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. 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. Drawings The drawings are objected to because the numbering of figures should be preceded by the expression “Fig” (MPEP § 1825). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In view of the objection to the drawings discussed above, the specification is objected to for its use of the term “figure” in referencing the drawings. It is suggested that applicant amend the specification to replace the word “figure” with “Fig.” See specification page 4, line 32 to page 5, line 19; page 66: lines 5-27 ; page 67: lines 4-20; page 68: lines 3-16 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-38 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 claims 1, 26, 28, and 29: Claims 1, 26, 28, and 29 all contain the trademark/trade name IGEPAL ® CO-630. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson , 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a reagent/surfactant and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Claims 2-25, 27, and 30-38 each depend from one of claims 1, 28, or 29 and do not correct this deficiency. The claims are therefore indefinite per the same rationale as claims 1, 28, and 29. 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 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) 1-3, 5-7, 9-27, 29 -32, 36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al, US9074082 (Wang’082) . Wang’082 discloses a polyethylene composition (for claims 1, 29) comprising first and second ethylene copolymers (abstract). Said first ethylene copolymer has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) that is greater than the Mw of the second ethylene copolymer (for claim s 1 , 29 ) (Column 7, lines 37-38). Wang’082 further teaches that the ratio (SCB1/SCB2) of short chain branching per 1000 carbon atoms of the first ethylene copolymer (SCB1) to that of the second ethylene copolymer (SCB2) is greater than 1.0 (Column 3, lines 31-34) , overlapping the claimed range (for claim 16) ; one of ordinary skill in the art will therefore recognize that SCB1 is a higher number than SCB2 for the prior art composition (for claim s 1 , 29 ). The prior art composition can be used in the production of closures (for claims 30, 34) (abstract) The prior art polyethylene composition is characterized by a density of at least 0.950 g/cm 3 (for claims 1 , 29 ) (Column 12, lines 41-44), overlapping the claimed range (for claim 2); a melt index (I2) of 2 to 22 g/10 min (Column 12, lines 62-65), overlapping the claimed range (for claims 1, 3 , 29 ); a melt flow ratio (I21/I2) of 15 to 50 (Column 13, lines 63-65), overlapping the claimed range (for claim s 1 , 29 ); a molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) of 2 to 7 (Column 13, lines 44-46), overlapping the claimed range (for claim s 1 , 5 , 29 ); a z average molecular weight ( Mz ) less than 300,000 g/mol (Column 13, lines 51-53), overlapping the claimed range (for claim s 1 , 7 , 29 ); a Mz /Mw of 2.0 to 4.0 (Column 13, lines 59-62), overlapping the claimed range (for claim s 1 , 6 , 29 ), an environmental stress cracking resistance (ESCR) condition B of at least 3 hours (Column 14, lines 48-53), overlapping the claimed range (for claim s 1 , 26, 29 ) ; CDBI50 ≥ 60% (for claim s 9 , 29 ) (Column 15, lines 52-55); and a notched impact strength more than 40 J/m (i.e., more than 0.74 ft ib /in) (Column 15, lines 37-39), overlapping the claimed range (for claim s 24 , 29 ) . Regarding the claimed LCBF: Wang’082 discloses that the prior art composition may contain up to 0.3 long chain branches per 1000 carbon atoms (Column 17, lines 9-13). Note that applicant’s specification teaches an LCBF < 0.0010 corresponds to a linear polymer having no detectable long chain branches ( specification page 54: lines 1-5). As the prior composition contains up to 0.3 long chain branches per 1000 carbon atoms-i.e., a detectable amount of long chain branching-it is reasonably expected that the prior art composition would have a LCBF overlapping the claimed range (for claim s 1 , 20, 29 ). Regarding the claimed first ethylene copolymer: The prior art first ethylene copolymer is included in an amount of about 10 to 70 wt % (Column 3, line 19), overlapping the claimed range (for claim s 1 , 29 ), and is characterized by a Mw of at least 50,000 g/mol (Column 7, lines 39-40), overlapping the claimed range (for claim s 1 , 29 ); SCB1 of 0.25 to 15 (Column 7, lines 56-58), overlapping the claimed range (for claims 10, 11); a density of 0.930 to 0.960 g/cm 3 (Column 7, lines 33-35) , overlapping the claimed range (for claim 12) ; and a melt index (I2) of 0.1 to 10 g/10 min (Column 8, lines 13-14), overlapping the claimed range (for claim 14) . The prior art first ethylene copolymer is made using a single site catalyst (for claim 17) (Column 8, lines 46-48). The prior art first ethylene copolymer therefore corresponds to the claimed first ethylene copolymer (for claims 1 , 29 ). Regarding the claimed second ethylene copolymer: The prior art second ethylene copolymer is included in an amount in the range of 30 to 90 wt % (Column 3, line 23), overlapping the claimed range (for claim s 1 , 29 ), and is characterized by a density below 0.967 g/cm3 (Column 9, lines 12-14), overlapping the claimed range (for claim 13); and a melt index (I2) of 50 to 10,000 g/10 min (for claim 15) (Column 10, lines 32-34). The prior art second ethylene copolymer therefore corresponds to the claimed second ethylene copolymer (for claim s 1 , 29 ). Regarding claim 18: [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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP § 2113(I)). The prior art teaches a composition which appears to be the same as the claimed invention. The burden is therefore shifted to applicant to provide evidence demonstrating that the claimed process limitation results in an unobvious difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Regarding claim 19: Note that Wang’082 teaches that the catalyst may be one such as those taught by U.S. Patent no. 4808561, 4701432, 4937301, 5324800, 5633394, 4935397, 6002033, and 6489413, each of which is incorporated by Wang’082 by reference (Column 16, lines 55-58). Note that the cited references all disclose the use of hafnium-based catalysts; the prior art composition therefore comprises hafnium residues. Additionally, the prior art exemplifies the use of catalyst in an amount in the range of 0.1 to 0.14 ppm (Table 2). It therefore would have been obvious to prepare a composition having the required hafnium content. Regarding claims 31, 32, 36, 38: As noted above, the prior art discloses the production of a composition which appears to be the same as the claimed invention, which is used for the same purpose-i.e., the production of closures- as the claimed invention. The burden is therefore shifted to applicant to provide evidence demonstrating that the claimed methods of processing resulting in an unobvious difference between the claimed article and the article made from the prior art process. Wang’082 does not specifically disclose the production of a composition characterized by the combination of properties in the ranges recited in the instant claims. It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists; see 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). The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages; see In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (" (MPEP § 2144.05). The prior art ranges overlap the ranges recited in the instant claims. Barring a showing of evidence demonstrating unexpected results, it therefore would have been obvious to prepare a composition having the claimed properties in view of the teachings of Wang’082 (for claims 1, 29) . Regarding the claimed ESCR under condition A (for claims 1, 26, 29) , shear thinning index (for claims 21, 22), relative elasticity (for claim 23), melt strength (for claim 25), and flexural modulus (for claim 27): As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, Wang’082 renders obvious a composition which comprises first and second ethylene copolymers which (a) correspond to the claimed first and second copolymers, respectively, and (b) are combined in the same amounts as in the claimed invention. Furthermore, the composition rendered obvious by Wang’082 is characterized by the same properties of density, I2, I21/I2, Mw/Mn, Mz , LCBF, ESCR condition B, SCB1/SCB2, CBDI50, and Izod impact strength as the claimed invention. The prior art composition therefore appears to be the same as the claimed invention. “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same…" as that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald , 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP § 2112). As the prior art composition appears to the same as the claimed composition, it is reasonably expected that its properties would not be materially different from those of the claimed composition. The burden is therefore shifted to the applicant to prov id e evidence of an unobvious difference between the claimed invention and the prior art . Claim(s) 1- 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al, US8962755 (Wang’755). Wang’755 discloses a polyethylene composition (for claims 1, 29) comprising first and second ethylene copolymers (abstract). Said first ethylene copolymer has a Mw of 110,000 to 250,000 g/mol (Column 5, lines 47-49) and the second ethylene copolymer has a Mw less than 25000 (Column 7, lines 47-49 ) ; the prior art first ethylene copolymer therefore has a Mw that is greater than the Mw of the second ethylene copolymer (for claims 1, 28, 29). Wang ’755 further teaches that the ratio (SCB1/SCB2) may be from 0.75 to 12 (Column 9 , lines 47 -50 ), overlapping the claimed range (for claim 16); one of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that the prior art range includes values wherein when SCB1 is a higher number than SCB2 for the prior art composition ;-i.e., the first polymer has a greater amount of short chain branching than the second (for claims 1, 28, 29). The prior art composition can be used in the production of closures (for claims 30, 34) (abstract) . The prior art polyethylene composition is characterized by a density of at least 0.949 g/cm 3 (for claims 1, 28, 29) (Column 10, lines 21-22), overlapping the claimed range (for claim 2); a melt index (I2) of 0.4 to 5 g/10 min (Column 10, lines 49-52), overlapping the claimed range (for claims 1, 3, 28, 29); a melt flow ratio (I21/I2) greater than 40 (Column 11, lines 51-52), overlapping the claimed range (for claims 1, 4, 28, 29); a molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) of 3 to 11 (Column 11, lines 39-40), overlapping the claimed range (for claims 1, 5, 28, 29); a Mz less than 4 00,000 g/mol (Column 3, lines 45-46 ), overlapping the claimed range (for claims 1, 7, 28, 29); a Mz /Mw of 2.25 to 4.5 (Column 11, lines 46-49 ), overlapping the claimed range (for claims 1, 6, 28, 29) ; and a notched impact strength of at least 6 0 J/m (i.e., more than about 1 ft ib /in) (Column 13 , lines 23-26 ), overlapping the claimed range (for claims 24, 28, 29). Regarding the claimed LCBF: Wang’755 discloses that the prior art composition may contain up to 0.3 long chain branches per 1000 carbon atoms (Column 1 4 , lines 52-54 ). Note that applicant’s specification teaches an LCBF < 0.0010 corresponds to a linear polymer having no detectable long chain branches (specification page 54: lines 1-5). As the prior composition contains up to 0.3 long chain branches per 1000 carbon atoms-i.e., a detectable amount of long chain branching-it is reasonably expected that the prior art composition would have a LCBF overlapping the claimed range (for claims 1, 20, 28, 29). Regarding the claimed first ethylene copolymer: The prior art first ethylene copolymer is included in an amount of about 10 to 70 wt % (Column 2 , line 44 ), overlapping the claimed range (for claims 1, 28, 29), and is characterized by a Mw of 11 0,000 to 250,000 g/mol (Column 5 , lines 47-49 ), overlapping the claimed range (for claims 1, 28, 29); SCB1 of 0.25 to 15 (Column 5 , lines 1-3 ), overlapping the claimed range (for claims 10, 11); a density of 0.9 2 0 to 0.9 55 g/cm 3 (Column 5 , lines 55-56) , overlapping the claimed range (for claim 12); and a melt index (I2) of 0. 0 1 to less than 0.4 g/10 min (for claim 14) (Column 5 , lines 43-45 ). The prior art first ethylene copolymer is made using a single site catalyst (for claim 17) (Column 4 , lines 57-59 ). The prior art first ethylene copolymer therefore corresponds to the claimed first ethylene copolymer (for claims 1 , 28, 29 ). Regarding the claimed second ethylene copolymer: The prior art second ethylene copolymer is included in an amount in the range of 30 to 90 wt % (Column 2 , line 48 ), overlapping the claimed range (for claims 1, 28, 29), and is characterized by a density below 0.967 g/cm3 (Column 7 , lines 33-34 ), overlapping the claimed range (for claim 13); and a melt index (I2) of 2 0 to 10,000 g/10 min (for claim 15) (Column 7 , lines 59-60 ). The prior art second ethylene copolymer therefore corresponds to the claimed second ethylene copolymer (for claim s 1 , 28, 29 ). Regarding the claimed CDBI50: Wang’755 teaches that in one embodiment the composition has a CDBI 50 ≥ 60 wt % (for claims 9, 29). Furthermore , note that Wang ’755 teaches that it was known in the art that single site catalysts such as those used to prepare the claimed invention can produce polymers having CDBI greater than about 50% (Column 14, lines 21-24) and that both the first (Column 6, lines 13-15) and second (Column 8, lines 34-36) ethylene copolymer can have CDBI greater than about 50%. "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda , 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968 ) ( MPEP § 2144.01). Given that Wang’755 teaches that single site catalyst produce polymers having CDBI greater than about 50%, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer that the prior art composition-which is made using single site catalyst-can have a CDBI in the range of greater than or equal to about 50%. Note that the inclusion of the word “about” extends the prior art range to include values slightly less than 50%, overlapping the claimed range (for claims 8, 28). Regarding claim 18: [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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP § 2113(I)). The prior art teaches a composition which appears to be the same as the claimed invention. The burden is therefore shifted to applicant to provide evidence demonstrating that the claimed process limitation results in an unobvious difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Regarding claim 19: Note that Wang’755 teaches that the catalyst may be one such as those taught by U.S. Patent no. 4808561, 4701432, 4937301, 5324800, 5633394, 4935397, 6002033, and 6489413, each of which is incorporated by Wang’755 by reference (Column 1 4 , lines 34-41 ). Note that the cited references all disclose the use of hafnium-based catalysts; the prior art composition therefore comprises hafnium residues. Additionally, the prior art exemplifies the use of catalyst in an amount in the range of 0. 08 to 0. 31 ppm (Table 1 ). It therefore would have been obvious to prepare a composition having the required hafnium content. Regarding claims 31 -33 and 35-38 : As noted above, the prior art discloses the production of a composition which appears to be the same as the claimed invention, which is used for the same purpose-i.e., the production of closures- as the claimed invention. The burden is therefore shifted to applicant to provide evidence demonstrating that the claimed methods of processing resulting in an unobvious difference between the claimed article and the article made from the prior art process. Wang’755 does not specifically disclose the production of a composition characterized by the combination of properties in the ranges recited in the instant claims. It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists; see 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). The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages; see In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (" (MPEP § 2144.05). The prior art ranges overlap the ranges recited in the instant claims. Barring a showing of evidence demonstrating unexpected results, it therefore would have been obvious to prepare a composition having the claimed properties in view of the teachings of Wang’755 (for claims 1, 28, 29). Regarding the claimed ESCR under condition s A and B (for claims 1, 26, 28, 29), shear thinning index (for claims 21, 22), relative elasticity (for claim 23), melt strength (for claim 25), and flexural modulus (for claim 27): As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, Wang’755 renders obvious a composition which comprises first and second ethylene copolymers which (a) correspond to the claimed first and second copolymers, respectively, and (b) are combined in the same amounts as in the claimed invention. Furthermore, the composition rendered obvious by Wang’755 is characterized by the same properties of density, I2, I21/I2, Mw/Mn, Mz , LCBF, ESCR condition B, SCB1/SCB2, CBDI50, and Izod impact strength as the claimed invention. The prior art composition therefore appears to be the same as the claimed invention. “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same…" as that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald , 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP § 2112). As the prior art composition appears to the same as the claimed composition, it is reasonably expected that its properties would not be materially different from those of the claimed composition. The burden is therefore shifted to the applicant to provide evidence of an unobvious difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JEFFREY S LENIHAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5452 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon.-Fri. 5:30-2:00PM . 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 Heidi Riviere Kelley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1831 . 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. /JEFFREY S LENIHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765