DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15 were cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-9, 12-13, 16, and 17 are now pending in the application.
The previous 35 USC 112 rejections of claim(s) 1 – 9 and 11 – 17, are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment and remarks.
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, 3-4, 7-9, 12-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100152361 to Weaver et al. in view of US10051867 to Vernon and US6602953 to Horio et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Weaver teaches a polymer composition comprising polypropylene [0121] in an amount of 5-95 wt% [0125] and ethylene/α-olefin interpolymers [0044] in an amount of 10-95 wt% [0120] antimicrobial agents in an amount of 0.1-20 wt% [0127] and polydimethylsiloxanes such as a dimethylsiloxane [0128] (i.e., a silicone compound) in an amount of 0.1-5.0 wt% [0131].
Though the prior art polypropylene resin, ethylene-α olefin copolymer, and antimicrobial agent ranges are not identical to the claimed ranges (80-99, 15-30, and 0.2-0.4 parts respectively), they do overlap. It has been held that, 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 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05).
Weaver does not particularly teach the antimicrobial agent is selected from at least one of zeolite supported silver ion or glass-based supported sliver ion.
However, Vernon teaches antimicrobial polymer compounds [title] wherein a preferred antimicrobial is composed of silver ions contained within transparent glass mesh structure that serves as a carrier [Col3, L34-43]. Weaver and Vernon are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polymer compounds such as polypropylene antimicrobial agents.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the glass-based supported silver ion taught by Vernon as the antimicrobial taught by Weaver.
The motivation to modify Weaver with Vernon is silver ions contained with a transparent glass mesh structure serves as a carrier, slowly wherein the silver ions are slowly released at a controlled speed to kill bacteria and inhibit the grown of microorganisms. Moreover, silver ions provide an antibacterial efficacy of over 99.9% against a wide spectrum of bacteria species [Col3, L34-43].
Weaver does not particularly teach the polydimethylsiloxane is a propylene grafted polydimethylsiloxane.
However, Horio also discloses a resin composition [Horio, title] comprising 0.2 to 5 parts of a silicone compound grafted polyolefinic resin [Horio, Col 7, lines 55-61] comprising polypropylene and polydimethylsiloxane [Horio, Col 7, lines 3-13].
Weaver and Horio are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polyolefin based compositions comprising modified silicone ingredients to improve articles used in internal automobile applications.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the polypropylene grafted polydimethylsiloxane as suggested by Horio, to Weavers composition, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation would be to have an effect on slidability improvement [Col 7, lines 62-67 and Col 8 lines 40-45] which establishes low coefficient of friction and low wear rate in applications such as automobiles [Col 1, Lines 11-22]. Moreover, the addition of the grafted polydimethylsiloxane in a ratio with a dimethylsiloxane (i.e., silicone compound) of Horio [0128] allows the peeling insusceptibility and the slidability after a solvent washing to not be deteriorated [col8, lines 3-5] which is particularly useful in automobiles [col1, L16-22].
Regarding Claim 3, Weaver in view Vernon and Horio teach the composition of Claim 1, wherein the ethylene α olefin copolymer is preferably ethylene/butene-1 copolymer or ethylene/octene-1 copolymer [Weaver, 0110]
Regarding claim 4, Weaver in view Vernon and Horio teach the composition of Claim 1, wherein the ethylene/α-olefin has a melt index of 1 to 30 g/10 minutes [0086, Weaver].
Regarding Claim 7, Weaver in view Vernon and Horio teach the composition of Claim 1, comprising 1-30 wt% of an inorganic filler [0011] such as calcium carbonate [Weaver, 00136].
Regarding Claim 8, Weaver in view Vernon and Horio teach the composition of claim 1 comprising a colorant such as titanium dioxide in an amount greater than 0 to about 10 wt% [Weaver, 0132].
Regarding Claim 9, Weaver in view Vernon and Horio teach the composition of claim 1 wherein the composition is mixed in a batch process at speeds up to 1000 rpm and chipped into smaller sizes for later extrusion [Vernon, Col5, lines 34-41] reading on 1000 rpm to obtain a premix, wherein continuous methods dispersive and distributive mixing using include twin screw extruding [weaver, 0142] with temperatures at 200°C [Weaver, 0278] wherein extruded sheets are further vacuum formed [0264, Weaver].
Weaver in view Vernon and Horio are silent regarding the mixing time of 1-3 minutes.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. In this case, Weaver in view Vernon and Horio does not specify the workable ranges for mixing time, but they do describe the general conditions of the claim, namely mixing, blending, and extruding [weaver, 0142]. It would not be inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation of the invention taught by Weaver in view Vernon and Horio. There is no evidence indicating such mixing time is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 12, Weaver in view Vernon and Horio teach the composition of claim 3, wherein the composition is mixed in a batch process at speeds up to 1000 rpm and chipped into smaller sizes for later extrusion [Vernon, Col5, lines 34-41] reading on 1000 rpm to obtain a premix, wherein continuous methods dispersive and distributive mixing using include twin screw extruding [weaver, 0142] with temperatures at 200°C [Weaver, 0278] wherein extruded sheets are further vacuum formed [0264, Weaver].
Weaver in view Vernon and Horio are silent regarding the mixing time of 1-3 minutes.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. In this case, Weaver in view Vernon and Horio does not specify the workable ranges for mixing time, but they do describe the general conditions of the claim, namely mixing, blending, and extruding [weaver, 0142]. It would not be inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation of the invention taught by Weaver in view Vernon and Horio. There is no evidence indicating such mixing time is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 13, Weaver in view Vernon and Horio teach the composition of claim 4 wherein the composition is mixed in a batch process at speeds up to 1000 rpm and chipped into smaller sizes for later extrusion [Vernon, Col5, lines 34-41] reading on 1000 rpm to obtain a premix, wherein continuous methods dispersive and distributive mixing using include twin screw extruding [weaver, 0142] with temperatures at 200°C [Weaver, 0278] wherein extruded sheets are further vacuum formed [0264, Weaver].
Weaver in view Vernon and Horio are silent regarding the mixing time of 1-3 minutes.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. In this case, Weaver in view Vernon and Horio does not specify the workable ranges for mixing time, but they do describe the general conditions of the claim, namely mixing, blending, and extruding [weaver, 0142]. It would not be inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation of the invention taught by Weaver in view Vernon and Horio. There is no evidence indicating such mixing time is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 16, Weaver in view Vernon and Horio teach the composition of claim 7 wherein the composition is mixed in a batch process at speeds up to 1000 rpm and chipped into smaller sizes for later extrusion [Vernon, Col5, lines 34-41] reading on 1000 rpm to obtain a premix, wherein continuous methods dispersive and distributive mixing using include twin screw extruding [weaver, 0142] with temperatures at 200°C [Weaver, 0278] wherein extruded sheets are further vacuum formed [0264, Weaver].
Weaver in view Vernon and Horio are silent regarding the mixing time of 1-3 minutes.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. In this case, Weaver in view Vernon and Horio does not specify the workable ranges for mixing time, but they do describe the general conditions of the claim, namely mixing, blending, and extruding [weaver, 0142]. It would not be inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation of the invention taught by Weaver in view Vernon and Horio. There is no evidence indicating such mixing time is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 17, Weaver in view Vernon and Horio teach the composition of claim 8 wherein the composition is mixed in a batch process at speeds up to 1000 rpm and chipped into smaller sizes for later extrusion [Vernon, Col5, lines 34-41] reading on 1000 rpm to obtain a premix, wherein continuous methods dispersive and distributive mixing using include twin screw extruding [weaver, 0142] with temperatures at 200°C [Weaver, 0278] wherein extruded sheets are further vacuum formed [0264, Weaver].
Weaver in view Vernon and Horio are silent regarding the mixing time of 1-3 minutes.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. In this case, Weaver in view Vernon and Horio does not specify the workable ranges for mixing time, but they do describe the general conditions of the claim, namely mixing, blending, and extruding [weaver, 0142]. It would not be inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation of the invention taught by Weaver in view Vernon and Horio. There is no evidence indicating such mixing time is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states the cited references do not teach or suggest the amount of polypropylene resin, the amount of antimicrobial agent, and that the antimicrobial agent is selected from a zeolite supported silver ion or glass-based supported silver ion.
In response, attention is drawn to the updated rejection of claim 1 as set forth above wherein Weaver in view Vernon and Horio teaches the polypropylene composition of the instant claims.
Applicant states the polydimethylsiloxane and antibacterial agent have a synergistic effect that causes dual protection with bactericidal effect of the antibacterial agent that is not mentioned by Kim or Horio.
In response, attention is drawn to the updated rejection of claim 1 as set forth above wherein Weaver in view Vernon and Horio teaches the polypropylene composition of the instant claims.
In response, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As the applied references teach a composition comprising all of the instantly claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts, it would be the Office’s position that the improved anti-fouling effect and anti-bacterial effect observed by applicant would also flow naturally from the proposed combination of Weaver with Vernon and Horio.
Applicant states Weaver fails to disclose any technical content pertaining the addition of the antimicrobial agent.
In response, attention is drawn to the updated rejection of claim 1 as set forth above wherein Weaver in view Vernon and Horio teaches the polypropylene composition of the instant claims.
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING whose telephone number is (703)756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764