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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's response filed on 08/21/2023 have been acknowledged. Claims 1, 4-6, 13-20, 22 and 24 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 4-6, 13-16, 19-20, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanishi et al (US 2015/0259507, of record, ‘507 hereafter) in view of Nakai et al (JP 2011-132453, of record, ‘453 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1, 4-6, 13, 22 and 24, ‘507 discloses a cellulose resin composition comprising a cellulose derivative being a cellulose acetate having acetyl group introduction ratio (DSAC) of 2.7 ([0013], thus hydroxy group remaining degree is 0.3, satisfying present claim 24); a lubricant ([0058]); and a plasticizer being a mixture of adipic esters having following chemical formulae ([0016]-[0017]):
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The formulae read upon the plasticizers as recited in the present claims 1 and 13, which are used together to render a cellulose resin composition having high thermo-plasticity ([0006]-[0007], [0011]-[0024]). ‘507 also discloses that a content range of the plasticizer used in the cellulose resin composition is of 1 to 50 per 100 parts of cellulose derivative ([0040]), which significantly overlaps presently claimed ranges as in claims 1 and 22. ‘507 discloses that the composition contains a lubricant ([[058]) but does not specifically set forth that the lubricant is fatty metal salt being calcium stearate or magnesium stearate in a content range of 0.1 to 10% by mass. However, in the same field of endeavor, ‘453 discloses a cellulose resin composition comprising a cellulose derivative ([0008]) and a lubricant being a fatty metal salt preferably calcium stearate or magnesium stearate in a content range of 0.1 to 10% by mass ([0060], [0065], [0072], [0102]), to improve fluidity of composition and facilitate releasing molded product from mold ([0059]). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the lubricants as taught by ‘453, to modify the cellulose resin composition of ‘507, in order to render a cellulose resin composition having better moldability.
Regarding claims 14-16, modified ‘507 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, ‘507 also discloses that the cellulose resin composition may further contain a colorant ([0058]), and ‘453 discloses that the colorant can be a black colorant being a carbon black ([0099]).
Regarding claims 19-20, modified ‘507 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, ‘507 also discloses a molded body and a product comprising the cellulose resin composition ([0061]-[0062]).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanishi et al (US 2015/0259507, of record, ‘507 hereafter) in view of Nakai et al (JP 2011-132453, of record, ‘453 hereafter) as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of Toyama et al (WO2017217504, English equivalent US 2019/0330450, ‘450 hereafter is cited in this office action).
Regarding claims 17-18, modified ‘507 teaches all the limitations of claim 15, but the references do not specifically set forth that the carbon black is an acidic carbon black. However . in the same field of endeavor, ‘450 discloses that an acidic carbon black in a content range of 0.05 to 10 % by mass can be used to render a cellulose resin composition having improved colorant dispersion and high external appearance quality ([0023]-[0030], [0093]-[0095]). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the acidic carbon black as taught by ‘450, to modify the cellulose resin composition of modified ‘507, in order to render the cellulose resin composition which is capable of being made into a molded article having improved external appearance quality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/06/2025 have been fully considered. Arguments which are still deemed relevant are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the references Imanishi and Nakai do not render the claims unpatentable because Imanishi discloses cellulose esters and Nakai discloses cellulose ethers and these references are not compatible because these cellulose derivatives contain different amount of plasticizer. It is noted that the reference Nakai expressly set forth that the cellulose derivatives contains acyl groups (See [0011]) which is a cellulose ester. It is known in the art that plasticizer is used to increase polymeric material’s plasticity and flexibility, its amount in the material can be adjusted based on its desired flexibility for a specific application, the difference amount of plasticizer used in the compositions of cited references does not render cited references being not compatible. Regarding scratch resistance and appearance quality as argued, the examiner’s position is that the subject matter as claimed does not require having a specific scratch resistance and appearance quality. In addition, the cited references fairly suggest a composition satisfying all the limitations as claimed, thus it is expected that the prior composition would exhibit desired scratch resistance and appearance quality as argued.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights