DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/04/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 5 recites “the first linear hydrogenated styrene”, which should be “the first hydrogenated linear styrene”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2, line 3 recites “the first linear hydrogenated styrene block”, which should be “the first hydrogenated linear styrene triblock”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3, line 2 recites “the first and second linear hydrogenated styrene block copolymers”, which should be “the first hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer and the second hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4, line 2 recites “the first hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer”, which should be “the first hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16, line 2 recites “the filler”, which should be “the at least one filler”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 32, line 2 recites “the article”, which should be “an article”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6-19 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.
Claim 6 recites “the unhydrogenated styrene block copolymer comprises an unsaturated styrene triblock copolymer”. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the unhydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the unhydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer" limitation in the claim. Further, it is not clear if the “unsaturated” styrene triblock copolymer is same as the “unhydrogenated” styrene triblock copolymer of claim 1 or if the “unsaturated” styrene triblock copolymer is different than the “unhydrogenated” styrene triblock copolymer of claim 1. Further, it is not clear if the unhydrogenated styrene “block” copolymer is same as the unsaturated “triblock” copolymer of claim 1. This rejection affects all the dependent claims. It is suggested that claim 6 is canceled and claim 7 is recited to depend on claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “further comprising” a liquid plasticizer. It is not clear if the liquid plasticizer is same as the plasticizer of claim 1 or if the liquid plasticizer is an additional plasticizer that is different than the plasticizer of claim 1. Based on the specification, the plasticizer comprises liquid plasticizer (see paragraph 0043 of present specification). That is, the plasticizer of claim 9 is same as the plasticizer of claim 1. This rejection affects all the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the unhydrogenated styrene block copolymer comprises an unsaturated styrene triblock copolymer”. Given that claim 1 already recites an unhydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer, claim 6 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. It appears that the “unsaturated” triblock copolymer is same as “unhydrogenated” styrene triblock copolymer, and therefore claim 6 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. This rejection affects all the dependent claims. It is suggested that claim 6 is canceled and claim 7 is recited to depend on claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-11, 13 and 15-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama et al. (JPH0657130A) in view of Ineos Styrolution (Styroflex 2G66, 2018 cited in IDS), taken in view of evidence by Kuraray (SEBS). It is noted that the disclosures of Akiyama et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action while Ineos Styrolution is based on document mailed 04/21/23.
Regarding claims 1, 3-11, 18 and 19, Akiyama et al. disclose an elastomeric polymer composition comprising a hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (c) (first hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer) having a styrene content of 45 to 95 wt% (first styrene content) and a hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (d) (second hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer) having a styrene content of 15 to 45 wt% (second styrene content) (see paragraphs 0001, 0017-0019, 0023-0025). The styrene content of the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (d) is less than the styrene content of the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (c). The hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (c) and the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (d) can be derived from hydrogenation of polystyrene-polybutadiene-polystyrene block copolymer (see paragraphs 0019, 0020, 0025, 0027, 0044, 0050). That is, given that as evidenced by Kuraray (see page 1 “How is SEBS made”, paragraph 3), it is well known that hydrogenating polystyrene-polybutadiene-polystyrene block copolymer (SBS) results in styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene block copolymer (SEBS), the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (c) and the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (d) are SEBS block copolymers. The hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (c) and the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (d) can be linear block copolymers (see paragraphs 0019, 0026). Accordingly, the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (c) reads on a first hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer and the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (d) reads on a second hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer.
Akiyama et al. disclose the elastomeric polymer composition can comprise non-hydrogenated block copolymers of component (c) or (d) (see paragraph 0036). Given that component (c) and (d) are styrene triblock copolymers, Akiyama et al. can contain non-hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (unhydrogenated or unsaturated styrene triblock copolymer). The elastomeric composition can comprise plasticizers such fatty acid esters, process oil (liquid plasticizer), etc. (see paragraphs 0036, 0055). The process oil can be a paraffin oil (see paragraph 0055). Given that Akiyama et al. disclose that additional components may be added as needed, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to use plasticizers such as fatty acid esters and/or process oil (liquid plasticizer).
Akiyama et al. do not disclose an unhydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer as presently claimed.
Ineos Styrolution disclose Styroflex®2G66, a styrene-butadiene block copolymer (SBC) with a styrene content of at least 60 wt%, wherein Styroflex®2G66 provides high transparency, excellent thermostability, very high elongation at break and high resilience (see page 1, Product Texts). Given that Styroflex®2G66 is identical to unhydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer utilized in the present invention (see paragraphs 0089, 0095 and 0096 of the present specification), Styroflex®2G66 is unhydrogenated styrene-butadiene-styrene triblock (SBS) copolymer.
In light of motivation for using Styroflex®2G66 disclosed by Ineos Styrolution as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use Styroflex®2G66 as unhydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer in Akiyama et al. in order to provide high transparency, excellent thermostability, very high elongation at break and high resilience, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution disclose the elastomeric polymer composition. While Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution do not explicitly disclose the elastomeric polymer composition is “a thermoplastic elastomer composition”, given that the elastomeric polymer composition is made of a first hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer, a second hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer and an unhydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer identical to that utilized in the present invention, the elastomeric polymer composition of Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution is necessarily thermoplastic elastomer composition.
Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution disclose the thermoplastic elastomer composition as set forth above. Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution do not disclose thermoplastic elastomer composition for overmolding a substrate, wherein the substrate is a rigid plastic substrate as presently claimed.
However, the recitation in the claims that the thermoplastic elastomer composition is “for overmolding a substrate, wherein the substrate is a rigid plastic substrate as presently claimed” is merely an intended use. Applicants’ attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution disclose thermoplastic elastomer composition as presently claimed, it is clear that the thermoplastic elastomer composition of Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. for overmolding a substrate, wherein the substrate is a rigid plastic substrate as presently claimed, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution disclose the thermoplastic elastomer composition as set forth above.
Further, Akiyama et al. disclose the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (c) (first hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer) has a number average molecular weight of 5,000 to 1,000,000 (see paragraph 0019) and the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (d) (second hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer) has a number average molecular weight of 5,000 to 1,000,000 (see paragraph 0026). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose number average molecular weight of hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (c) (first hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer) and number average molecular weight of hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (d) (second hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer) including where the number average molecular weight of the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (d) (second hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer) is less than the number average molecular weight of the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (c) (first hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer), and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Further, attention is drawn to Example 2 of Akiyama which discloses using hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (c-2) having number average molecular weight of 133,000 and hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (d-3) having number average molecular weight of 99,000 (see paragraphs 0045, 0050, and Example 2 in Table 1 of paragraph 0066 of original JP document).
Regarding claim 13, Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution disclose the thermoplastic elastomer composition as set forth above. Akiyama et al. disclose the elastomeric polymeric composition can comprise antioxidant (see paragraph 0036).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution disclose the thermoplastic elastomer composition as set forth above. Akiyama et al. disclose the elastomeric polymeric composition can comprise a filler such as calcium carbonate (see paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 17, Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution disclose the thermoplastic elastomer composition as set forth above. Akiyama et al. disclose the elastomeric polymeric composition can comprise an additive such as flame retardants (see paragraph 0036).
Regarding claims 20-30, Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution disclose the thermoplastic elastomer composition as set forth above.
Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution do not disclose the thermoplastic elastomer composition having presently claimed properties. However, given that the thermoplastic elastomer composition including a first hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer, a second hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer, an unhydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer and a plasticizer of Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution is identical to that presently claimed, it is inherent that the thermoplastic elastomer composition of Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution has presently claimed properties. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose amounts and components in Akiyama et al. to produce composition with desired properties including tensile strength and tear strength as presently claimed depending on the desired end use of the composition.
Claims 12, 14 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama et al. (JPH0657130A) in view of Ineos Styrolution (Styroflex 2G66, 2018 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Ajbani et al. (US 2005/0148727 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 12, Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution disclose the thermoplastic elastomer composition as set forth above. While Akiyama et al. a process oil, Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution do not disclose the process oil is naphthenic oil.
Ajbani et al. disclose a thermoplastic elastomer composition comprising a hydrogenated block copolymer such as SEBS and oil such as paraffinic oil or naphthenic oil (see Abstract, paragraphs 0046, 0047 and claim 5).
In light of equivalence and interchangeability of paraffinic oil and naphthenic oil, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to use naphthenic oil as process oil in the thermoplastic elastomer composition of Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution disclose the thermoplastic elastomer composition as set forth above. While Akiyama et al. an antioxidant, Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution do not disclose the antioxidant as presently claimed.
Ajbani et al. disclose a thermoplastic elastomer composition comprising a hydrogenated block copolymer such as SEBS and polyphenolic antioxidants (see paragraphs 0046, 0047 and 0097). The polyphenolic antioxidants are chemical protectors that provide protection from oxygen or ozone (see paragraph 0097).
In light of motivation for using polyphenolic antioxidants disclosed by Ajbani et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use polyphenolic antioxidants as antioxidant in Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution in order to provide protection from oxygen or ozone, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 31-33, Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution disclose the thermoplastic elastomer composition as set forth above. While Akiyama et al. disclose molding the composition into articles including gaskets by any conventionally known method (see paragraph 0038), Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution do not disclose a method for preparation of an overmolded article, an overmolded article having at least one layer of the thermoplastic elastomer composition overmolded to at least a portion of the exterior surface of the article and an overmolded article.
Ajbani et al. disclose a thermoplastic elastomer composition comprising a hydrogenated block copolymer such as SEBS (see Abstract and paragraphs 0046, 0047). Ajbani et al. disclose a process for manufacturing an overmolded article including a gasket comprising overmolding the thermoplastic elastomer composition onto a hard substrate such as a plastic (see paragraphs 0040, 0042, 0045).
Therefore, as taught by Ajbani et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare an overmolded article by using a process comprising overmolding (i.e. applying) the thermoplastic elastomer composition of Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution to exterior surface of a rigid plastic substrate, wherein the overmolded article comprises a layer of the thermoplastic elastomer composition overmolded to the exterior surface of the article, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama et al. (JPH0657130A) in view of Ineos Styrolution (Styroflex 2G66, 2018 cited in IDS), taken in view of evidence by Kuraray (SEBS). It is noted that the disclosures of Akiyama et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action while Ineos Styrolution is based on document mailed 04/21/23.
Regarding claim 34, Akiyama et al. disclose an elastomeric polymer composition comprising a hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (c) (first hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer) having a styrene content of 45 to 95 wt% (first styrene content) and a hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (d) (second hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer) having a styrene content of 15 to 45 wt% (second styrene content) (see paragraphs 0001, 0017-0019, 0023-0025). The styrene content of the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (d) is less than the styrene content of the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (c). The hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (c) (first hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer) has a number average molecular weight of 5,000 to 1,000,000 (see paragraph 0019) and the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (d) (second hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer) has a number average molecular weight of 5,000 to 1,000,000 (see paragraph 0026). The hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (c) and the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (d) can be derived from hydrogenation of polystyrene-polybutadiene-polystyrene block copolymer (see paragraphs 0019, 0020, 0025, 0027, 0044, 0050). That is, given that as evidenced by Kuraray (see page 1 “How is SEBS made”, paragraph 3) it is well known that hydrogenating polystyrene-polybutadiene-polystyrene block copolymer (SBS) results in styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene block copolymer (SEBS), the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (c) and the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (d) are SEBS block copolymers. The hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (c) and the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (d) can be linear block copolymers (see paragraphs 0019, 0026). Accordingly, the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (c) reads on a first hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer and the hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (d) reads on a second hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer.
Akiyama et al. disclose the elastomeric polymer composition can comprise non-hydrogenated block copolymers of component (c) or (d) (see paragraph 0036). Given that component (c) and (d) are styrene triblock copolymers, Akiyama et al. can contain non-hydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer (unhydrogenated or unsaturated styrene triblock copolymer). The elastomeric composition can comprise polystyrene (see paragraph 0016).
Akiyama et al. do not disclose an unhydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer as presently claimed.
Ineos Styrolution disclose Styroflex®2G66, a styrene-butadiene block copolymer (SBC) with a styrene content of at least 60 wt%, wherein Styroflex®2G66 provides high transparency, excellent thermostability, very high elongation at break and high resilience (see page 1, Product Texts). Given that Styroflex®2G66 is identical to unhydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer utilized in the present invention (see paragraphs 0089, 0095 and 0096 of the present specification), Styroflex®2G66 is unhydrogenated styrene-butadiene-styrene triblock (SBS) copolymer.
In light of motivation for using Styroflex®2G66 disclosed by Ineos Styrolution as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use Styroflex®2G66 as unhydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer in Akiyama et al. in order to provide high transparency, excellent thermostability, very high elongation at break and high resilience, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution disclose the elastomeric polymer composition. While Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution do not explicitly disclose the elastomeric polymer composition is “a thermoplastic elastomer composition”, given that the elastomeric polymer composition is made of a first hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer, a second hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer and a polystyrene identical to that utilized in the present invention, the elastomeric polymer composition of Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution is necessarily thermoplastic elastomer composition. Given that the thermoplastic elastomer composition of Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution is identical to that presently claimed, it is inherent that the thermoplastic elastomer composition of Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution has a tensile strength as presently claimed. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose amounts and components in Akiyama et al. to produce composition with desired properties including tensile strength and tear strength as presently claimed depending on the desired end use of the composition.
Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution disclose the thermoplastic elastomer composition as set forth above. Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution do not disclose thermoplastic elastomer composition for overmolding a substrate, wherein the substrate is a rigid plastic substrate as presently claimed.
However, the recitation in the claims that the thermoplastic elastomer composition is “for overmolding a substrate, wherein the substrate is a rigid plastic substrate as presently claimed” is merely an intended use. Applicants’ attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution disclose thermoplastic elastomer composition as presently claimed, it is clear that the thermoplastic elastomer composition of Akiyama et al. in view of Ineos Styrolution would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. for overmolding a substrate, wherein the substrate is a rigid plastic substrate as presently claimed, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above. All arguments are moot in light of new grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights