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. This is the second request for a proper title.
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.
Claims 1-5,7-9 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steenbakkers-Menting 2017/0267854 in view of EP2305751.
Steenbakkers-Menting exemplifies (#1) a blend of propylene homopolymer with 0.5% functionalized propylene homopolymer and 0.05% talc.
The propylene homopolymer (paragraph 70) is Sabic PP579s. The functionalized propylene is maleated PP homopolymer Exxelor PO1020 (paragraph 71). Collectively, the two qualify as applicant’s (A).
The blend has a Tc of 122.60C (table 1) – meeting applicant’s (4) criteria.
Inherently Sabic PP579s (see the Sabi data sheet) has a density of 0.905g/cm3 and an MFR of 47g/10min.
Inherently Exxelor PO1020 (see the Songhan data sheet) has a density of 0.900g/cm3 and an MFR of 430g/10min measured at 1900C rather than applicant’s 2300C.
One can safely assume the density of the blend would be ~0.9g/cm3 (meeting applicant’s criteria (2)) as this is the value for both polymers and the amount of talc is miniscule.
The MFR of the blend is not reported. However, the tiny amount of high MFR Exxelor would not be expected to increase the MFR of the Sabic PP579s to a great extent – certainly not above the 100g/10min maximum of applicant’s claims. For this reason, applicant’s criteria (1) is believed met.
The melt tension of the blend is not reported. However, the cited example is similar to applicant’s examples which employ small amounts 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 47g/10min) of the reference’s polypropylene would be expected to result in a lower melt tension - even lower than applicant’s examples. The smaller amounts of the maleated polypropylene (ie 0.5%) would be expected to result in lower melt tension than applicant’s 4-8%.
For these reasons, it is believed the reference inherently has applicant’s melt tension of <10nM.
Steenbakkers-Menting (paragraph 62) suggests that his composition is useful as films and packaging, but does not name “laminate films”.
It is well known in the art that polypropylene food packaging films are permeable to oxygen and CO2 (see EP2305751 paragraph 4). The well known solution is to laminate a barrier layer to the polypropylene film (see table 1 of EP2305751).
It would have been obvious to add a barrier layer to Steenbakkers-Menting’s film to improve resistance to oxygen and CO2 permeability.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
The melting point of the composition is not reported. However, polypropylene has a melting point typically above 1600C (see introduction of the Liu article in Int Comm in Heat abd Mass Transfer). Therefore, Steenbakkers-Menting’s inherent ∆Tm -Tc would be expected to be above 350C.
The talc qualifies as a nucleating agent (paragraph 8) – meeting applicant’s claims 8 and 9.
Claims 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steenbakkers-Menting 2017/0267854 in view of EP2305751 in further view of the Millad NX8000 data sheet.
Steenbakkers-Menting and EP2305751 apply as explained above.
Steenbakkers-Menting (paragrapg 45) suggests clarifiers may be added but does not name nonitols.
Millad NX8000 is a well known clarifying agent for polypropylene (see the NX8000 data sheet).
It would have been obvious to choose NX8000 as Steenbakkers-Menting “clarifier”. Millad NX8000 is applicant’s preferred nucleating agent (page 29 line 10 of spec).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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).
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner relies on applicant’s assurances that the presence of small amounts of ethylene in the propylene polymer prevent references such as EP2305751 from meeting applicant’s Tc of 1200C – 1350C.
The newly cited Steenbakkers-Menting reference is directed to propylene homopolymers and explicitly reports the Tc as being within applicant’s range.
Applicant's amendment combining previous claims 6 and 11 necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. In the first action, claim 6 and claim 11 were separately rejected on different anticipatory grounds. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BUTTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1084. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 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 6/25/26
Prosecution Insights