DETAILED ACTION
Pending Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-4) in the reply filed on September 9, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office has made no showing that there would be an undue burden in examining the subject matter of Groups I-IV together. This is not found persuasive because examination burden does not factor into unity of invention analysis, in national stage applications. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-9 (Group II), 10-19 (Group III), and 20 (Group IV) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on September 9, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, 2nd paragraph (b)
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 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 1-4, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance:
claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a propylene-based copolymer, characterized in that the propylene-based copolymer contains propylene-derived structural units and comonomer-derived structural units”, and the claim also recites “preferably the propylene-based copolymer contains 60-95wt%, preferably 75-93wt% of propylene-derived structural units” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation;
claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a propylene-based copolymer, characterized in that the propylene-based copolymer contains propylene-derived structural units and comonomer-derived structural units”, and the claim also recites “preferably the propylene-based copolymer contains 5-40wt%, preferably 7-25wt% of comonomer-derived structural units” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation;
claim 2 recites the broad recitation “a mmm tacticity in the range of 75%- 99%”, and the claim also recites “preferably 80%-97%” which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation;
claim 2 recites the broad recitation “a density in the range of 0.84-0.92g/cc”, and the claim also recites “preferably 0.85-0.89g/cc” which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation;
claim 2 recites the broad recitation “a melt flow rate of less than or equal to 100g/10min”, and the claim also recites “preferably less than or equal to 20g/10min” which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation;
claim 3 recites the broad recitation “wherein the comonomer is at least one of ethylene, 1-butene, and 1-hexene”, and the claim also recites “preferably ethylene” which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation; and
claim 4 recites the broad recitation “wherein the weight content of aromatic hydrocarbon compounds in the propylene-based copolymer is below 500ppm”, and the claim also recites “preferably below 300ppm, still more preferably below 200ppm or below 100ppm, further preferably below 50ppm, most preferably free of aromatic hydrocarbon compounds” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Further regarding claims 1-4, claim 1 states: “wherein the comonomer dispersion degree D[PCP]/[C] = [PCP]/[C]x100%,
wherein [PCP] is the amount of monodispersed comonomer structural units in the propylene-based copolymer, wherein the monodispersed comonomer structural unit is a comonomer structural unit that exists in the form of a single comonomer structural unit inserted into a propylene segment, and
[C] is the total amount of comonomer structural units in the propylene-based copolymer.
The basis for these amounts is not clear. Specifically, it is unclear if these are molar amounts, molar percentages, weight amounts, weight percentages or some other amounts. Furthermore, it is unclear if these individual amounts are same type of amount (molar, molar percentage, weight, weight percentage, other). Claims 2-4 are rejected because they are dependent from claim 1. For the purpose of the prior art search, both the [PCP] amount and [C] amount have been interpreted as molar percentages.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seta et al. (JP 10-130336 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Seta et al. disclose: (1) a propylene-based copolymer, characterized in that the propylene-based copolymer contains propylene-derived structural units and comonomer-derived structural units, the comonomer is at least one of ethylene and C4-C20 alpha-olefins (Abstract; paragraphs 0006-0015); (3) wherein the comonomer is at least one of ethylene, 1-butene, and 1-hexene (Abstract; paragraphs 0006-0015). They fail to explicitly disclose: (1 & 3) the propylene-based copolymer has a comonomer dispersion degree D[PCP]/[C] in the range of 50%-70%, wherein the comonomer dispersion degree D[PCP]/[C] = [PCP]/[C]x100%, wherein:
[PCP] is the amount of monodispersed comonomer structural units in the propylene-based copolymer, wherein the monodispersed comonomer structural unit is a comonomer structural unit that exists in the form of a single comonomer structural unit inserted into a propylene segment, and
[C] is the total amount of comonomer structural units in the propylene-based copolymer.
Rather, they disclose a preferred ethylene unit content (c (wt%)) of 3 to 10 wt%, corresponding to a propylene content of 90 to 97 wt% (see paragraph 0009). They also disclose that the percentage of the PEP chain (R (mol%)) satisfies R ≥ 0.5c + 1.0, preferably R ≥ 0.5c + 2.0 (see paragraph 0014). The preferred ethylene weight percentages can be used to determine the minimum PEP mol% and the preferred minimum PEP mol%. In addition, the preferred monomer weight percentages can be converted to relative molar amounts and molar percentages. The minimum PEP mol% (and the preferred minimum PEP mol%) and the ethylene mol% can then be used to determine minimum PEP/E%:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
In light of this, it has been found 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 – see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, the teachings of Seta et al. obviously embrace embodiments satisfying the instantly claimed comonomer dispersion degree D[PCP]/[C] (of 50%-70%) because: (a) Seta et al. disclose a preferred ethylene unit content (c (wt%)) of 3 to 10 wt%, corresponding to a propylene content of 90 to 97 wt%; (b) Seta et al. disclose that the percentage of the PEP chain (R (mol%)) satisfies R ≥ 0.5c + 1.0, preferably R ≥ 0.5c + 2.0; (c) the preferred ethylene weight percentages of Seta et al. can be used to determine the minimum PEP mol% and the preferred minimum PEP mol%; (d) the preferred monomer weight percentages of Seta et al. can be converted to relative molar amounts and molar percentages; (e) the minimum PEP mol% (and the preferred minimum PEP mol%) and the ethylene mol% of Seta et al. can then be used to determine minimum PEP/E%, which includes ranges that overlap and embrace the instant claimed comonomer dispersion degree; and (f) it has been found 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.
Regarding claim 2, the teachings of Seta et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. They fail to explicitly disclose: (2) wherein the propylene-based copolymer has at least one of the following characteristics: (a) a mmm tacticity in the range of 75%- 99%; (b) a tacticity index m/r in the range of 3- 15; (c) a density in the range of 0.84-0.92g/cc; and (d) a melt flow rate of less than or equal to 100g/10min at 190oC under a load of 2.16kg. However, the skilled artisan would have expected the teachings of Seta et al. to obviously embrace embodiments capable of achieving at least one of these properties because the teachings of Seta et al. obviously satisfy all of the material limitations, including comonomer dispersion degree, of the instantly claimed copolymer.
Therefore, the skilled artisan would have expected the teachings of Seta et al. to obviously embrace embodiments capable of achieving at least one of the instantly claimed properties because the teachings of Seta et al. obviously satisfy all of the material limitations, including comonomer dispersion degree, of the instantly claimed copolymer.
Regarding claim 4, the teachings of Seta et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. They fail to explicitly disclose: (4) wherein the weight content of aromatic hydrocarbon compounds in the propylene-based copolymer is below 500ppm. Rather, they do not appear to require the use of aromatic hydrocarbon compounds in the preparation of their copolymer. This silence suggests that these materials are not present.
International Search Report
The ISR cited one X-reference. This reference has been considered.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FEELY whose telephone number is (571)272-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/MICHAEL J FEELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
September 27, 2026
