DETAILED ACTION
In response to Amendments/Arguments filed 1/30/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 10-12 are withdrawn without traverse and amended. Claims 1-9 and 13-20 are examined thusly.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/20/2026. These drawings are accepted. Examiner acknowledges the drawings are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Houcke et al. (US 20200079942) in view of Mehta et al. (US 20080214767).
Van Houcke discloses a polyolefin composition and articles thereof. Concerning claims 1, 4, and 17, Van Houcke discloses the polyolefin composition comprises a propylene homopolymer and a hydrocarbon wherein the propylene homopolymer has a melt flow rate of 0.5 to 80 g/10 min, a pentad isotacticity of 98.5 to 99.8% at a content of 60 to 99 wt% and a hydrocarbon resin at a content of 1 to 40 wt% (para. 0010-0070). Given that the propylene homopolymer has an overlapping MFR and hydrocarbon is the same as that claimed, the MFR of the resulting composition would overlap and include the claimed range. However, Van Houcke is silent to the regio defects and MWD of the propylene homopolymer as claimed.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, the hydrocarbon is at least partially hydrogenated and has a molecular weight of 500 to 5000 g/mol which meets the limitations as claimed (para. 0012 and 0063). With respect to claims 5-6, 8-9, and 18-19, Van Houcke discloses the composition further comprises a nucleating agent and as such, since the composition is the same as that claimed, the mechanical properties as claimed would be met by the disclosure of Van Houcke. In regard to claim 7, the propylene homopolymer is formed from a single site catalyst and has a melt flow rate and pentad isotacticity as disclosed above with a melting temperature of 153°C to 175°C (para. 0041). Concerning claims 13-15, the composition is used as a packaging film having a thickness of 20 to 200 microns, wherein the endpoint is 0.2 mm (abstract; para. 0120). Regarding claim 20, the nucleating agent is found at a content of 0.01 ppm to 10000 ppm (or 0.000001 to 1 wt%) (para. 0077-0078). However, Van Houcke is silent to the regio defects and MWD of the propylene homopolymer as claimed.
Mehta discloses a metallocene (or SSC) produced isotactic polypropylene having a MWD of 1 to 5 and regio defect total of 15 to 100 which would overlap and include the claimed ranges (abstract; para. 0050-0080 and 0098-0106). The propylene homopolymer has overlapping similar ranges for the melt temperature and pentad fraction as claimed and disclosed by Van Houcke. The propylene homopolymer as set forth by Mehta allow for better crystallization properties which in turn allows for improved films (para. 0116). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a polypropylene homopolymer having at least the claimed regio defects and molecular weight distribution for films having improved properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 3, filed 8/20/2026, with respect to drawing objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawing has been withdrawn. Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of the drawings as overcoming the previous objection.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 with respect to the art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Van Houcke does not teach the claimed compositional melt flow rate and that the it is not likely that the compositions of Van Houcke would possess the claimed melt flow rate because adding a hydrocarbon reduce the melt pressure during processing and other additives can affect the melt flow rate. While it is agreed that Van Houcke does not explicitly recite compositional melt flow rate, the Examiner has provided a technical basis for why the compositional melt flow rate would at least overlap. Examiner notes that the PTO does not possess testing facilities to test the prior art to determine the specific values. To that end, Applicant has not met the burden of showing a difference because Applicant has not provided a showing the support the assertions. With respect to the additives, when looking to the Examples, the composition is only the polypropylene, hydrocarbon, and a nucleating agent. These are the same components of the instant application Examples and further, Applicant has not provided a specific technical reasoning on which additives would differ from the prior art.
Applicant further asserts that the instant combination yields unexpected results and points to the Examples and Comparative Examples. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicant’s assertions are not commensurate in scope given that the instant independent claim given the hydrocarbon is a specific hydrocarbon having a specific softening temperature, density, and of a specific molecular weight that is not claimed in the independent claim. Furthermore, the polypropylene is formed from a Ziegler-Natta or Single Site catalyst, and the SSC is specifically a metallocene catalyst. As such, Applicant’s assertions are not commensurate in scope. With respect to the Mehta reference, Applicant asserts because the reference does not teach each and every claimed element, the reference is not applicable. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes a secondary reference does not need to teach each and every element as claimed. Otherwise, the Mehta reference would be a 102. Applicant has not shown how the references are not combinable.
Applicant also asserts the combination is hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). To that end, each reference has an effective filing date well before the filing date of the instant application and Mehta specifically discloses why one of ordinary skill in the art would use a propylene homopolymer having at least the claimed regio defect value and MWD. As such, the instant references are still applicable to the present claims, and the rejection is proper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights