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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 8/5/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant did not provide any ground for the traversal.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/5/2026.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimouse et al (US 20110127696 A1) in view of Nakanishi et al (JP 2001279111 A, machine translations are referenced herein).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6 and 9, Shimouse teaches a polypropylene resin composition for injection molded articles with excellent mechanical strength comprising 2 to 15 wt % of the moldability improver (A), 85 to 98 wt % of a polypropylene resin (B) based on the total weight of the polypropylene resin composition, and 0.1 to 5 parts by weight of color masterbatch (C) based on 100 parts by weight of the total of the moldability improver (A) and the polypropylene resin (B) [0066-0068].
The moldability improver (A) comprises 80 to 95 wt % of (A-1) which comprises 80 to 95 wt % of propylene homopolymer component (A-11) [0010, 0018].
Therefore, the moldability improver (A) comprises 64-90 wt% of propylene homopolymer component (A-11); the polypropylene resin composition comprises 2-18 parts of (A) based on 100 parts of the polypropylene resin (B); the polypropylene resin composition comprises 1.3-15.9 parts of propylene homopolymer component (A-11) based on 100 parts of the polypropylene resin (B), as calculated by the examiner. The 1.3-15.9 parts of propylene homopolymer component (A-11) overlaps the claimed 0 parts by weight or more and 7.0 parts by weight or less of a propylene homopolymer based on 100 parts by weight of a resin material component including a polyolefin-based resin. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" (MPEP 2144.05.I).
The examiner submits that the polypropylene resin (B) reads on the claimed resin material component including a polyolefin-based resin as specified in claim 6.
The polypropylene resin (B) contains 55 to 85 wt % of a propylene-ethylene block copolymer (B-1), 5 to 20 wt % of an ethylene elastomer (B-2) including ethylene-butene copolymer elastomer (EBR) and 10 to 25 wt % of an inorganic filler (B-3) based on the total weight of the polypropylene resin (B) [0010, 0055].
Therefore, the polypropylene resin composition can contain 5-20 parts of ethylene-butene copolymer elastomer (B-2) based on 100 parts of the polypropylene resin (B), overlapping the claimed 0 parts by weight or more and 10.0 parts by weight or less of an ethylene-1-butene random copolymer.
The color masterbatch (C) is prepared by kneading a high concentration of dry color (e.g., carbon black) into a thermoplastic resin (e.g., polypropylene wax) [0063], wherein the dry color is contained in an amount of about 20 to 50 wt % based on the total weight of the color masterbatch (C) [0064]. The content ratio of the color masterbatch (C) is in a range of 0.1 to 5 parts by weight of the color masterbatch (C) based on 100 parts by weight of the total of the moldability improver (A) and the polypropylene resin (B) [0067].
The examiner submits that the dry color (e.g., carbon black) reads on the claimed colorant in claim 9; the thermoplastic resin (e.g., polypropylene wax) reads on the claimed synthetic wax as specified in claim 2.
Shimouse does not teach the particle size of the polypropylene wax.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakanishi teaches a colored thermoplastic resin composition for injection molded articles having excellent strength [abstract, 0017, 0037], comprising 0.005 to 10 parts by weight of the colorants (pigments) and 0.005 to 10 parts by weight of the polyolefin-based waxes, based on 100 parts by weight of the thermoplastic resin forming material including polyolefin [0033]. The polyolefin-based wax includes polypropylene wax and is preferably in the form of fine particles having a weight average molecular weight of about 800 to less than 20,000 and an average particle diameter of 5 μm to 50 μm [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form polypropylene resin composition for injection molded articles with excellent mechanical strength according to Shimouse including polypropylene wax in the form of fine particles having a weight average molecular weight of about 800 to less than 20000 and an average particle diameter of 5 μm to 50 μm, as Nakanishi demonstrates this range to be suitable for similar polypropylene resin composition. This represents the use of a suitable range of polypropylene wax particle size in a polypropylene resin composition which is compositionally similar to those of Nakanishi and which is used in similar application. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-21 (2007). See MPEP 2141.
The weight average molecular weight of about 800 to less than 20,000 overlaps the claimed number average molecular weight (Mn) of 2,000 or more and 20,000 or less as specified in claim 3. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" (MPEP 2144.05.I).
The average particle diameter of 5 μm to 50 μm overlaps the claimed average particle diameter of 1 μm or more and 40 μm or less.
Since the content ratio of the color masterbatch (C) is in a range of 0.1 to 5 parts by weight of the color masterbatch (C) based on 100 parts by weight of the total of the moldability improver (A) and the polypropylene resin (B), and since the (B) is 85 to 98 wt % based on (A)+(B), the color masterbatch (C) is in an amount of 0.1-5.9 parts based on 100 parts of the polypropylene resin (B), as calculated by the examiner.
Since the carbon black is contained in an amount of about 20 to 50 wt % based on the total weight of the color masterbatch (C), the polypropylene wax is contained in an amount of about 50-80 wt% based on the total weight of the color masterbatch (C) as calculated by the examiner.
Therefore, the carbon black is contained in an amount of about 0.02-2.9 parts based on 100 parts of the polypropylene resin (B), as calculated by the examiner, overlapping the claimed 0.01 parts by weight or more and 2.0 parts by weight or less of a colorant based on 100 parts by weight of a resin material component including a polyolefin-based resin.
Therefore, the polypropylene wax is contained in an amount of about 0.05-4.7 parts based on 100 parts of the polypropylene resin (B), as calculated by the examiner, overlapping the claimed 0.01 parts by weight or more and 2.0 parts by weight or less of a synthetic wax based on 100 parts by weight of a resin material component including a polyolefin-based resin.
The polypropylene resin (B) contains 55 to 85 wt % of the propylene-ethylene block copolymer (B-1) [0061], which overlaps the claimed 83 parts by weight or more and 100 parts by weight or less of a crystalline propylene-ethylene block copolymer.
Regarding claims 7-8, Shimouse’s polypropylene resin (B) contains 55 to 85 wt % of a propylene-ethylene block copolymer (B-1) as stated above, overlapping the claimed 60% by weight or more and 100% by weight or less of the polyolefin-based resin in claim 7 and 60% by weight or more and 95% by weight or less of the polyolefin-based resin in claim 8.
Shimouse’s polypropylene resin (B) contains 10 to 25 wt % of an inorganic filler (B-3) based on the total weight of the polypropylene resin (B) as stated above. The (B-3) includes talc [0060]. The 10-25 wt% of talc falls with the claimed range of 0% by weight or more and 40% by weight or less in claim 7 and 5% by weight or more and 40% by weight or less in claim 8.
Regarding claims 10-11, Shimouse teaches carbon black as stated above.
Shimouse teaches that the moldablity improver (A) may include a pigment [0047]. Shimouse does not specify the claimed organic pigment.
Nakanishi teaches that the pigment can be organic pigment [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select an organic pigment as the pigment in Shimouse’s composition, as it is expressly disclosed as being useful in this capacity. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 12, Nakanishi teaches that the thermoplastic resin is in pellet form [claim 1].
Regarding claim 13, Shimouse teaches that the polypropylene resin composition is prepared as dry blend [0068].
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimouse in view of Nakanishi as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ueno et al (JP 2009046691 A, machine translation is referenced herein).
Regarding claims 4-5, Shimouse teaches the composition in claim 1.
Shimouse teaches that the propylene-ethylene block copolymer (B-1) has a melt flow rate MFR of 10 to 200 g/10 minutes according to ASTM D1238 [0053], overlapping the claimed melt flow rate of 1 g/10 min or more and 100 g/10 min or less in claim 4 and melt flow rate of 20 g/10 min or more and 40 g/10 min or less as specified in claim 5.
Shimouse teaches a crystallinity of 90% or higher, preferably 95 to 100%, in terms of the isotactic index as determined by extraction with boiling n-heptane for the crystalline propylene polymer component (B-11) [0051], overlapping the claimed isotactic pentad fraction of more than 95.7% in claim 5.
Shimouse does not teach the claimed n-decane soluble content in claim 5.
In the same field of endeavor, Ueno teaches a polypropylene resin composition for injection molded articles having excellent mechanical properties [abstract, 0049], comprising 83-58 wt.% of crystalline propylene-ethylene block copolymers having 17-25 wt.% 23ﾟC n-decane-soluble content [abstract, claim 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form polypropylene resin composition for injection molded articles with excellent mechanical strength according to Shimouse including crystalline propylene-ethylene block copolymers having 17-25 wt.% 23ﾟC n-decane-soluble content, as Ueno demonstrates this range to be suitable for similar polypropylene resin composition. This represents the use of a suitable range of n-decane-soluble content for crystalline propylene-ethylene block copolymers in a polypropylene resin composition which is compositionally similar to those of Ueno and which is used in similar application. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-21 (2007). See MPEP 2141.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Robert Jones can be reached on (571) 270-7733. 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.
/JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights