DETAILED ACTION Status of Application This action is responsive to national-stage application filed 09/27/2023. Following entry of the concurrently filed preliminary amendment, claims 1-14 are currently pending and under examination herein. 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. However, 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 a 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. Information Disclosure Statement(s) The information disclosure statement (s) (IDS) accompanying the application papers is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609, and therefore the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. Initialed copies of the IDS are included with the mailing/transmittal of this Office action. Foreign Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Objection – Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: At page 3, line 17, it is presumed “power” was intended to read –powder-- ; however, clarification and appropriate correction are required. Referring to the table spanning pages 15-16, it is unclear whether Examples 1-15 are in fact representative of the claimed invention , because present claim 1 requires production of a propylene homopolymer or propylene-ethylene copolymer that has an XS in the range from 2.0 to 7.0 wt.%, but no data on cold xylene solubles is reported under the “CXS” table header for any of the examples . Nor do any data appear under the “Catalyst Yield” and “MFI” headers of this table. The complete absence of experimental data, especially respecting CXS values, precludes any meaningful comparison between comparative examples CE1-CE6 and presumed inventive examples 1-15. Clarification at least by way of explanation for the missing data is required. Objection – Claims Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “of the invention” in line 2 appears superfluous and should be deleted. In view of the amendment eliminating multiple dependencies from the claim , this phrase amounts to a redundant reference to the earlier-recited “process according to claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation With respect to claim 1, the Office is construing the term “obtainable” as merely indicat ing the potential of making the catalyst used in the claimed process by r ecited steps A) and B) , and not preclud ing use of catalysts which meet the compositional limitations of claim 1 , even if made by a different process . With respect to claim 11, the Office is similarly construing the term “obtained or obtainable” as merely indicat ing the potential of making the claimed product ( propylene homopolymer or propylene-ethylene copolymer ) by the process of claim 1, and not preclud ing such product made by a different process, insofar as the latter meet s the claimed XS limitation . Claim Rejections – 35 U . S . C . 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. Claims 2, 6, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding C laim 2, the phrase "for example" (see penult. line) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the subject matter following the phrase (“di(isopropyl) dimethoxysilane ”) is intended to be a limitation of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites a ratio of SCA/ALA but is silent as to the basis for calculating the ratio (a weight ratio, a molar ratio, or some other unit of measurement ?) . This leads to a lack of clarity, rendering the claim indefinite. For purposes of substantive examination, it is assumed a mol/mol ratio was intended; however, clarification and appropriate correction are required. Regarding Claim 9, the phrase “can be mechanically stirred” (see final two lines) creates an indefiniteness issue in that it is unclear if and when the stated event i s to occur. If conditional language is necessary, then it is suggested the language “optionally mechanically stirred ” be used ; otherwise , positive language such as “ is mechanically stirred” ( as opposed to “can be ” ) should be used. Regarding Claim 13, the claim is indefinite due to improper Markush language in the recitation s "selected from the group consisting of ... or ..." (see lines 8-9 and 14-15). Either "selected from the group consisting of ... and ..." or "wherein [ X 4 and X 1 or M 1 ] are/i s ... or ..." is proper; see MPEP 2173.05(h)(I). Claim Rejections – Nonstatutory 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 . Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,001,651 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the substantial overlap in the mutually claimed subject matter. That is, both pending claim 12 and patent claim s 1 /4 are drawn to a BOPP film comprising a propylene homopolymer or a propylene-ethylene copolymer and recite overlapping ranges for amount of xylene solubles XS in the homo-/co-polymer; see claim 12, which incorporates ( via ultimate dependency from claim 1) an XS range from 2.0 to 7.0 wt.% and cf. patent claims 1 (XS in the range from 1.0 to 6.0 wt.%) and 4 (XS o f at most 4.5 wt.%). Patent claim 1 further recites ranges for ethylene content of the copolymer and melt flow rate, which respectively match the ranges disclosed by Applicant for the corresponding parameters of the propylene-ethylene copolymer or propylene homopolymer recited in pending claim 12 ( cf. , Spec ., page 5, ll. 26-27 and page 6, ll. 10-11). Patent claim 1 also recites a Mw/Mn in the range from 5.0 to 12. This property is not positively recited in pending claim 12 ; however, the pending claim is couched in open (comprising) language and therefore r e ads on a BOPP film comprising a propylene homopolymer or a propylene-ethylene copolymer having a Mw/Mn parameter as per the patent claim. Common Ownership Notice This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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. Claims 1-7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al (US 2012/0322964 A1) (‘Chen’) as evidenced by Kilty et al (US 6825146 B2) (‘ Kilty ’). Regarding Claims 1-6 and 11 ; Chen describes a process for the production of propylene homopolymer comprising the step of polymerizing propylene in the presence of a catalyst to obtain a propylene homopolymer having an XS in a the range from 2.0 to 7.0 wt.%, specifically 3.05% (see [0170] and [0177], Table 6: Ex. # E-88). The catalyst comprises Procatalyst # S-8, obtained by combining procatalyst precursor SHAC ™ 310 with internal electron donor (IED) 8 , wherein SHAC™ 310 is a benzoate-containing catalyst with ethyl benzoate as the internal donor ( corresponding to claimed procatalyst component ii); see [0168], Table 3). In this regard, Chen discloses that SHAC™ 310 was made according to Example 2 in U.S. Pat. No. 6,825,146 ( Kilty ) ([0168]). Example 2 of Kilty evidences that SHAC™ 310 also comprises a magnesium-containing support with TiCl 4 ( corresponding to claimed procatalyst component i ); see Kilty at col. 11, lines 65-66 and col. 13, lines 1-6). Further, the IED 8 is an amidobenzoate corresponding to claimed formula B (of procatalyst component iii)) , where : each R 90 is a substituted aromatic group; R 93 , R 94 , R 95 , R 96 and R 97 are each hydrogen; and R 91 and R 92 are each a branched alkyl group (see Chen, [0165], Table 1: Compound (8)) . In addition, in the polymerization of Ex. # E-88, this procatalyst is contacted with a cocatalyst (triethyl aluminum), an external electron donor (EED) and an activity limiting agent (ALA), wh erein the EED and ALA ar e n-p ropyltrimethoxy silane (N) [for claims 2, 3] and isopropyl myristate (IPM) [for claims 4, 5], respectively, and are used at a ratio N/IPM of 10/90 [for claim 6] (see [0177], Table 6). Regarding Claim 7, Chen further discloses wherein the process may be a gas phase polymerization process (see [0086]). Regarding Claim 1 0 , Chen implicitly describes wherein the process is phthalate free and/or is free of 9,9-bis(methoxy)fluorene, inasmuch as neither of these compound s is mentioned as a component of the catalyst composition or polymerization media used in the process according to Chen Ex. # E-88 , discussed above. Claim Rejections – 35 U . S . C . 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. 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 . Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuideveld , et al (WO 2015/185490 A1) (‘ Zuideveld ’) in view of Fedec , et al (WO 2019/241063 A1) (‘ Fedec ’) . Regarding Claims 1- 5 , 11 and 1 4; Zuideveld discloses a procatalyst composition that comprises a monoester and an internal electron donor compound represented by a Formula A , which is indicated to allow the preparation of polyolefins, particularly polypropylenes (PP) that have broader molecular weight distribution, higher polymer yield and good stereospecificity, i.e. high isotacticity , hence low xylene solubles , for instance, lower than 6 wt.% (see p. 10, lines 5-20; p. 15, lines 25-30 and p. 16, lines 7-9). Zuideveld specifically describes (see p. 76-77, Table 1) a process for the production of propylene homopolymer comprising the step of polymerizing propylene in the presence of a catalyst system to obtain a propylene homopolymer . As disclosed (see pp. 73-76, Example 1), the catalyst system is obtained by a process comprising steps of: A) providing a Ziegler-Natta procatalyst comprising a magnesium-containing support with i ) a halogen-containing Ti compound, ii) ethylbenzoate as an activator, iii) and as an internal donor an amidobenzoate according to claimed formula B ( viz ., 4-[benzoyl(methyl)amino]pentan-2-yl benzoate (aminobenzoate, AB, AB/Mg = 0.15 mol) ) [for claim 14] and B) contacting said Ziegler-Natta procatalyst obtained in step A) with a co-catalyst ( triethylaluminum ) and a SCA (n- propytrimethoxysilane as external donor; see p. 76, line 25 et seq .) [for claims 2, 3]. Zuideveld does not report values for XS of the homopolymers obtained according to Ex. # 1-3 of Table 1, but generally express es preference for XS amounts from about 0.5 wt . % to about 10 wt.%, and, most preferably, lower than 2.7 wt.% (see p. 67, ll. 30-33). Nor does Zuideveld teach combining the SCA with an ALA as per claimed step B) of the present invention. Nevertheless, in analogous art related to propylene-ethylene copolymer compositions and methods of production, Fedec discloses Ziegler-Natta procatalyst compositions for producing propylene-ethylene random copolymers , wherein a XS fraction can be less than or equal to 7.0% by weight of the copolymer (see [0012] , [0034] -[ 0035] and [0042]). Fedec teaches that suitable catalyst composition comprise a pro-catalyst composition, a co-catalyst, and an external electron donor or a mixed external electron donor (M-EED), with suitable external donors including one or more activity limiting agents (ALA), one or more selectivity control agents (SCA) or both an ALA and an SCA (see [0093]). Fedec appreciates the effect of the ALA as a composition that decreases catalyst activity as the polymerization temperature in the presence of the catalyst rises above a threshold temperature , and of the SCA as a composition that improves polymer tacticity, meaning increased tacticity or reduced xylene solubles , or both (see id. ). Fedec further teaches an embodiment in which a mixture of external electron donor components is added to the polymerization, wherein the mixture comprises specific species of SCA and ALA according to present claims 2-3 and 4-5, respectively, such as dicyclopentyldimethoxysilane and isopropyl myristate; diisopropyldimethoxysilane and isopropyl myristate ; and dicyclopentyldimethoxysilane and poly( ethylene glycol) laurate (see [0104]). Fedec then details the production of propylene-ethylene copolymer samples using a Ziegler-Natta magnesium supported/titanium-based catalyst (see pp. 24-25, Table 1), wherein each sample has a XS (wt.%) amount within the range of 2.0 to 7.0 wt.% [for claims 1, 11]. At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Zuideveld b y contacting the Ziegler-Natta procatalyst with a co-catalyst and a SCA in combination with an ALA as taught by Fedec . An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been well motivated to do so in order to regulate catalyst activity with rising polymerization temperature and in the expectation of obtaining a propylene homopolymer or propylene-ethylene copolymer having an XS in the range from 2.0 to 7.0 wt.%, as claimed, consistent with the teachings of Fedec . Regarding Claims 7-9, Zuideveld in view of Fedec renders obvious the process according to claim 1 as discussed above. Zuideveld further teaches wherein the process is a gas phase polymerization process, performed in at least one horizontal and/or vertical gas phase reactor, and wherein the reactor can be mechanically stirred (see p. 65, ll. 17-29). Regarding Claim 10, Zuideveld in view of Fedec renders obvious the process according to claim 1 as discussed above. Fedec further teaches wherein the process is phthalate free and/or is free of 9,9-bis(methoxy)fluorene (i.e., Ziegler-Natta catalysts containing non-phthalate internal donors ; see [0041]). Regarding Claim 13, Zuideveld in view of Fedec renders obvious the process according to claim 1 as discussed above. Zuideveld further teaches wherein step A) to provide the Ziegler-Natta procatalyst comprises steps corresponding to claimed steps i ), ii) and iii) ( see pp. 73-76, Example 1, especially step i -Phase A, step ii- Phase B, and Phase C). Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102/103 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. 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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over either of Taftaf , et al (US 9663596 B2) (‘ Taftaf ’) and Voets , et al (EP 3309183 A1) (‘ Voets ’). Regarding Claim 11, the claim is drawn to a propylene homopolymer or propylene-ethylene copolymer obtained or obtainable by the process of claim 1. As per claim 1, the propylene homopolymer or propylene-ethylene copolymer has an XS in a range from 2.0 to 7.0 wt.%. Propylene homopolymer s (PP) having the requisite amount of xylene soluble s XS are specifically described by each of Taftaf and Voets . See Taftaf , columns 27-28, Examples 1-5, and 6 of Table 2; Examples 7-8 of Table 3, and Examples 9-1 2 of Table 4. See also Voets , paragraphs [0067] -[ 0069], especially Examples 1 and 2 of Table 4. In each of the cited examples, the PP also has a melt flow rate/index within the range of 0.5 to 10 dg/min as disclosed by Applicant for propylene-ethylene copolymer or propylene homopolymer obtained/obtainable by the process of the present invention ( cf. , Spec ., page 6, ll. 13-15). Further, although the PP products of the cited examples were obtained by a process different to Applicant’s in that, e.g., no ALA was used in combination with a SCA such a s di- (isopropyl)- dimethoxysilane or n- propyltrimethoxy silane (see Examples 1-2 of Voets and Example 1 of Taftaf ), the examples included in the present specification fail to show that the claimed pro duct necessarily differs in any unobvious respect from the PP products disclosed by the cited references. In this regard, note that a difference in preparation, to be of patentable significance, must result in a substantially different product than that obtained by the prior art process. See MPEP 2113. Regarding Claim 12, Voets in the above-cited examples describes BOPP film comprising PP homopolymer having an amount of xylene solubles XS within the claimed range as well as MFI of 2.8 or 2.5 dg/min., which val u es fall well within the range disclosed by Applicant ( 0.5 to 10 dg/min ) for propylene-ethylene copolymer or propylene homopolymer obtained/obtainable by the process of the present invention. Conclusion Pending claims 1-14 are rejected. No claims are in condition for allowance at this time. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Examiner F. M. Teskin whose telephone number is (571) 272 1116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM. 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, Robert Jones , can be reached at (571) 27 0 -77 33 . The appropriate fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /FRED M TESKIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 / FMTeskin / 03-24-26