DETAILED ACTION
Note: The reference Büchner (EP2427518, herein Büchner, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), was applied in office action mailed in 8/20/2025. It is noted that the examiner has inevitably included the WO2010128013A1 as its FOR reference, which now has been updated as EP2427518B1 as the FOR reference in record. Please see the attached FOR reference EP2427518B1, and the updated PTO-892 form in this 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
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, 2, 4, 5, 9-11, 15, 17, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Büchner (EP2427518, herein Büchner, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), in the view of Weber (US20100036043, herein Weber) and Etzrodt (US20040044119, herein Etzrodt).
Regard Claims 1, 2, 5, 17, 20, Büchner teaches pigment composition which comprises “bismuth vanadate” [0101] as C1; “thioindigo colorants” [0101] as C4, in the range of “0.001 to 10% by weight” [0098], which overlaps the claimed C4 range.
Büchner teaches polyethylene [0106] as C3, but does not explicitly teach the specific C2 as the claimed ranges of components C2 and C3. However, Weber teaches “ethylene copolymer type (Lupolene KR 1270, producer BASF)” [0151] known as ethylene copolymer, containing maleic anhydride, reads on the claimed component C2; ethylene/olefin (C3-C8) [0152] reads on the claimed component C3, both in the range of “from 0 to 40% by weight of further rubbers E” [0064], overlap the claimed ranges. Büchner and Weber are considered to be in the same field of endeavor, that of flame-retardant polyamide-pigment molding composition with the selection of copolymers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the “ethylene copolymer type (Lupolene KR 1270, producer BASF)” [0151]; ethylene/olefin (C3-C8) [0152] and “from 0 to 40% by weight of further rubbers E” [0064] as taught by Weber into the resin formation, because doing so would further achieve the optimized product process via the specified copolymer selection, which can lead to the desired property of “a feature of the inventive molding compositions is reduced anisotropy of notched impact resistance.” [0181].
Büchner teaches bismuth vanadate [0101] as component C1, but does not teach the claimed range of the component C1; however, Etzrodt teaches pigments (A) are dispersed homogeneously in a polymer [0104] wherein, the polymer is ethene-methacrylic acid copolymers [0086], and the pigment is “bismuth vanadate” [0065] “0.1 to 60% by weight, pigment” [0091] which overlaps the claimed range. Büchner and Etzrodt are considered to be analogous art relevant to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, that of functional resin composition formation via pigment of bismuth vanadate dispersed by ethylene-based polymer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teachings of Etzrodt, i.e., “bismuth vanadate” [0065] “0.1 to 60% by weight, pigment” [0091] into the resin composition, because doing so would further achieve the optimized product process via the specified pigment and concentration, which can lead to a very wide variety of colorations [0127] with the desired coloration effect.
In the case 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 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Büchner, Etzrodt and Weber collectively teach all claimed ingredients and amounts which can lead to the wherein the total amount of components C1 to C4 is 100 wt %.
Büchner teaches “Flame retardant additives used for component F) are preferably commercially available organic halogen compounds with synergists or commercially available organic nitrogen compounds or organic/inorganic phosphorus compounds, individually or in a mixture, or mineral flame retardant additives,” [0077], which indicates the boron oxide, and metal borate are optional and can be excluded from flame retardant selection.
Regarding Claim 4, Büchner teaches “Suitable colorants” [0101] as additive applied into “masterbatches in thermoplastics” [0063]
Regarding Claims 9, 10, 11, 15, Büchner teaches “These molding compositions are obtained by known processes by mixing the above-mentioned components” [0129] which indicates the mixing, molding process.
Regarding Claim 19, Büchner teaches “molding compositions comprising polyamide” [0130]
Claims 6-8, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Büchner (EP2427518, herein Büchner, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regard Claims 6-7, 21, Büchner teaches pigment composition as “molding composition” [0130], which comprises “20-94.9% by weight of polyamide” [0122], as component A, which overlaps the claimed range.
“glass fiber; 0.1-70% by weight” 0065-66], as component B, which overlaps the claimed range.
“bismuth vanadate” [0101] as component C, in the range of “0.001 to 10% by weight” [0098], which overlaps the claimed range.
“thioindigo colorants” [0101] as component D, in the range of “0.001 to 10% by weight” [0098], which overlaps the claimed range.
“stabilizers” [0099] as component E matches “stabilizers” [Instant App. P3; 0075], in the range of “0.001 to 10% by weight” [0098], which overlaps the claimed range.
Büchner teaches all claimed ingredients and amounts above, which can lead to the wherein the total amount of components A to E is 100 wt %.
In the case 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 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regard Claim 8, Büchner teaches “isoindolinone” [0101], which is yellow color organic colorant, in the range of “0.001 to 10% by weight” [0098], which overlaps the claimed range.
In the case 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 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Etzrodt’s teachings are insufficient to arrive at the present claims, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, firstly, Büchner teaches bismuth vanadate [0101] as component C1, as suitable colorants, which lead to coloration effect; as analogous art, Etzrodt not only teaches the pigment blend in example 2 which has the pigment formulation in PMMA having a luster pigment and a color pigment [0231], indicates the blend of pigments as the applicant pointed out; but also teaches pigments (A) are dispersed homogeneously in a polymer [0104] wherein, the polymer is ethene-methacrylic acid copolymers [0086], and the pigment is “bismuth vanadate” [0065] “0.1 to 60% by weight, pigment” [0091] which overlaps the claimed range, further lead to very wide variety of colorations [0127] with the desired coloration effect. In the final rejection applied in 1/30/2026, Etzrodt is not being relied upon for the numerosity or inventive combination of pigments, in contrast, Etzrodt is only relied upon merely for teaching that the range of the bismuth vanadate, provided therein are suitable for compositions similar to those of Büchner. As described in previous rejection, it is prima facie obvious to apply the range of Etzrodt into the composition of Büchner, therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply this range to achieve desired coloration effect. This motivation would not require the complete adoption of every teaching of Etzrodt with respect to the incorporation of said pigment blends as pointed by applicant, but would merely indicate to one having ordinary skill in the art that the range of bismuth vanadate as taught by Etzrodt is suitable for their intended purpose of lead to the desired coloration effect.
Secondly, Büchner explicitly teaches the selection of multiple pigments including: bismuth vanadate, azo pigments [0101], Etzrodt teaches the bismuth vanadate [0065], organic color pigments, monoazo pigments [0024; 25], further collectively meet bismuth vanadate [Instant app. US20220153997; 0022] and BAYPLAST® Yellow G [Instant app. US20220153997; 0027], which is a monoazo calcium complex-based organic yellow pigment, hence, neither Büchner or Etzrodt teaches away the instant application.
Lastly, Etzrodt not only teaches the “at most that bismuth vanadate could be included in its pigment blend with at least one other pigment, preferably up to 10% by weight” [0103] as applicant pointed out, but also teaches the pigment formulations of the invention accordingly include in general from 0.1 to 40% by weight [0103], which overlaps the claimed range, and further lead to the very wide variety of colorations [0127] with the desired coloration effect, meet the pigment composition C can be used as colorant in thermoplastic polymer compositions [Instant app. US20220153997; 0028]. Hence, overall, Etzrodt does not teach away the instant application.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this case, Firstly, Büchner and Etzrodt collectively teach the claimed composition and claimed ranges, lead to the desired property meet the instant application as set forth above in response 1.
Secondly, Büchner teaches polyethylene [0106], as suitable blend polymer with polyamide [0133], which lead to the injection molding products [0137]; as analogous art, Weber teaches “ethylene copolymer type (Lupolene KR 1270, producer BASF)” [0151] known as ethylene copolymer, containing maleic anhydride, reads on the claimed component C2; ethylene/olefin (C3-C8) [0152] reads on the claimed component C3, both in the range of “from 0 to 40% by weight of further rubbers E” [0064], overlap the claimed ranges, blended with polyamide [0151], further lead to the injection molding product [0175], collectively meet yield moldings by injection molding [Instant app. US20220153997; 0006], hence, neither Büchner or Weber teaches away the instant application.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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.
/Z. L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights