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. Use Claims 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. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 37 provides for the use of a composition, but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki , 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner , 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966). In order to overcome this rejection, it is advised that the applicant change “ A use of a pellet as defined in claim 35 for a dust-free handling of its components at manufacturing of a stabilized polymer ” language in Claim 37 to “ A method of manufacturing of stabilized polymer ”, and add method steps involving the pellet of claim 35 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim s 25, 27, 29, 31, 33- 35 , and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunski (U.S. Pat. No. 5,846,656) in view of Blok (U.S. Pat. No. 6,620,343) . In column 2 lines 8-23 Dunski discloses a pellet comprising a stabilizing system for polymeric materials, where the pellet is formed from a homogeneous mixture comprising about 50 to 98% by weight of a stabilizing compound and about 2 to about 50% by weight of a binding agent, where the binding agent can be a lubricating compound having a small particle size. In column 5 lines 32-46 Dunski discloses more narrowly preferred ranges of 80 to 98% for the stabilizer and 2 to 20% for the binding agent (additive), and that the stabilizer mixture preferably comprises 0 to 65% by of Irgafos 168, which corresponds to component (i-1) of claims 25, 35 , and 39, and 15 to 95% of Irganox 1010, which corresponds to component (i-2) of claims 25, 35 , and 39. In column 2 lines 35-41, Dunski discloses that the lubricating compound can be a low density polyethylene (LDPE) which is preferably present in an amount of 3 to 15% by weight. The components of the pellet of claim 35 and mixtures of claim s 25, 31, and 39 are therefore present in the pellet and homogeneous mixture of Dunski in amounts overlapping or encompassing the claimed ranges. In Example 13 (see the table in column 7) Dunski discloses a composition comprising Irgafos 168, Irganox 1010, and LDPE in amounts within the ranges recited in claims 35 and 39. The particle size disclosed for the LDPE of about 20 micron (column 4 lines 48-50 and 59-60) indicates that the LDPE is a powder. In column 4 lines 13-17 Dunski discloses that the pellets are produced by feeding the mixture to a pellet mill. Pellet mills have a roller, die, and nozzle, as recited in claim 25, and work by pressing the mixture with a roller, passing the compacted mixture through a nozzle, and cutting the strand as it passes through the nozzle, meeting the limitations of steps (A) and (B) of claim 25, and where the step of feeding the mixture to the pellet mill meets the limitations of step (pre-A) of claim 33. In the examples, Dunski discloses the use of a CL-3 pellet mill (column 5 lines 54-56), which is a ring die pellet mill, as recited in claim 34. The difference s between Dunski and the currently presented claims are that Dunski does not disclose the weight-average molecular weight or the polydispersity of the LDPE . Dunski also does not disclose that the polyethylene is a wax. Blok, in column 2 lines 15-18, discloses a composition comprising an organic polymer and a low molecular weight polyethylene processing aid. In column 4 lines 16-18, Blok discloses that the weight average molecular weight of the polyethylene is up to about 50,000, encompassing the ranges recited in claims 25, 27, 35 , and 39, and preferably about 1,000 to about 50,000, also encompassing the ranges recited in claims 35 and 39. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);” "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The use of polyethylene having the molecular weight taught by Blok as the polyethylene in the composition of Dunski therefore meets the limitations of the pellet of claim 35 and the mixture of claim 39. In Table I (bottom of column 6, see footnotes) Blok discloses that suitable polyethylenes (Epolene N-10 and N-20) have polydispersities within the range recited in claim 29 . Epolene N-10 and N-20 are polyethylene waxes, as recited in claim 30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use polyethylene waxes having the weight average molecular weight and polydispersity taught by Blok as the polyethylene in the composition of Dunski, since Blok teaches that polyethylene waxes having the disclosed weight average molecular weight and polydispersity are useful processing aid additives for polymers. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunski in view of Blok as applied to claims 25, 27, 29- 31, 33-35, and 39 above, and further in view of Tholstrup (U.S. Pat. No, 3,160,680). The discussion of Dunski in view of Blok in paragraph 9 above is incorporated here by reference. Dunski and Blok disclose a pellet ized additive meeting the limitations of claim 35. Dunski discloses in column 2 lines 7-10 that the pellet stabilizes polymeric materials against ultraviolet light and thermooxidative deterioration, but does not disclose the specific polymer stabilized by the pellet. Tholstrup, in column 1 lines 13-16, discloses that polyolefin polymers such as polyethylene and polytpropylene are susceptible to oxidative degradation promoted by heat (thermooxidative degradation) and ultraviolet light. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pellet of Dunski and Blok in the manufacturing of a stabilized polyolefin, since Dunski teaches that the pellet stabilizes polymeric materials against the forms of degradation identified by Tholstrup as an issue for polyolefins. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 26, 28 , 32, 36, and 38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, as exemplified by the references discussed above, does not disclose or render obvious the use of a polyethylene processing aid having the properties recited in claims 26 and 28, a strand having a surface temperature recited in claim 32, a pellet having the shape and size recited in claim 36, and a method meeting the limitations of claim 38. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2476 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30 . 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 PREM SINGH can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6381 . 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. /JAMES C GOLOBOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771