DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Applicant’s amendment dated 2 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from consideration.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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
Claims 1-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALT (CN-101296986-A).
Regarding Claim 1, ALT teaches a polymeric molding composition comprising soft materials, fillers and thermoplastic polymers, preferably olefin polymers ([0001]). ALT exemplifies thermoplastic polypropylene ([0019]). This satisfies the optional requirement of an non-functionalized polyolefin polymer.
ALT teaches the glass filler component can be glass beads ([0007]), specifically teaching hollow glass beads as an option(Claim 4). ALT does not teach that the glass filler is coated. This satisfies the requirement that the filler is uncoated glass spheres. ALT does not exemplify hollow glass beads, but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the examples of ALT and use hollow glass beads based on the teachings of the specification.
ALT generally teaches that its soft material is present in an amount of 5-90 wt% ([0006]) can be a an uncrosslinked styrene-ethylene-butadiene terpolymer (SEBS)([0006], Claim 3). This satisfies the requirement of a styrene block copolymer. The 5-90wt% taught by ALT encompasses the 12-30wt% recited by the claim. ALT does not exemplify a styrene block copolymer for its soft material and does not exemplify an amount of soft material within the recited range, but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the examples of ALT and use a styrene block copolymer such as SEBS as its soft material in an amount that is within the range taught by ALT that is also within the range recited by the claim, based on the teachings of the specification.
ALT further teaches that a polar functional compatibilizer can be included ([0010]) and teaches maleic anhydride-grafted polyolefins as an option ([0010], Claim 9) which satisfies the requirement of a polyolefin functionalized with an anhydride of the unsaturated maleic acid. ALT does not exemplify a polar functional compatibilizer, but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the examples of ALT and use a polar functional compatibilizer such as a maleic anhydride polyolefin based on the teachings of the specification.
ALT teaches 5-90 wt% of soft material, which can be SEBS ([0006]), 5-60 wt% of glass material as filler and 3-70 wt% of the thermoplastic polymer ([0005]) which is exemplified as polypropylene ([0019]). ALT does not teach an amount of the polar functional compatibilizer used to satisfy the maleic anhydride polyolefin but it is presumed that the sum of the polypropylene and the maleic anhydride polyolefin would be within the broad 3-70 wt% teachings for the thermoplastic polymer component. The claim recites 12-30 wt% of styrene block copolymer (SBC) and recites ranges of weight ratios on the functionalized/non-functionalized thermoplastic polymer (15:100 to 140:100) and uncoated glass spheres (50:100 to 150:100) using the amount of styrene block copolymer as a basis. Using the 12-30 wt% recited for styrene block copolymer as a basis, these ratios correspond to 1.8-42 wt% of the functionalized/non-functionalized thermoplastic polymer and 6-45 wt% of the hollow glass spheres with the added requirement that the ratios are maintained throughout the range of the styrene block copolymer. The 3-70 wt% range for the thermoplastic polymer taught by ALT encompasses the 1.8-42 wt% calculated from the claim recitation and the 5-60 wt% of glass filler taught by ALT encompasses the 6-45 wt% calculated from the claim recitation. It would be obvious to modify the invention of ALT and use amounts of thermoplastic polymer and glass filler that are within the ranges taught by ALT that also satisfy the calculated amounts with the recited weight ratios that are recited by the claim. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). For more discussion see MPEP 2144.05-I.
Regarding Claim 2, modified ALT teaches the invention of Claim 1 where ALT teaches that the soft material can be SEBS([0006]) which is a triblock copolymer with polystyrene on the ends and poly(ethylene-co-butylene) in the central block.
Regarding Claim 3, modified ALT teaches the invention of Claim 2 where ALT teaches SEBS ([0006]) which has a central block of poly(ethylene-co-butylene) which is a polyolefin.
Regarding Claim 4, modified ALT teaches the invention of Claim 1 where ALT teaches SEBS ([0006]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified ALT teaches the invention of Claim 1 where ALT teaches SEBS ([0006]) and does not teach that it is grafted with one of the recited groups.
Regarding Claim 6, modified ALT teaches the invention of Claim 1 where ALT teaches a polar functional compatibilizer can be included ([0010]) and teaches maleic anhydride-grafted polyolefins as an option ([0010], Claim 9). Maleic anhydride is an anhydride of an organic unsaturated dicarboxylic acid.
Regarding Claim 15, modified ALT teaches the invention of Claim 6. ALT teaches maleic anhydride ([0010]) which is the anhydride of maleic acid which is also known as cis-1,2-ethylenedicarboxylic acid, so it is an unsaturated 1,2-dicarboxylic acid.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALT (CN-101296986-A) in view of AKIHIRO (JP-2019014798-A).
Regarding Claim 7, modified ALT teaches the invention of Claim 1. ALT teaches that its composition may contain other known additives ([0011]) but does not specifically mention plasticizers. AKIHIRO, in an invention of a polyolefin, hollow particulate, elastomer and modified polyolefin (Abstract, Claim 1), teaches that its composition may contain other known additives including a plasticizer ([0055]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the invention of ALT with the teachings of AKIHIRO and include a plasticizer. One would have been motivated to do so because it would be nothing more than using a known compound in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendment to Claim 1 has addressed an informality and resolved the indefiniteness of whether or not the copolyester-based or polyolefin component is functionalized. The objection and the rejection under 35 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that ALT does not exemplify a composition within the recited range. In response, while ALT does not exemplify the recited amount of SBC and with the recited ratios for functionalized/non-functionalized thermoplastic polymer and hollow glass spheres, this does not negate a finding of obviousness under 35 USC 103 since a preferred embodiment such as an example is not controlling. Rather, all disclosures "including unpreferred embodiments" must be considered. In re Lamberti 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) citing In re Mills 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA 1972). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use amounts of SBC, thermoplastic polymer and hollow glass sphere which satisfies the claim given that ALT teaches those amounts in its specification.
Applicant argues that its compositions produce a low-density composition that does not come at the expense of mechanical properties or processibility and that ALT does not contemplate these features. In response, these results are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. To the extent that there is an improvement in these properties, it is limited to specific exemplary embodiments and has not been shown to apply to the full range of the recited components. Note that the claims allow for as little as 12+1.8+6 = 19.8 wt% total of all of the recited components. In particular, the instant examples each contain a plurality of plasticizer (37.8wt% and 44.8wt%), which is not recited in Claim 1 and has no amounts or amount ratio recited in Claim 7. A skilled user may presume that the plasticizer is the source of the improvement in processability.
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 DAVID R FOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-4821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 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, ARRIE L 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.
/D.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights