DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in regards to a 371 application filed May 3, 2022 claiming priority to PCT/JP2020/042109 filed November 11, 2020 and foreign applications JP2019-204302 and JP2019-204303, both filed November 11, 2019. Claims 1-19 are pending and currently being examined.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claims 4-5, lines 2-3 and 4, respectively, the phrases in the parentheses render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) within the parentheses are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigeaki et al. (JP2008-120965A) as evidenced by Takagi (JPS59-170852A).
Shigeaki et al. disclose a deodorizing pigment resin composition comprising 91.25 parts of low density polyethylene (SANTEC LD F2270), 5 parts of a fluorescent pigment (FX-3030 RED), 3.5 parts of a polyethylene wax (Mitsui Hiwax 320P), and 0.25 parts of a deodorizing agent (K-FRESH 3230) which are fed into a twin-screw extruder, compounded, extruded, and producing the deodorizing pigment [0035. 0047]. Shigeaki et al. disclose the polyethylene wax has a particle size of 5-20µm as evidenced by Takagi [Example 1]. Shigeaki et al. disclose a similar composition except replacing the low density polyethylene with a polypropylene resin and replacing the polyethylene wax with a polypropylene wax [0048]. Shigeaki et al. disclose pigment may comprise carbon black or fluorescent pigments obtained from dyeing a co-condensate of an amine and formaldehyde with fluorescent dye [0023]. Shigeaki et al. disclose the dispersant is a polyolefin wax such as polyethylene wax or polypropylene wax [0028].
Shigeaki et al. do not disclose the amount of colorant or synthetic wax in the amount of 0.01 to 2.0 parts by weight. The amount of colorant or synthetic wax is readily adjustable to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success depending on the degree or intensity of color needed in the molded product (therefore the amount) and the amount of dispersant (polyolefin wax) needed to disperse the quantity of colorant uniformly throughout the molded product (more dispersant for more colorant).
In regards to claim 2, Shigeaki et al. disclose polypropylene wax [0048].
In regards to claim 3, Shigeaki et al. disclose the weight average molecular weight of the polyolefin wax is 900 to 30,000 [0027].
In regards to claims 9-11, Shigeaki et al. disclose Shigeaki et al. disclose pigment may comprise carbon black or fluorescent pigments obtained from dyeing a co-condensate of an amine and formaldehyde with fluorescent dye [0023].
Claims 4-8 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigeaki et al. (JP2008-120965A) as evidenced by Takagi JPS59-170852A), and further in view of Ueno et al. (JP2009-046691A).
Shigeaki et al. do not disclose the melt flow rate of 1 to 100 g/10 min.
In regards to claims 4-8, Ueno et al. disclose a polypropylene resin for an automotive interior that provides a molded product comprising (A) 58 to 83% by weight of a crystalline propylene block copolymer having a n-decane soluble content of 17 to 25% by weight at 23°C, a MFR at 230°C of 20 to 40 g/10min, and an isotactic pentad fraction exceeding 95.7%; (B) 0.5 to 7 by weight of a propylene homopolymer; (C) 1 to 10 % by weight of an ethylene-butene random copolymer; (D) 15 to 25% by weight of a talc [Abstract; 0006]. One of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to use the polypropylene resin of Ueno et al. with the polyolefin resin of Shigeaki et al. to provide a pigmented polyolefin resin for a molded product for an automotive interior application.
In regards to claim 12-19, Ueno et al. disclose the resin is formed into a pellet and used for molded product for automotive interior applications such as instrument panels, glow boxes, console boxes, door trim, pillar trim, and steering column covers [0047-0048, 0050].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD GRINSTED whose telephone number is (571)270-7634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/RONALD GRINSTED/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights