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. Response to Amendment The preliminary amendment filed on August 18, 2023 has been entered. Claims 1-16 are pending. Claim Objections Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities. In claims 1-16, US claim format typically includes the indefinite article “A” at the beginning of independent claims and the definite article “The” at the beginning of dependent claims. In claim 6, lines 2-4, the following phrase is repeated “ wherein the high melt strength polypropylene is present in an amount ≥10 wt % based on the polymer composition, wherein the high melt strength polypropylene is present in an amount ≥10 wt % based on the polymer composition ”. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 8, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 8, line 4, the use of the term “and/or” renders this claim indefinite. Specifically, with respect to the “or” part of this conjunction, it is not clear how the nucleating agent can be chosen from the claimed Markush group if the nucleating agent is not present. In claims 14 and 16, the term “article” is unclear. Specifically, these claims simply recite that an article comprises the claimed foamed sheet. A foam sheet is an article and there is no further claim language to define the meets and bounds of the term “article” in these claims . Accordingly, it is not clear how the use of the term “article” further limits these claims. Claim 16 is an improper “use” claim in that it attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process. See MPEP 2173.05(q). 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 1-1 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/277,806. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims overlap and vary slightly in scope to the claims in US ‘806. For example, with respect to claim 1, the present claims are directed to a generic version of claim 6 of US ‘806. Specifically, claim 6 of US ‘806 recite all of the limitations of instant claim 1 and further requires a melt flow rate range and an amount of high melt strength polypropylene in the foam. These addition al melt flow rate claim limitations are separately claimed in instant dependent claims 4 and 6, respectively. Likewise, present method claims , i.e., claims 15 and 16, are anticipated by method claims of US ‘806 (see claims 13 and 14). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-1 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/277,798. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims overlap and vary slightly in scope to the claims in US ‘798. For example, with respect to claim 1, the present claims require a melt strength of at least 45 cN, whereas the claims of US ‘ 798 require a melt flow strength of at least 6 5 cN (claim s 1 and 7 ). Likewise, the present method claims are anticipated by method claims of US ‘798 (see claims 1 4 and 1 5 ). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-1 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/277,649. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims overlap in scope to the claims in US ‘649. For example, with respect to claim 1, the present claims require a melt strength of at least 4 5 cN, whereas the claims of US ‘649 require a melt flow strength of at least 10 cN and no greater than 100 cN (claim s 1 and 12 ). Likewise, the present article, i.e., foam, claims are anticipated by the article, i.e., foam, claims of US ‘649 (see claims 12-14). Regarding method claim 15, the method of claim 15 of US ‘649 does not recite the amount of blowing agent or an extrusion step. However, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to have used a blowing agent within the claimed amount motivated by the desire to obtain a foam having desired porosity properties. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have extruded the foam composition, as specifically disclosed in US ‘649, in order to obtain an insulation article as claimed in US ‘649 (see claim 19). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-1 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/275,114. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims overlap in scope to the claims in US ‘114. For example, with respect to claim 1, the present claims require a melt strength of at least 4 5 cN, whereas the claims of US ‘114 require a melt flow strength of at least 10 cN and no greater than 100 cN (claim 5). Regarding method claim 15, the method of claim 15 of US ‘114 does not recite the amount of blowing agent. However, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to have used a blowing agent within the claimed amount motivated by the desire to obtain a foam having desired porosity properties. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. (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. 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McLoughlin et al. (US Pub 2019/0176653). Regarding claims 1 and 2, US ‘653 discloses a foam formed from a composition comprising a high melt strength polypropylene having a melt strength of between 20-100 cN (claim 1). While both the present invention and US ‘653 use the ISO 16790:2005 test to determine the melt strength, the present claims state that the melt strength is measured at 200ᵒC, whereas US ‘653 measures the melt strength at 190ᵒC. Since US ‘653 discloses a composition that contains the same components and exhibits a melt strength within the claimed range at a temperature close to the measurement temperature of claim 1, it is reasonable to conclude that the composition of US ‘653 that would exhibit a melt strength within the presently claimed range at a temperature of 200ᵒC absent some showing on the record that there is some criticality to measuring the melt strength at 200ᵒC versus 190ᵒC. Further, MPEP 2112 states “[w] here applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). With regard to claim 3, US ‘653 discloses the high melt polypropylene can be a copolymer (claim 1). With regard to claim 4, US ‘653 discloses that the high melt polypropylene can have a melt flow rate of about 1 g/10 min or less [0019]. With regard to claim 5, US ‘653 would yield a composition that would have the same properties as the composition prepared by the process set forth in the product-by-process of claim 6. See MPEP 2113. Specifically, US ‘653 discloses using a high melt strength polypropylene that includes a non-phenolic stabilizer, such as a hindered amine, wherein the propylene-based polymer is made up of a branched polymer [0020]. With regard to claim 6, US ‘653 discloses a foam comprising the high melt strength polypropylene comprising which is present in an amount within the claimed range (claim 1). With regard to claim 7, US ‘653 discloses that the foamable composition can comprise a further polypropylene component (claim 1, [0030]). Regarding claim 8, US ‘653 discloses that a nucleating agent can be included in the composition ([0038], [0040]). Regarding claim 9, US ‘653 discloses the use of various additives ([0040], [0041], [0065]), including a chemical blowing agent which is exemplified as being present in an amount from 0-10 wt% [0065]. Regarding claims 10 and 13, US ‘653 discloses that the composition of claim 1 is used to form the foam of claim 15. That is, the foamable composition of US ‘653 forms 100% of the resulting foam. Regarding claim 11, US ‘653 discloses that the density of the foam can be 10-200 kg/m 3 [0045]. Regarding claim 12, US ‘653 discloses that the foam is produced via an extrusion process [0042]. Regarding claims 1 4 and 1 6 , US ‘653 discloses that the composition is used to form a foamed article, such as a foamed sheet [0053]. Regarding claim 1 5 , US ‘653 discloses the claimed process wherein a blowing agent is used in an amount of up to 1 wt% [0046]. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Blaine Copenheaver whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1156 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8-5 . 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 Frank Vineis can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1547 . 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. /BLAINE COPENHEAVER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781