CTNF 18/696,216 CTNF 69529 DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions 08-06 AIA Claim s 13 to 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 3/18/26 . As a result of this election the application has been transferred and is now being examined by Examiner Margaret Moore . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-34-01 Claim 8 is 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. In claim 6, while not indefinite, the word “ot” is a misspelling. In claim 8, it is unclear what has a very low density content, low density content and so on. While the Examiner recognizes that applicants most likely are referring to very low density polyethylene, low density polyethylene and so on, there is nothing in the claim that species what it is that has these densities such that this is unclear. Also, it is unclear how the polymers found in claim 1 relate to these densities. Are these in addition to the claimed first and second polymers: Are the first and second polymers embraced by these densities? Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 to 7 and 9 to 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatent-able over Holtcamp et al. 2019/0119413, in view of the “ExxonMobil HDPE HTA 108 High Density Polyethylene Resin” data sheet (attached) . Holtcamp et al. teach LLDPE polyethylenes that meet the requirements of the Claimed second polyethylene. Applicants refer to this document in their specification as teaching making such polyethylenes. See for instance paragraph 128 and note that Holtcamp et al. corresponds to the WO 2019/083609 document. In Holtcamp et al. see Tables 1 and 3. This shows polyethylene 123_16-09.01 having an MI of .97, an HLMI of 31.52, a density of 0.919, an Mw of 125,036 and an Mn or 13179. It also has a hexane content of 9.67 wt% and meets each of the requirements of the second polyether. 123_16-09.03 meets these requirements as well. While Holtcamp et al. do not specifically teach the first polyethylene meeting the claimed requirements, please see paragraph 129 which teaches blends of the polymers therein with other polymers including HDPE. Generally the claimed first polyethylene is considered to be an HDPE. The HDPE HTA 108 data sheet teaches polymers having a density of .961 and a melt flow of .7 g/10min. It is designed to improve stiffness and barrier in PE blends and when blended with LLDPE it improves processability. From this one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add HDPE HTA 108 to the polyethylene composition Holtcamp et al. to form a blend having improved properties, as per the Polyethylene Resin data sheet. In this manner claim 1 is rendered obvious. For claims 2 and 3, see paragraph 58 in Holtcamp et al. which teaches that the polyethylenes therein have a BOCD and meet the property (a) in claim 3. For claim 4, see Table 3 which shows Mw and Mz within these ranges For claim 5, a polyethylene with all of these properties is not specifically shown by Holtcamp et al. but according to applicants’ disclosure, are within the breadth of the teachings and the process of Holtcamp et al. As such one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust and/or optimize the properties of the polyethyl-ene in Holtcamp et al. in an effort to determine the beneficial and most useful product such that polyethylenes having such properties would have been obvious and well with-in routine experimentation of the teachings therein. For claim 6, the polymers referred to supra in Tables 1 and 3 possess these properties. Note that the term “about” used to modify the Mw/Mn value allows for values above 8 such that the Mw/Mn value of 9.49 (for polymer 123_16-09.01) meets this requirement. If not within the breadth of “about 8”, the Examiner again notes that the process and polymers in Holtcamp et al. generally embrace the claimed second poly-ethylene such that a polymer meeting these requirements would have been within routine experimentation of the teachings in Holtcamp et al. For claim 7 see paragraph 128 which teaches a preferred range of hexene monomers of from 3 to 10 wt% which embraces and provides motivation for the skilled artisan to select an amount within the claimed range of 2 to 6 wt%. For claim 9, note that adjusting the amount of the second and first polyethylenes in the modified composition of Holtcamp et al. would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in an effort to optimize the properties associated with each polymer. As such the wt% in claim 9 would have been obvious. For claim 10, note that polyethylene blends having different densities have differ-ent uses such that adjusting the final density to correspond with the final utility would have been obvious to the skilled artisan. For claim 11 note that such a property would appear to be the natural result of the combination of polymers found in claim 1 since the polymers used in the admixture rendered obvious above are the same as claimed . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to teach or suggest optimizing such a sigma property to within the claimed range. Note that the wide range in claim 11 appears to be a range that is inherently associated with the claimed (and obvious) blend; however, there is nothing that would lead the skilled artisan to optimize and/or adjust this property to within the narrow range of claim 12. There is nothing in Holtcamp et al. to indicate that this is a result effective variable or property of concern/interest. With the knowledge that the blend can possess sigma values that are outside of this range (as shown by claim 11), this more narrow range is unobvious. Claim 8 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection in paragraph 2, supra. There is nothing that suggests such as specific blend of components. Note that these types of densities (for polyethylenes) are conventional and known in the art but selecting these specific amounts and types of each polyethylene is not obvious over the prior art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Kelly, can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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 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. Mgm 6/12/26 /MARGARET G MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765 Application/Control Number: 18/696,216 Page 2 Art Unit: 1765 Application/Control Number: 18/696,216 Page 3 Art Unit: 1765 Application/Control Number: 18/696,216 Page 4 Art Unit: 1765 Application/Control Number: 18/696,216 Page 5 Art Unit: 1765
Prosecution Insights