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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 contains a typo, such that it reads “-70.0” rather than “70.0” in line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitale et al. (WO 2018/219583) in view of Resconi et al. (US 2016/0152810).
Considering Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13: Vitale et al. teaches a polypropylene composition comprising from 50 to 90 weight percent of a polypropylene homopolymer having a fraction insoluble in xylene at 25 ºC greater than 90% and a melt flow rate of 0.5 to 200 g/10 min; and from 10 to 50 weight percent of a copolymer of propylene and ethylene having 30 to 70.0 weight percent of ethylene derived units (¶0005); where the xylene soluble fraction of the polypropylene composition ranges from 10 to 50 weight percent and the melt flow rate of the composition is from 35.0 to 70.0 g/10 min (¶0005). Vitale et al. teaches an example having a melt flow rate for the composition of 64.0 g/10 min and a xylene soluble fraction of the composition of 12.8 weight percent (Table 4).
Vitale et al. does not teach the claimed amount of homopolymer and copolymer. Vitale et al. teaches an example having high amount of polypropylene homopolymer and low amount of propylene ethylene copolymer (Table 4). However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). The claimed amount is sufficiently close to the end points of the ranges disclosed in Vitale et al. that a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compositions to have substantially similar properties. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used an amount of homopolymer and copolymer in the claimed ranges, and the motivation to do so would have been, a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compositions to have substantially similar properties as those disclosed in Vitale et al.
Vitale et al. teaches a melt flow rate for the polypropylene homopolymer that encompasses the claimed range. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The melt flow rate of a polypropylene homopolymer controls the strength and processability of the polymer during preparation of molded articles. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the melt flow rate through routine optimization within the range disclosed in Vitale et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, to achieve a balance between the strength and the processability of the resultant composition.
Vitale et al. is silent towards the ethylene content within the xylene soluble and insoluble fractions. However, Resconi et al. teaches a heterophasic polypropylene having an ethylene content in the cold xylene insoluble fraction of less than 1.5 weight percent (¶0071) and an ethylene content in the xylene soluble fraction of 18 to 70 weight percent (¶0087). Vitale et al. and Resconi et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely heterophasic polypropylene compositions. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have prepared a polypropylene with the claimed ethylene contents in the xylene soluble and insoluble fractions in the composition of Vitale et al., as in Resconi et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, to provide improved optical performance and stress whitening resistance (¶0068).
Considering Claims 3 and 11: Vitale et al. teaches an overlapping range of the xylene soluble fraction with the claimed range. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have prepared a composition with a xylene solubles content with in the overlapping portion of the claimed range, and the motivation to do so would have been, to control the tensile modulus of the composition.
Considering Claim 5: Vitale et al. teaches an intrinsic viscosity of the fraction soluble in xylene of 2.2 to 4.0 dl/g (¶0005). 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). See MPEP § 2144.05. The intrinsic viscosity controls the strength and processability of the polymer during preparation of molded articles. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the melt flow rate through routine optimization within the range disclosed in Vitale et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, to achieve a balance between the strength and the processability of the resultant composition.
Considering Claims 8 and 14: Vitale et al. does not teach the claimed xylene soluble intrinsic viscosity. However, Resconi et al. teaches the intrinsic viscosity of the xylene soluble fraction as being 1.5 to 3.5 dl/g (¶0105). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the intrinsic viscosity of the xylene soluble fraction from Resconi et al. in the composition of Vitale et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Resconi et al. suggests, to provide good tensile modulus and impact properties (¶0113-14).
Considering Claim 15: Vitale et al. teaches an injection molded article made from the composition (¶0034).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
