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. Claims filed 8/23/2023 are made of record. Claims 1-11 are currently pending in the application. Claim Objections Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites “flexural modulus of any value in the range of 80 to 90 Kpsi” (lines 1-2). The use of both “any value” and “in the range” is redundant, since “in the ra n ge” includes any value with in that range. Applicant is advised to rephrase it as “flexural modulus is in the range of 80 to 90 Kpsi”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are required. 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. 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 s 1- 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2023/0242750 A1) . Regarding claim s 1 and 6 , Wang et al disclose a polypropylene composition comprising propylene random copolymer (i.e., reads on the random copolymer of propylene in present claim s 1 and 6 ) having a melt flow rate of 15 to 40 g/10 min (abstract) which overlaps with the melt flow rate in present claim s 1 and 6 . Preferably, the propylene random copolymer is an ethylene propylene random copolymer (paragraph 0024). In a preferred embodiment, ethylene is present in amounts of 2.0 to 5.5 wt% (paragraph 0025) which overlaps with the ethylene content in present claim s 1 and 6 . The propylene random copolymer has a hexane extractable content of less than 2.0 wt% (paragraph 0023) which reads on hexane extractable portion in present claim s 1 and 6 . The pr opylene random copolymer has a xylene cold soluble fraction preferably of from 0.5 to 7.5 wt% (paragraph 0028) which overlaps with the xylene soluble fraction in present claim s 1 and 6 . Case law holds that when the range of instant claims and that disclosed in prior art overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05. Wang et al fail to disclose random copolymer of polypropylene having an ethylene content and properties as in present claims. However, in light of the teachings in general disclosure of Wang et al and case law, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to have prepared propylene random copolymer having ethylene content in overlapping amounts and exhibiting present claimed properties (such as melt flow rate, xylene soluble fraction and hexane extractable in overlapping ranges ) , absent evidence to the contrary. Regarding claims 2 and 7-8, Wang et al teach that propylene random copolymer has a flexural modulus in the range of 500 to 1000 MPa (paragraph 0029) which is equivalent to 72 Kpsi to about 145 Kpsi (i.e., overlaps with flexural modulus in present claims 2 and 7-8). Case law holds that when the range of instant claims and that disclosed in prior art overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05 . Regarding claims 3-5 and 9-11, claims are written in a product-by-process form. E ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KARUNA P REDDY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6566 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM M-F . 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 Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7026 . 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. /KARUNA P REDDY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764