DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 4/2/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 20-23 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/2/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazemi et al (US 2019/0135958).
Claim 1, 3-9, 16-17: Kazemi teaches an ethylene interpolymer composition comprising from 5 to 60 weight percent of the first ethylene interpolymer having a melt index from 0.01 to 200 dg/min, Mw/Mn of 1.7-2.4, and a density of 0.855 g/cc to 0.975 g/cc; from 20 to 95 weight percent of the second ethylene interpolymer having a melt index from 0.3 to 1000 dg/min, Mw/Mn of 1.7-2.4, and a density of 0.855 g/cc to 0.975 g/cc, and; from 0 to 30 weight percent of the third ethylene interpolymer having a melt index from 0.5 to 2000 dg/min, Mw/Mn of 1.7-5.0, and a density of 0.855 g/cc to 0.975 g/cc; [0253, 0020, 0022].
The composition has a melt index from about 0.3 to about 500 dg/minute, a density from about 0.855 to about 0.975 g/cc, a residual catalytic metal of from ≥0.03 to ≤5 ppm of hafnium, a Mw/Mn of 1.7-25 (abstract). An exemplary embodiment shows the Mn of the first copolymer is greater than that of the second and third copolymer (table 13). Case law holds that 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 2: the comonomer contents in the first, second and third copolymer are each 10-90% [0187]. It makes the SCB1/SCB2 overlap the claimed range.
Claim 10: the ethylene copolymer are made with a catalyst of
PNG
media_image1.png
347
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, M is hafnium [0060-0062].
Claim 11-12: the first and the second copolymers each have CDBI50 of 75-95%, the third copolymer has CDBI50 of 40-95% [0021].
Claims 13-15: the composition has 0-25 mol% of an alpha-olefin, octene [0007, claims 4-6].
Claim 18: Kazemi does not teach the crystallization rate constant.
However, the teachings from Kazemi have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients, amounts thereof, and the catalyst used. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise.
Claims 1,3-7, 9-10, 13, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degroot et al (US 2018/0223092) in view of Kazemi et al (US 2019/0135958).
Claims 1,3-7, 9-10, 13, 16-17, 19: Degroot teaches a composition comprising 52wt% of INFUSE 9007 and 48wt% of INFUSE 9507 (example 2). INFUSE 9007 has a density of 0.8666, I2 of 0.5 and Mw/Mn of 2.42, Mn of 65210; INFUSE 9507 has a density of 0.8666, I2 of 5 and Mw/Mn of 2.36, Mn of 37660. INFUSE 9007 reads on the first ethylene copolymer, INFUSE 9507 can be distributed into two parts to read on the second and third ethylene copolymers. Both have more than 13 mol% of octent.
The composition has a density of 0.8666, I2 of 1.5, Mw/Mn of 2.47.
Degroot does not teach the hafnium content of the composition.
However, Kazemi teaches a process having an increased production rate of making ethylene copolymer uses a homogeneous catalyst formulation:
PNG
media_image1.png
347
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, M is hafnium [0008-0017, 0060-0062]. The copolymer has a residual hafnium of 0.03-5 ppm (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the process of Kazemi to prepare the copolymer of Degroot to increase production rate and it results in a copolymer mixture having the claimed hafnium content.
Claim 18: Kazemi does not teach the crystallization rate constant.
However, the combined teachings from Kazemi and Degroot have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients, amounts thereof, and the catalyst used. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No.18/546,109. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘109 claims a composition comprising three ethylene copolymers, each has a density, Mw/Mn, I2 overlaps the claimed range.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on (571)272-1130. The 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 17631
Prosecution Insights