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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Hiroki (JP2017043811, herein Hiroki, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, 17, Hiroki teaches thermoplastic resin composition [0002] which is coating composition [0017] comprising: ABS resin and modified polyolefin resin [0009], wherein the ABS resin is a copolymer of acrylonitrile, butadiene and styrene [0025], wherein butadiene reads on rubber portion structural unit, styrene reads on resin portion structural unit, which collectively reads on the rubber-reinforced vinyl-based resin, indicate the exclusion of rubber-reinforced vinyl-based resin with ethylene α olefin-based monomer. ABS is acrylonitrile, butadiene, and styrene based terpolymer, which is the aromatic vinyl-based copolymer, owing to the exclusive monomers selection as set forth above; Hiroki teaches modified polyolefin resin is a polyolefin resin including polypropylene, has organic functional group including: maleic anhydride group [0027], reads on the maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene.
Hiroki teaches the formulation 1, including: Acrylic modified chlorinated polyolefin resin 5 parts. [FOR; P10; 0049; line 25]. Hirori does not explicitly teach the concentration of the maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene, however, Hiroki teaches modified polyolefin resin including: acrylic modified chlorinated polyolefin [0028] and modified polyolefin resin is a polyolefin resin including polypropylene, has organic functional group including: maleic anhydride group [0027], reads on the maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene. Because both of the modified polyolefin as taught by Hiroki are known in the art to be useful for modified polyolefin for thermoplastic resin composite, at the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute acrylic modified chlorinated polyolefin [0028] with the modified polyolefin resin is a polyolefin resin including polypropylene, has organic functional group including: maleic anhydride group [0027], and would have been motivated to do so because both compounds individually are known to be effective modified polyolefin for thermoplastics resin formation. (see MPEP 2144.06). Accordingly, the concentration of acrylic modified chlorinated polyolefin as taught by Hiroki can be applied to maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene, which is 5 parts, and lies in the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 14, Hiroki teaches primer of the present invention, which contains an ABS resin and a modified polyolefin resin [0031] which further comprising: polycarbonate resin [0032].
Regarding Claim 15, Hiroki teaches “molded body” [0026].
Regarding Claim 16, Hiroki teaches “parts for transportation equipment such as automobiles” [0046].
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroki (JP2017043811, herein Hiroki, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) as applied in claim 1 set forth above, in the further view of Matsumoto (JP3563792, herein Matsumoto, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regarding Claims 12-13, Hiroki teaches the coating resin composition as set forth in claim 1. Hiroki teaches the ABS resin used in the present invention, the contents of the acrylonitrile-derived monomer component, the butadiene-derived monomer component, and the styrene-derived monomer component can be selected appropriately from a wide range [0025], wherein, the acrylonitrile is cyanidated vinyl compound, the styrene is aromatic vinyl-based compound, collectively indicate the different types of ABS formation owing to the monomer range variations, further lead to the formation of the aromatic vinyl-based copolymer. Hiroki does not explicitly teach the component (A) is not the aromatic vinyl-based copolymer. However, Matsumoto teaches acrylonitrile-butadiene copolymer (NBR) [P7; Para. 1], which is non aromatic vinyl butadiene-based copolymer. Hiroki and Matsumoto are considered to be analogous art relevant to the claimed invention because are considered to be analogous art relevant to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely, vinyl copolymer and modified polyolefin based molded resin composition for automobile 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 substitute the acrylonitrile-butadiene copolymer (NBR) [P7; Para. 1], into the resin composition formation, which can lead to a desirable property as of excellent impact resistance, heat distortion resistance, chemical resistance and moldability, and which, when molded, gives a molded article which does not undergo delamination and has a matte appearance. [P1; Para 3] as taught by Matsumoto.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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