DETAILED 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, 8-11, 13 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa-1 (US20130209784, herein Nakagawa-1), in the view of Kito (WO2017155114, herein Kito, US20190022903 is used as English language equivalent).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 8, 13, Nakagawa-1 teaches polyamide resin composition [0020] comprising: the polyamide resin (A) comprises a crystalline polyamide resin (a) and a noncrystalline polyamide resin (b), the proportion of which is (a):(b)=0 to 100:100 to 0 (mass ratio) [0024], wherein, the polyamide resin (A) accounts for 30 to 99% by mass [0090], hence, both crystalline polyamide resin (A) and a noncrystalline polyamide resin (B) overlap the claimed ranges. Nakagawa-1 teaches the inorganic reinforcing material (C), accounts for 0 to 65% by mass [0090], overlaps the claimed range.
Nakagawa-1 teaches the glycidyl group-containing styrene copolymer (B) accounts for 0 to 10% by mass [0090], reads on the claimed copolymer (E) and lies in the claimed range; “preferably has a weight average molecular weight of 4000 to 25000” [0082] lies in the claimed range. Nakagawa-1 further teaches the glycidyl group-containing styrene copolymer reacts with the amine or carboxyl terminals of the polyamide [0081], further match the claimed copolymer (E). Nakagawa-1 also teaches Polyamide 6T6I; “GRIVORY G21” [0171] which is the non-crystalline polyamide resin (B) polyamide 6I/6T, containing an aromatic component in diamine component and dicarboxylic acid component. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize and utilize the polyamide resin (A) comprises a crystalline polyamide resin (a) and a noncrystalline polyamide resin (b), the proportion of which is (a):(b)=0 to 100:100 to 0 (mass ratio) [0024], wherein, the polyamide resin (A) accounts for 30 to 99% by mass [0090], the inorganic reinforcing material (C), accounts for 0 to 65% by mass [0090], and apply into the composition formation process, because doing so would lead to the polyamide resin composition capable of providing a foam molded body having excellent heat resistance, sufficiently reduced in weight, and having high load resistance [0109], further contribute to applications such as automobile components and home electric appliance components [0109], as taught by Nakagawa-1.
Nakagawa-1 teaches the ethylene/butene-1-g-maleic anhydride copolymers [0100], but does not teach the range. However, Kito teaches maleic anhydride-modified ethylene-1-butene copolymer [0069], the content of the polyamide resin is preferably 0.3 to 60% by mass, the content of the modified elastomer is preferably 0.2 to 55% by mass [0074], therefore, the ratio range between maleic anhydride-modified ethylene-1-butene copolymer to polyamide resin is 0.003 to 0.917, overlaps the claimed range of the ethylene/butene-1-g-maleic anhydride copolymer. Nakagawa-1 and Kito are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the polyamide resin based molded body formation with maleic anhydride-modified ethylene-1-butene copolymer inclusion, toward automobile-related parts manufacturing. 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 range of maleic anhydride-modified ethylene-1-butene copolymer as taught by Kito, and apply into the composition formation process, because doing so would lead to the foamed resin molded body having excellent impact resistance with the elastomer having the reactive group selected from an acid anhydride-modified elastomer [0019], as taught by Kito, further collectively meet the ethylene/butene-1-g-maleic acid anhydride copolymer with the claimed amount leads to excellent impact resistance [Instant App. US20220251381; 0049-50].
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 to the melt viscosity, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Nakagawa-1 and Kito teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and Nakagawa-1 teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process, mixed with twin screw extruder [0192]. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself, wherein, the instant application teaches twin screw extruder is particularly preferably used [Instant App. US20220251381; 0067]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the melt viscosity would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, 10, 11, Nakagawa-1 teaches polyamide 6-1 [0166] which reads on crystalline polyamide resin polyamide 6; and Polyamide 6T6I; “GRIVORY G21” [0171] which reads on the non-crystalline polyamide resin (B) polyamide 6I/6T.
Regarding Claims 4-5, Nakagawa-1 and Kito teach the polyamide resin composition as set forth above, Nakagawa-1 further teaches expansion molding is controlled by a process of cooling resin, and the growth of foam cells is formed through the deformation of molten resin under a relatively low shear rate [0104] indicates the foam molding process.
Regard to the crystallization temperature and melt viscosity, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Nakagawa-1 and Kito teach all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and Nakagawa-1 teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process, mixed with twin screw extruder [0192]. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself, wherein, the instant application teaches twin screw extruder is particularly preferably used [Instant App. US20220251381; 0067]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the crystallization temperature and melt viscosity would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Claims 6, 7 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa-1 (US20130209784, herein Nakagawa-1) and Kito (WO2017155114, herein Kito, US20190022903 is used as English language equivalent) as applied to claim 1 above, in the further view of Nakagawa-2 (US20160032068, herein Nakagawa-2).
Regarding Claims 6, 7, Nakagawa-1 and Kito teach the composition of claim 1 as shown above. Nakagawa-1 does not explicitly teach the configuration of the foam molded body comprising the polyamide resin composition for foam molding. However, Nakagawa-2 teaches a foam molded body of polyamide resin [0123], the constitution of the foam molded body as “foamed cells are independent of a continued phase of resin” [0068] and “continued phase of resin” [0068]. Nakagawa-2 further teaches the sandwich structure as of “the foamed layer is sandwiched by the non-foamed structure” [0068] indicates the sandwich structure of foam layer and non-foam skin, wherein “foamed layer comprising foamed cells of 300 μm average cell diameter in an inner layer” [0068] which lies in the claimed range and the “non-foamed skin layer of 100 to 800 μm in a surface layer” [0068] overlaps the claimed range. Nakagawa-1 and Nakagawa-2 are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the polyamide resin based molded body formation with maleic anhydride-modified ethylene-1-butene copolymer and inorganic reinforcing filler, toward automobile-related parts manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakagawa-1 to add the teachings of Nakagawa-2 and provide wherein said the polyamide resin molding structure of “foamed cells are independent of a continued phase of resin” [0068] and “continued phase of resin” [0068]; “the foamed layer is sandwiched by the non-foamed structure” [0068]; “foamed layer comprising foamed cells of 300 μm average cell diameter in an inner layer” [0068] “non-foamed skin layer of 100 to 800 μm in a surface layer” [0068]. Doing so would further achieve the desired property as of providing a product that can be used as automobile-related parts, due to its excellent characteristic property, the foam molded body of the polyamide resin prepared by the present invention. [0074] as taught by Nakagawa-2. 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.
With regard to the glossiness, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Nakagawa-1, Kito and Nakagawa-2 teach all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and Nakagawa-1 teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process as of mixed with twin screw extruder [0192]. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself, wherein, the instant application teaches twin screw extruder is particularly preferably used [Instant App. US20220251381; 0067]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the glossiness would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection by Nakagawa-1 (US20130209784, herein Nakagawa-1) and Kito (WO2017155114, herein Kito, US20190022903 is used as English language equivalent). In this case, the applicant’s arguments are directed toward the amendment of the claims, which has been addressed by the rejection set forth above.
The applicant's argument that “Nakagawa-1 does not make any statement regarding the amount of modified polyolefin used to control the melt viscosity”, is not persuasive.
In fact, Nakagawa-1 explicitly teaches the ethylene/butene-1-g-maleic anhydride copolymers [0100] lead to promoting the reaction of the glycidyl group-containing styrene copolymer (B) [0099] and impact resistance, which affect the stability of melt viscosity [0099], further collectively meet the ethylene/butene-1-g-maleic acid anhydride copolymer with the claimed amount leads to excellent impact resistance [Instant App. US20220251381; 0049-50]. Nakagawa-1 expressly identifies these as suitable materials for use in the same capacity as the materials included in the examples. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07. See also In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the genus of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”).
The applicant's argument that “unexpected results” which also within the declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 5/5/2026, are further not commensurate in scope with the claim 1, hence, insufficient to establish non-obviousness.
In this case, first, the reference Nakagawa-1 explicitly teaches the ethylene/butene-1-g-maleic anhydride copolymers [0100], and the newly cited reference_ Kito further teaches maleic anhydride-modified ethylene-1-butene copolymer [0069], the content of the polyamide resin is preferably 0.3 to 60% by mass, the content of the modified elastomer is preferably 0.2 to 55% by mass [0074], therefore, the ratio range between maleic anhydride-modified ethylene-1-butene copolymer to polyamide resin is 0.003 to 0.917, overlaps the claimed range, which collectively meet both of the instant application and the declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 5/5/2026.
Second, the claim 1 is open to 15 to 50 parts by mass of an inorganic reinforcing material (C). However, Examples 1-6, 9, and Comp. examples 1-6 [Instant Application Specification, Table 1, Page 55], Comp. examples 7-8 (Declaration Page 3) all use 30% inorganic reinforcing material as single value. Therefore, these examples are not commensurate in scope with the claims and cannot be relied upon to establish non-obviousness.
Whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d).
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 extension fee 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.
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