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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 3, 4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017214449A to Ochiai (hereinafter Ochiai) in view of US 4,542,164 to Nishioka et al. (hereinafter Nishioka) and US 2017/0051132 to Yamanaka et al. (hereinafter Yamanaka). For the purposes of examination, citations for Ochiai are taken from a machine translation of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in November 2025.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, and 4. Ochiai teaches a polyolefin resin foam sheet [0001].
Ochiai teaches the polyolefin resin foam sheet has a mass per unit area, i.e. an area density, of 15 to 110 g/m2 [0014]. The polyolefin resin foam sheet comprise a polyolefin resin, such as a polyethylene resin and/or a polypropylene resin [0019]. The polyolefin resin foam sheet may also comprise a flame retardant [0032].
Ochiai teaches the thickness of the polyolefin resin foam sheet is preferably 0.4 to 3.0 mm [0014]. While this range is not identical to the claimed range of 2 to 15 mm, it does overlap. It has been held that 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 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05) Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a thickness for the polyolefin resin foam sheet at the upper end of the range disclosed by Ochiai, e.g. 2 – 3.0 mm, which is the part of the range that overlaps with the instantly claimed range. The motivation would have been that a higher thickness would be expected to provide great cushioning properties, which Ochiai expressly identifies as an intended objective for the disclosed polyolefin resin foam sheets [0013].
Ochiai is silent with respect to specific flame retardants which may be used in the polyolefin resin foam sheets. However, Yamanaka teaches the concept of utilizing phosphorus spiro compounds as flame retardants in polyolefin resin compositions [0012] – [0014]. Ochiai and Yamanaka are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polyolefin resin compositions. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a phosphorus spiro compound as taught by Yamanaka as the only flame retardant in the polyolefin resin foam sheet of Ochiai. The motivation would have been that Yamanaka shows that phosphorus spiro compounds are known in the art to be suitable phosphorus-based flame retardants for use in polyolefin resin compositions. Moreover, these phosphorus spiro flame retardants are described by Yamanaka to have high flame retardancy and satisfactory physical properties with no associated decrease in heat resistance ([0003] and [0015]).
Ochiai is also silent with respect to the gel fraction crosslinking degree of the polyolefin resin foam sheet. However, Nishioka teaches the concept of providing a polyolefin resin foam with a degree of crosslinking of 10 to 60% and preferably 15 to 50%, in terms of gel content (Column 8, Lines 1 – 13). Ochiai and Nishioka are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polyolefin resin foams. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the polyolefin resin foam sheet of Ochiai with a degree of crosslinking in the range of 10 to 60% or preferably 15 to 50%, as taught by Nishioka. The motivation would have been that Nishioka teaches this degree of crosslinking provides advantages such as the prevention of the formation of coarse cells (Column 8, Lines 1 – 13), which is a concern Ochiai seeks to avoid [0037].
Ochiai is further silent with respect to the foam’s ability to satisfy at least one of the instantly claimed conditions (1) and (2). However, Ochiai, when modified in the manner proposed, teaches a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. The claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a polyolefin resin foam sheet satisfying conditions (1) and/or (2), would then implicitly be achieved in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. See In Re Spada, 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process.
Regarding Claim 9. Ochiai teaches a polyolefin resin foam sheet of Claim 1. Ad detailed in the rejection of Claim 1, it is the Office’s position that, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a thickness for the polyolefin resin foam sheet at the upper end of the range disclosed by Ochiai, e.g. 2 – 3.0 mm. Ochiai further teaches a preferred mass per unit urea of 20 to 100 g/m2 [0014]. Using these values, the polyolefin resin foam sheet of Ochiai having a thickness of 2 to 3.0 mm can be calculated to have a most preferred apparent density of roughly 7 to 50 kg/m3.
Regarding Claim 10. Ochiai teaches a polyolefin resin foam sheet of Claim 9. Ad detailed in the rejection of Claim 1, it is the Office’s position that, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the polyolefin resin foam of Ochiai with a degree of crosslinking of preferably 15 to 50% as taught by Nishioka.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the applied references do not teach the new limitation setting forth the polyolefin resin foam sheet have “a gel fraction crosslinking degree of 20 to 60% by mass”. In response, the Office respectfully submits that this limitation is taught by newly cited US 4,542,164 to Nishioka et al.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA RIOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm EST.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights