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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 14, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on September 14, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1 and 3-6 remain pending in the application.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US 2016/0025906 A1) in view of Hintzer et al (US 2019/0002678 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Liu teaches a light-diffusing plate/film (Abstract) comprising a polypropylene homopolymer resin (para. 0046, 0066) and hollow glass beads (para. 0058), wherein the transmission of the film is greater than 50%, and the haze is greater than 50% (para. 0052).
The transmission and haze values overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a light-diffusing plate with overlapping haze and transmission values because Liu teaches that the disclosed transmission and haze allow for sufficient translucence and eliminate hot spots in backlit displays (para. 0053).
Liu teaches that the light diffusing particles/hollow glass beads are present at 2-90 wt% (para. 0061). Because the light diffusing particles and the matrix polymer/polypropylene are the only major components in the light diffusion plate (para. 0051-0069), the polypropylene should be present at approximately 10-98 wt%. However, Liu is silent to the volume percentage of the hollow glass beads and the polypropylene.
Hintzer teaches a composition comprising polypropylene (para. 0023) and hollow glass spheres present at 0.2-49 wt% or 1-70 vol% (para. 0014). Hintzer and Liu are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely polypropylene compositions comprising hollow glass beads.
Because the weight percentage of hollow glass microspheres has significant overlap with that of Liu, one could surmise that the volume percentage of hollow glass spheres in the composition taught by Lui would have significant overlap with the 1-70 vol% taught by Hintzer, and that the remainder (30-99 vol%) comprises polypropylene. These amounts overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the volume percentages of polypropylene and hollow glass beads into these overlapping ranges to achieve the desired light scattering properties.
Liu is silent to modified polypropylene compatibilizer.
Hintzer teaches a compatibilizer (para. 0014), wherein the compatibilizer is covalently bonded to the hollow microspheres (para. 0057) and is a polypropylene grafted with maleic anhydride (para. 0059) with a graft rate of 0.1-5 wt% (para. 0062). Hintzer teaches that the compatibilizers interact/bond with the surface of the glass bubbles or with sizing agents on the glass bubbles in order to improve compatibility between the glass and the polyolefin matrix.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the compatibilizer taught by Hintzer to the composition taught by Liu in order to improve compatibility/adhesion between the hollow glass beads and the polypropylene matrix.
Not disclosed is the area expansion rate. However, the references teach all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amount. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by 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. See MPEP § 2112.01. 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 as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding Claim 3: Liu does not teach the size and the density of the hollow glass beads.
Hintzer teaches hollow glass beads with a density of 0.3-0.65 g/cm3 (para. 0032) and an average size of 10-60 µm (para. 0034). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the density and diameter of the glass beads to the range taught by Hintzer in order to achieve the desired density of the polypropylene composition.
Regarding Claim 4: Liu is silent to the aminosilane coupling agent.
Hintzer discloses an aminosilane coupling agent (para. 0042) that is used as a surface treatment for the hollow spheres and is present at 0.1-5 wt% based on the weight of the glass microspheres (para. 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat the hollow glass beads in Liu’s composition with an aminosilane coupling agent because Hintzer teaches that this treatment promotes adhesion of materials to the glass surface (para. 0041).
Regarding Claim 6: Hintzer teaches that the modified polypropylene compatibilizer is present at 2-10% by weight, based on the total weight of the composition (para. 0064). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an overlapping amount of the modified polypropylene and would have been motivated to do so to achieve sufficient adhesion between the glass microspheres and the polypropylene matrix.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US 2016/0025906 A1) in view of Hintzer et al (US 2019/0002678 A1) and Nakahira et al (Effect of Plasma Treatment on Microstructure and Surface of Glass for Plastic-Based Composite, 1999, Science and Engineering of Composite Materials, Vol. 8, No. 3, p.129-136).
Liu and Hintzer teach all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above.
However, Liu is silent to the hollow glass microspheres being plasma treated.
Nakahira teaches an argon plasma surface treatment for glass fiber (p.130, section 2.2) for use in glass-reinforced polymer composites (p.131, col. 1). Nakahira teaches that the plasma treatment improves interfacial bonding and adhesive strength between the glass and the polymer matrix (p.136, col. 1). Nakahira and Liu are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely glass-filled polymers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to surface treat the glass microspheres taught by Liu with a plasma treatment in order to improve the interfacial bonding and adhesive strength with the polymer matrix.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 14, 2025 with respect to claims 1 and 3-6 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.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mecklenburg (US 7879931 B2) is directed toward the use of modified polypropylenes as compatibilizers in glass-filled compositions.
Ederle (US 7183001 B1) is directed toward the use of hollow glass microspheres in light diffusion plates.
Momota (JP 2010/211171 A) is directed toward the use of polypropylene in light-diffusing plates.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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 at (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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767