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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 02/21/2025 is acknowledged. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Claims 1-34 are examined on the merits in this office action.
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 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 and 20-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriguchi et al. (US 2018/0291241 A1 cited in IDS), Fraga Trillo et al. (US 2012/0270991 A1), Bastiaens et al. (WO 2009/125315 A1 cited in IDS), Ruckdaschel et al. (US 2012/0164425 A1 cited in IDS) and Ineos Styrolution (Styroflex 2G66, 2018 cited in IDS), taken in view of evidence by Aizawa et al. (6,113,998).
Regarding claim 1, Moriguchi et al. disclose a hot-melt adhesive agent (thermoplastic elastomer composition) comprising a triblock type styrene block copolymer A2 having a styrene content of 25 to 50 wt% (second hydrogenated styrene block copolymer) and a linear type styrene block copolymer A3 (first hydrogenated styrene block copolymer) and a plasticizer (see Abstract and paragraphs 0015, 0016, 0017 and 0045).
The triblock type styrene block copolymer A2 (second hydrogenated styrene block copolymer) has a chemical structure represented by the formula S-E-S (see paragraph 0043). Accordingly, A2 is linear type styrene block copolymer. Further, a specific example of the triblock type styrene block copolymer A2 includes TR 2000 (see paragraph 0046). As evidenced by Aizawa et al., TR2000 is a linear polystyrene-polybutadiene-polystyrene block copolymer (see col. 7, lines 24-26 and lines 43-45).
The thermoplastic block copolymer A can be hydrogenated or unhydrogenated (see paragraph 0026). That is, the triblock type styrene block copolymer A2 can be hydrogenated block copolymer and the linear type styrene block copolymer A3 can be hydrogenated block copolymer. The hydrogenated product of thermoplastic block copolymer include SEBS (see paragraph 0029). That is, A2 (second hydrogenated block copolymer) and A3 (first hydrogenated block copolymer) are each SEBS.
The plasticizer can be a process oil such as naphthene oil, paraffin oil, aromatic oil, etc. (see paragraph 0056). The plasticizer can be used in combination (see paragraph 0057). That is, a combination of two plasticizers such as paraffin oil and naphthene oil read on the plasticizer and a liquid plasticizer respectively.
The hot-melt adhesive agent can comprise antioxidant such as phenol antioxidants, fillers and UV absorbers (see paragraphs 0058, 0059, 0060, 0063).
While Moriguchi et al. disclose a first hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer, Moriguchi et al. do not disclose the first hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer as presently claimed. Moriguchi et al. do not disclose an unhydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer.
Fraga Trillo et al. disclose a linear hydrogenated styrene-butadiene block copolymer having a styrene content of 30 to 41 wt% (first styrene content) and a molecular weight of 200,000 to 600,000 (see paragraph 0008). The block copolymer can be triblock copolymer (see paragraph 0011). The block copolymer provides high-temperature performance, compression resistance and lower viscosity (see paragraphs 0006 and 0007).
In light of motivation for using a linear hydrogenated styrene-butadiene block copolymer having a styrene content of 30 to 41 wt% and a molecular weight of 200,000 to 600,000 disclosed by Fraga Trillo et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use a linear hydrogenated styrene-butadiene block copolymer having a styrene content of 30 to 41 wt% and a molecular weight of 200,000 to 600,000 of Fraga Trillo et al. as the first hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer (A3) in Moriguchi et al. in order to provide high-temperature performance, compression resistance and lower viscosity, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al. disclose a first hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer having a first styrene content of 30 to 41 wt% (A3) and a second hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer having a second styrene content of 25 to 50 wt%. When A2 has styrene content of 30 wt% and A3 has styrene content of 41 wt%, second styrene content is less than the first styrene content.
Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al. do not disclose an unhydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer.
Bastiaens et al. disclose impact modifier comprising a mixture of non-hydrogenated (unsaturated) copolymer and hydrogenated copolymers (see paragraph 0045). The copolymer can be A-B-A tri block copolymer such as styrene-butadiene-styrene (see paragraph 0045). That is, non-hydrogenated (unsaturated) copolymer can be styrene-butadiene-styrene triblock copolymer.
In light of motivation for using impact modifier comprising a mixture of non-hydrogenated (unsaturated) copolymer and hydrogenated copolymers, wherein non-hydrogenated copolymer can be styrene-butadiene-styrene triblock copolymer disclosed by Bastiaens et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use non-hydrogenated copolymer comprising styrene-butadiene-styrene triblock copolymer in combination with hydrogenated copolymers in the resin composition of Moriguchi et a. in view of Fraga Trillo et al. in order to improve impact properties, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al. and Bastiaens et al. do not disclose the unhydrogenated styrene block copolymer having a styrene content of at least 60 weight percent.
Ruckdaschel et al. disclose unhydrogenated styrene-butadiene block copolymer having styrene content of 40 to 80 wt% (see paragraph 0058). The styrene-butadiene block copolymer can be styrene-butadiene-styrene triblock copolymer (see paragraph 0062). An example includes Styroflex®2G66 (see paragraph 0064). As evidenced by Ineos Styrolution, Styroflex®2G66 is a styrene-butadiene block copolymer with a styrene content of at least 60% and Styroflex®2G66 provides high transparency, excellent thermostability, very high elongation at break and high resilience (see page 1, Product Texts).
In light of motivation for using unhydrogenated styrene-butadiene block copolymer Styroflex®2G66 disclosed by Ruckdaschel et al. and Ineos Styrolution as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use unhydrogenated styrene-butadiene block copolymer Styroflex®2G66 as the unhydrogenated styrene-butadiene block copolymer in Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al. and Bastiaens 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.
Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al. and Ineos Styrolution disclose the hot-melt adhesive agent, i.e. thermoplastic elastomer composition as set forth above. Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al. and 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 Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al. and Ineos Styrolution disclose thermoplastic elastomer composition as presently claimed, it is clear that the thermoplastic elastomer composition of Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al. and 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.
While it is recognized that the phrase “consisting essentially of” narrows the scope of the claims to the specified materials and those which do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention, absent a clear indication of what the basic and novel characteristics are, “consisting essentially of” is construed as equivalent to “comprising”. Further, the burden is on the applicant to show that the additional ingredients in the prior art would in fact be excluded from the claims and that such ingredients would materially change the characteristics of the applicant’s invention, See MPEP 2111.03.
Regarding claims 20-30, Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al. and Ineos Styrolution disclose the thermoplastic elastomer composition as set forth above. Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al. and Ineos Styrolution do not disclose the thermoplastic elastomer composition having presently claimed properties. However, given that the thermoplastic elastomer composition of Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al. and Ineos Styrolution is identical to that presently claimed, it is inherent or obvious that the thermoplastic elastomer composition of Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al. and Ineos Styrolution has presently claimed properties.
Claims 2-15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriguchi et al. (US 2018/0291241 A1 cited in IDS), Fraga Trillo et al. (US 2012/0270991 A1), Bastiaens et al. (WO 2009/125315 A1 cited in IDS), Ruckdaschel et al. (US 2012/0164425 A1 cited in IDS) and Ineos Styrolution (Styroflex 2G66, 2018 cited in IDS), taken in view of evidence by Aizawa et al. (6,113,998) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tamura et al. (US 2015/0059976 A1) and taken in view of evidence by Kraton (Kraton G1652 E).
Regarding claims 2-15, 18 and 19, Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al. and Ineos Styrolution disclose the thermoplastic elastomer composition as set forth above. While Moriguchi et al. disclose the first hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer and the second hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer, Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al. and Ineos Styrolution do not disclose the molecular weight of the second hydrogenated styrene block copolymer is less than the molecular weight of the first hydrogenated styrene block copolymer such as SEBS.
Tamura et al. disclose an adhesive composition comprising a hydrogenated triblock copolymer having a styrene content of 10 to 65 wt% and weight average molecular weight of 50,000 to 150,000 (see Abstract and paragraphs 0020, 0023, 0025, 0026 and 0028). A specific example of the block copolymer includes Kraton G1652 which is triblock copolymer with styrene content of 30 wt% and molecular weight of 77,700 (see paragraph 0107). As evidenced by Kraton, Kraton G1652 is linear triblock copolymer. The block copolymer provides excellent easiness of bonding and heat resistance (see paragraphs 0010, 0027 and 0031).
In light of motivation for using Kraton G1652 linear triblock copolymer disclosed by Tamura et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Kraton G1652 linear triblock copolymer of Tamura et al. as the second hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer in Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al. and Ineos Styrolution in order to provide excellent easiness of bonding and heat resistance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al., Ineos Styrolution and Tamura et al. disclose the first hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer having molecular weight of 200,000 to 600,000 and the second hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer having molecular weight of 77,700. Therefore, the molecular weight of the second hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer is less than the molecular weight of the first linear hydrogenated styrene block copolymer.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriguchi et al. (US 2018/0291241 A1 cited in IDS), Fraga Trillo et al. (US 2012/0270991 A1), Bastiaens et al. (WO 2009/125315 A1 cited in IDS), Ruckdaschel et al. (US 2012/0164425 A1 cited in IDS), Ineos Styrolution (Styroflex 2G66, 2018 cited in IDS) and Tamura et al. (US 2015/0059976 A1), taken in view of evidence by Aizawa et al. (6,113,998) and Kraton (Kraton G1652 E) as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of Isobe et al. (US 2017/0022399 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al., Ineos Styrolution and Tamura et al. disclose the thermoplastic elastomer composition as set forth above. While Moriguchi et al. disclose filler, Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al., Ineos Styrolution and Tamura et al. do not disclose the filler as presently claimed.
As indicated by Isobe et al., it is well known that a hot-melt adhesive comprising thermoplastic block copolymer can contain fillers such as calcium carbonate (see Abstract and paragraph 0054).
Therefore, as taught by Isobe et al., it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use calcium carbonate as filler in Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al., Ineos Styrolution and Tamura et al., and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriguchi et al. (US 2018/0291241 A1 cited in IDS), Fraga Trillo et al. (US 2012/0270991 A1), Bastiaens et al. (WO 2009/125315 A1 cited in IDS), Ruckdaschel et al. (US 2012/0164425 A1 cited in IDS) and Ineos Styrolution (Styroflex 2G66, 2018 cited in IDS), taken in view of evidence by Aizawa et al. (6,113,998) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Chen et al. (US 2018/0355224 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 31-33, Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al. and Ineos Styrolution disclose the thermoplastic elastomer composition as set forth above. Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al. and 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.
Chen et al. disclose hot melt adhesive can be applied to a rigid material that can be polymeric material such as polyolefin to prepare an article (see paragraph 0085 and page 17, claim 12).
Therefore, as taught by Chen et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare an article by applying the thermoplastic elastomer composition (hot-melt adhesive agent) of Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al. and Ineos Styrolution to exterior surface of a rigid plastic substrate, wherein the article comprises a layer of the thermoplastic elastomer composition applied to the exterior surface of the article.
Although there is no disclosure that the article is “overmolded” or that the thermoplastic elastomer composition (hot-melt adhesive agent) of Moriguchi et al. is “overmolded” to the exterior surface of the article, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al., Ineos Styrolution and Chen et al. meets the requirements of the claimed product, Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al., Ineos Styrolution and Chen et al. clearly meet the requirements of present claims.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriguchi et al. (US 2018/0291241 A1 cited in IDS), Fraga Trillo et al. (US 2012/0270991 A1), Tamura et al. (US 2015/0059976 A1), Bastiaens et al. (WO 2009/125315 A1 cited in IDS), Ruckdaschel et al. (US 2012/0164425 A1 cited in IDS), Ineos Styrolution (Styroflex 2G66, 2018 cited in IDS) and Isobe et al. (US 2017/0022399 A1 cited in IDS), taken in view of evidence by Aizawa et al. (6,113,998) and Kraton (Kraton G1652 E).
Regarding claim 34, Moriguchi et al. disclose a hot-melt adhesive agent (thermoplastic elastomer composition) comprising a triblock type styrene block copolymer A2 having a styrene content of 25 to 50 wt% (second hydrogenated styrene block copolymer) and a linear type styrene block copolymer A3 (first hydrogenated styrene block copolymer) and a plasticizer (see Abstract and paragraphs 0015, 0016, 0017 and 0045).
The triblock type styrene block copolymer A2 (second hydrogenated styrene block copolymer) has a chemical structure represented by the formula S-E-S (see paragraph 0043). Accordingly, A2 is linear type styrene block copolymer. Further, a specific example of the triblock type styrene block copolymer A2 includes TR 2000 (see paragraph 0046). As evidenced by Aizawa et al., TR2000 is a linear polystyrene-polybutadiene-polystyrene block copolymer (see col. 7, lines 24-26 and lines 43-45).
The thermoplastic block copolymer A can be hydrogenated or unhydrogenated (see paragraph 0026). That is, the triblock type styrene block copolymer A2 can be hydrogenated block copolymer and the linear type styrene block copolymer A3 can be hydrogenated block copolymer. The hydrogenated product of thermoplastic block copolymer include SEBS (see paragraph 0029). That is, A2 (second hydrogenated block copolymer) and A3 (first hydrogenated block copolymer) is SEBS.
The plasticizer can be a process oil such as naphthene oil, paraffin oil, aromatic oil, etc. (see paragraph 0056). The plasticizer can be used in combination (see paragraph 0057). That is, a combination of two plasticizers such as paraffin oil and naphthene oil read on the plasticizer and a liquid plasticizer respectively.
The hot-melt adhesive agent can comprise antioxidant such as phenol antioxidants, fillers and UV absorbers (see paragraphs 0058, 0059, 0060, 0063).
While Moriguchi et al. disclose a first hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer, Moriguchi et al. do not disclose the first hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer as presently claimed. While Moriguchi et al. disclose a second hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer, Moriguchi et al. do not disclose the second hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer as presently claimed. Moriguchi et al. do not disclose an unhydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer. Moriguchi et al. do not disclose the hot-melt adhesive agent comprising a polystyrene.
Fraga Trillo et al. disclose a linear hydrogenated styrene-butadiene block copolymer having a styrene content of 30 to 41 wt% (first styrene content) and a molecular weight of 200,000 to 600,000 (see paragraph 0008). The block copolymer can be triblock copolymer (see paragraph 0011). The block copolymer provides high-temperature performance, compression resistance and lower viscosity (see paragraphs 0006 and 0007).
In light of motivation for using a linear hydrogenated styrene-butadiene block copolymer having a styrene content of 30 to 41 wt% and a molecular weight of 200,000 to 600,000 disclosed by Fraga Trillo et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use a linear hydrogenated styrene-butadiene block copolymer having a styrene content of 30 to 41 wt% and a molecular weight of 200,000 to 600,000 of Fraga Trillo et al. as the first hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer (A3) in Moriguchi et al. in order to provide high-temperature performance, compression resistance and lower viscosity, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
While Moriguchi et al. disclose a second hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer, Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al. do not disclose the second hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer as presently claimed. Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al. do not disclose an unhydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer. Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al. do not disclose the hot-melt adhesive agent comprising a polystyrene.
Tamura et al. disclose an adhesive composition comprising a hydrogenated triblock copolymer having a styrene content of 10 to 65 wt% and weight average molecular weight of 50,000 to 150,000 (see Abstract and paragraphs 0020, 0023, 0025, 0026 and 0028). A specific example of the block copolymer includes Kraton G1652 which is triblock copolymer with styrene content of 30 wt% and molecular weight of 77,700 (see paragraph 0107). As evidenced by Kraton, Kraton G1652 is linear triblock copolymer. The block copolymer provides excellent easiness of bonding and heat resistance (see paragraphs 0010, 0027 and 0031).
In light of motivation for using Kraton G1652 linear triblock copolymer disclosed by Tamura et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Kraton G1652 linear triblock copolymer of Tamura et al. as the second hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer in Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al. and Ineos Styrolution in order to provide excellent easiness of bonding and heat resistance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al., Ineos Styrolution and Tamura et al. disclose the first hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer having styrene content of 30 to 41 wt% and molecular weight of 200,000 to 600,000 and the second hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymer having styrene content of 30 wt% and molecular weight of 77,700.
Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al. and Tamura et al. do not disclose an unhydrogenated styrene triblock copolymer. Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al. and Tamura et al. do not disclose the hot-melt adhesive agent comprising a polystyrene.
Bastiaens et al. disclose impact modifier comprising a mixture of non-hydrogenated (unsaturated) copolymer and hydrogenated copolymers (see paragraph 0045). The copolymer can be A-B-A tri block copolymer such as styrene-butadiene-styrene (see paragraph 0045). That is, non-hydrogenated (unsaturated) copolymer can be styrene-butadiene-styrene triblock copolymer.
In light of motivation for using impact modifier comprising a mixture of non-hydrogenated (unsaturated) copolymer and hydrogenated copolymers, wherein non-hydrogenated copolymer can be styrene-butadiene-styrene triblock copolymer disclosed by Bastiaens et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use non-hydrogenated copolymer comprising styrene-butadiene-styrene triblock copolymer in combination with hydrogenated copolymers in the resin composition of Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al. and Tamura et al. in order to improve impact properties, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Tamura et al. and Bastiaens et al. do not disclose the unhydrogenated styrene block copolymer having a styrene content of at least 60 weight percent. Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Tamura et al. and Bastiaens et al. do not disclose the hot-melt adhesive agent comprising a polystyrene.
Ruckdaschel et al. disclose unhydrogenated styrene-butadiene block copolymer having styrene content of 40 to 80 wt% (see paragraph 0058). The styrene-butadiene block copolymer can be styrene-butadiene-styrene triblock copolymer (see paragraph 0062). An example includes Styroflex®2G66 (see paragraph 0064). As evidenced by Ineos Styrolution, Styroflex®2G66 is a styrene-butadiene block copolymer with a styrene content of at least 60% and Styroflex®2G66 provides high transparency, excellent thermostability, very high elongation at break and high resilience (see page 1, Product Texts).
In light of motivation for using unhydrogenated styrene-butadiene block copolymer Styroflex®2G66 disclosed by Ruckdaschel et al. and Ineos Styrolution as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use unhydrogenated styrene-butadiene block copolymer Styroflex®2G66 as the unhydrogenated styrene-butadiene block copolymer in Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Tamura et al. and Bastiaens 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.
Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Tamura et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al. and Ineos Styrolution do not disclose the hot-melt adhesive agent comprising a polystyrene.
Isobe et al. disclose a hot-melt adhesive comprising an amorphous polystyrene resin and thermoplastic block copolymer (see Abstract). The polystyrene provides favorable adhesive force at a low temperature and stability with time (see paragraph 0025).
In light of motivation for using amorphous polystyrene resin disclosed by Isobe et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use amorphous polystyrene resin of Isobe et al. in the hot-melt adhesive agent of Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Tamura et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al. and Ineos Styrolution in order to provide favorable adhesive force at a low temperature and stability with time, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Tamura et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al., Ineos Styrolution and Isobe et al. do not disclose the hot melt adhesive agent, i.e. thermoplastic elastomer composition having presently claimed tensile strength. However, given that the thermoplastic elastomer composition of Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Tamura et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al., Ineos Styrolution and Isobe et al. is identical to that presently claimed, it is inherent or obvious that the thermoplastic elastomer composition of Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Tamura et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al., Ineos Styrolution and Isobe et al. has presently claimed tensile strength.
Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Tamura et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al., Ineos Styrolution and Isobe et al. disclose the hot-melt adhesive agent, i.e. thermoplastic elastomer composition as set forth above. Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Tamura et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al., Ineos Styrolution and Isobe et al. 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 Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Tamura et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al., Ineos Styrolution and Isobe et al. disclose thermoplastic elastomer composition as presently claimed, it is clear that the thermoplastic elastomer composition of Moriguchi et al. in view of Fraga Trillo et al., Tamura et al., Bastiaens et al., Ruckdaschel et al., Ineos Styrolution and Isobe et al. 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.
While it is recognized that the phrase “consisting essentially of” narrows the scope of the claims to the specified materials and those which do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention, absent a clear indication of what the basic and novel characteristics are, “consisting essentially of” is construed as equivalent to “comprising”. Further, the burden is on the applicant to show that the additional ingredients in the prior art would in fact be excluded from the claims and that such ingredients would materially change the characteristics of the applicant’s invention, See MPEP 2111.03.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/21/2025 have been fully considered. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above. All arguments except as set forth below are moot in light of new grounds of rejections.
Applicants argue that the Office alleges that optional copolymer (A3) has a styrene content of 50-90% by weight. This is incorrect. The 50-90% by weight range refers the diblock content of optional copolymer (A3), not the styrene content of optional copolymer (A3).
In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above. In Moriguchi et al., A3 is now used as first hydrogenated linear block copolymer and the styrene content is taught by Fraga Trillo et al.
Applicants argue that the radial type styrene block copolymer (A1) is a critical feature of the hot-melt adhesive of Moriguchi et al., and cannot be removed and replaced with a linear type styrene block copolymer.
However, the examiner is not removing or replacing the radial type styrene block copolymer (A1) from Moriguchi et al. As set forth above, Moriguchi et al. is used to teach A2 and A3 as second hydrogenated block copolymer and first hydrogenated block copolymer respectively.
In light of amendments, 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kobe et al. (US 6,277,488 B1) disclose an adhesive composition comprising a blend of a linear styrene butadiene block copolymer with a styrene content of 20 to 35 wt% and a diblock content from 0 to 20 wt% with a linear styrene butadiene block copolymer with a styrene content of 20 to 35 wt% and a diblock content from 80 to 100 wt% (see col. 4, lines 50-58).
Stafeil et al. (US 2015/0203725 A1) disclose a hot melt adhesive comprising a first styrene block copolymer having styrene content of greater than 30 wt% and a second styrene block copolymer having styrene content of 15 to 30 wt% (see paragraphs 0015 and 0023).
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 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
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787