DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 7/7/2026.
The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
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 were received on 7/7/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 and 22-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 26, 28, and 29: Claims 1, 26 28, and 29 have all been amended to state that the environmental stress crack resistance (ESCR) is measured in branched ethoxylated nonylphenol, which generically refers to compounds having a structure comprising a benzene ring substituted with a branched nonyl group -C9H19 and a poly(ethylene oxide) group -O-(CH2CH2-O)n-H. Note that the generic term “branched ethoxylated nonylphenol” recited in the claims reads on structures wherein
the -C9H19 group can have any branching structure (e.g. a single branch at position 5; 2 branches at position 3, etc.) so long as the required number of carbon and hydrogen atoms are present,
the number of repeating units (n) in the -O-(CH2CH2-O)n-H group can be any number, and
the benzene ring can have any substitution arrangement of the -C9H19 and -O-(CH2CH2-O)n-H groups (i.e., para, ortho, meta).
In contrast, the original disclosure uses the commercial compound IGEPAL CO-630, which will have a structure in which each of these parameters is a specific value/structure. Applicant’s original disclosure of a single commercial compound having a specific structure does not provide support for every other compound that would also fall within the scope of the generic term “branched ethoxylated nonylphenol”.
Claims 2-19, 22-25, 27,and 30-38 each depend from one of claims 1, 28, or 29 and do not correct this deficiency. The claims therefore are not supported by the original disclosure per the same rationale as claims 1, 26, 28, and 29.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 7/7/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Wang et al, US9074082, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 15, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Wang et al, US8962755, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Specifically, applicant cites comparative example 5 from the instant specification as evidence that polymers made using phosphinimine ligands as used by the prior art do not necessarily result in the production of a polymer having a long chain branching factor (LCBF) in the required range of greater than 0.005. Furthermore, it is noted that both Wang’082 (see Column 17: lines 1-13) and Wang’755 (Column 14: lines 42-56) are directed towards compositions having suppressed long chain branching, the evidence in the record does not provide a reasonable basis for expecting that the polymers of Wang’082 and Wang’755 would necessarily be characterized by LCBF values greater than 0.005 as required.
The rejections are therefore withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JEFFREY S LENIHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5452. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Heidi Riviere Kelley can be reached at 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
Prosecution Insights