “A” with the maleated polypropylene being the polar modified fraction of applicant’s “A”. The MFR of the blend is 4.2g/10min (table 1a). The melt tension is not reported. However, the cited example is similar to applicant’s examples which employ 4-8% of maleated polypropylene with polypropylene. The presence of maleated polypropylene apparently r a ises the melt tension of the blend (see for instance comparison 2 and example 6 of JP201121123 as well as applicant’s example 1 and 2). Employing just 1.5% maleated polypropylene would inherently keep the blend’s melt tension below that of applicant’s example’s melt tensions. For th is reason, it is believed the reference inherently has applicant’s melt tension of <10nM. The density of the blend is not reported. However, virtually all grades of polypropylene have a density within applicant’s 0.89-0.93g/cm 3 range (see page 5 of the Medium article). For this reason, applicant’s claimed density is assumed to be inherently present in the reference. In regards to applicant’s dependent claims: The XPP1 has a Tc of 124 0 C and a Tm of 161 0 C – meeting applicant’s claims 6 and 7. The nucleating agent of the cited example is 0.25% of a nonitol compound (paragraph 190) – meeting applicant’s claims 8-10. Claim s 1-5,11 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by EP2305751 . The reference exemplifies (# 1 2) a bi-layer film having a layer of 9 5 % R J3 70 MO and 5% E803 (table 6 ). The R J3 70 MO (paragraph 113) is a 96.1/3.9 propylene/ethylene polymer having a MFR of 45g/10min and a density of 0.905g/cm 3 . The E803 (paragraph 113) is a maleated polypropylene having an MFR of 470g/10min a n d a density of 0.9g/cm 3 . Collectively, these two resins qualify as applicant’s “A” with the E803 being polar modified “A”. One can safely assume the density of the blend would be ~0.9g/cm 3 as this is the value for each component. . The MFR of the blend is not reported. However, the small amount of high MFR E803 would not be expected to increase the MFR of the RJ370MO to a great extent – certainly not above the 100g/10min maximum of applicant’s claims. The melt tension is not reported. However, the cited example mirrors applicant’s examples which employ 4-8% of the very high MFR maleated polypropylene with polypropylene. The polypropylene of applicant’s examples have an MFR of 3-7g/10min. The higher MFR ( ie 45g/10min) of the reference’s polypropylene would be expected to result in a lower melt tension even lower than applicant’s examples . For these reasons, it is believed the reference inherently has applicant’s melt tension of <10nM. In regards to applicant’s dependent claims: The laminate is useful for food packaging (paragraph 13) – meeting applicant’s claims 11 and 12. 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 1,2,4,5 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2003031188 in view of EP2305751 . The JP2003031188 applies as explained above. The density of the acid modified polypropylene adhesive is not reported. Applicant’s claimed range of 0.89-0.93g/cm 3 encompasses/overlaps typical values for maleated polypropylene as shown by EP2305751 (page 9 line 9) . It would have been obvious to ensure JP2003031188’s acid modified polypropylene has a common density value . Claim s 1-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011021123 in view of the Medium Article . JP2011021123 applies as explained above. The density of the blend is not reported. However, virtually all grades of propylene polymers have a density within applicant’s 0.89-0.93g/cm 3 range (see page 5 of the Medium article). It would have been obvious to select a propylene polymer of conventional density for use in JP2011021123’s blend. Claim s 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimke 2016/0071628 in view of the Medium Article . Klimpke applies as explained above. The density of the blend is not reported. However, virtually all grades of propylene polymers have a density within applicant’s 0.89-0.93g/cm 3 range (see page 5 of the Medium article). It would have been obvious to select a propylene polymer of conventional density for use in Klimpke’s blend. Claim s 6 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2305751 in view of WO00/68315 . EP2305751 applies as explained above. EP2305751 does not report the Tc and Tm of the propylene polymer. However, the reference (paragraph 62) points to WO 00/68315 for details of the propylene polymer. WO 00/68315 (table 1 example 6) demonstrates propylene copolymers having a Tc of 128.1 0 C and a Tm of 166.1 0 C. It would have been obvious to utilize WO 00/68315’s propylene copolymer as EP2305751’s propylene copolymer as EP230575 directly points the reader to this reference for making the propylene copolymer. Claim s 8 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2305751 . The reference applies as explained above. The cited example lacks a nucleating agent. However, the reference (paragraph 37) suggests such an additive in amounts under 5%. Addition of a nucleating agent for its known purpose would have been obvious. Claim s 8-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2305751 in view of Klimke 2016/0071628 . EP2305751 applies as explained above. EP2305751 suggests the inclusion of nucleating agents, but fails to identify any particular species. Klimke (paragraph 190) teaches 0.25% nonitol type nucleating agents for polypropylene. It would have been obvious to utilize any nucleating agent known for polypropylenes in EP2305751’s composition. Matsumoto 2013/0273386 (paragraph 38) is cited for its teaching of the inverse relationship between MFR and melt tension for polypropylene. JP2019052292 is cited for its demonstration that the MFR of blends of polypropylene with minor amounts of very high MFR maleated polypropylene largely retains the MFR of the polypropylene (see table 4). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DAVID J BUTTNER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1084 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9-3pm . 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 Heidi Kelley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1831 . 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. /DAVID J BUTTNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765 2/ 20 /26