DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 5/8/2026.
Claim(s) 3-4, 12-13 were cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, and 16-17 are now 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 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, 7-9, 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 JP2000232950 to Taro et al. For the purposes of examination, citations for Taro are taken from a machine translation equivalent of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in July of 2026.
Regarding Claim 1, Weaver teaches a polymer composition comprising polypropylene [0121] in an amount of 5-95 wt% [0125]; ethylene/α-olefin interpolymers [0044] that are preferably ethylene/butene-1 copolymer or ethylene/octene-1 copolymer [Weaver, 0110] having a melt index of 1 to 30 g/10 minutes [0086, Weaver] in an amount of 10-95 wt% [0120]; antimicrobial agents in an amount of 0.1-20 wt% [0127] and polysiloxanes such as a polydimethylsiloxane [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). 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 an amount of polypropylene at the upper end of the range disclosed by Weaver, e.g. 80 to 95 wt%, which is the part of the range which overlaps with the instantly claimed range. The amounts of ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer and antimicrobial agent would then be at the lower ends of their respective disclosed ranges, which are the parts of the prior art ranges that overlap with the instantly claimed ranges. The motivation would have been that Weaver teaches the inclusion of polypropylene may improve or modify the properties of the polymer composition, including its melt strength [0121]. A higher amount of polypropylene would then be expected to provide a polymer composition having a higher melt strength.
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, Taro teaches a resin composition consisting of polypropylene and silicone graft PP [abstract] that is polyorganosiloxane such as polydimethylsiloxane containing alkenyl groups bonded to silicon atoms mixed into a propylene resin [0012] (i.e., polypropylene grafted polydimethylsiloxane). Taro and Weaver are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely compositions of polypropylene compositions comprising polysiloxane.
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 use Taro ’s silicone grafted polypropylene as Weaver’s polysiloxane. The motivation would have been that Taro’s silicone grafted polypropylene has better compatibility with the base polymer compared to general silicone oils [Taro, 0013].
Weaver in view of Vernon and Taro does not teach a filamentous network structure is formed on a surface of the polypropylene composition after performing an injection molding process.
However, Weaver in view of Vernon and Taro, when modified in the manner proposed above, teaches a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties - i.e. filamentous network structure - would implicitly be achieved in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by the same process of injection molding. See In Re Spada, 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is 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 as to how to obtain the claimed properties in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process.
Regarding Claim 7, Weaver in view Vernon and Taro 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 Taro 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 Taro 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 Taro 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 Taro 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 Taro 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 Taro 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 Taro 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 Taro 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 Taro 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 Taro 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 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states Horio discloses the used matrix resin is polyoxymethylene resin rather than polypropylene resin.
In response, attention is drawn to the updated rejection of claim 1 that is rejected over Weaver in view Vernon and Taro.
Applicant states Horio discloses a range of silicone compound grafted polyolefinic resin that is higher than the amended claim.
In response, it is noted Weaver is used to reject the amount of polysiloxane wherein Weaver teaches an amount of 0.1-5.0 wt% [Weaver, 0131] and Taro teaches the modification with polypropylene [Taro, 0012].
Applicant states Weaver discloses a the mass ratio of polydimethylsiloxane to matrix resin of 0.001-1 that is much greater than instant claims mass ratio of 0.01-0.0375. Applicant points to comparative examples 7 and 8 and states if the polypropylene grafted polydimethylsiloxane is too large, the filamentous network structure can be destroyed and therefore the technical problem indicated in the present application cannot be resolved.
In response, it is noted that Weaver in view of Vernon and Taro teach the polypropylene composition of the instant claims wherein all ingredients are within or overlap with the claimed ranges. With respect to the overlapping ranges, it is the Office’s position that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the portions of the ranges which overlap with the instantly claimed ranges for the reasons detailed in the modified grounds of rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above. Therefore the properties of filamentous network structure would naturally flow from Weaver and view of Vernon and Taro’s composition.
Applicant states Horio and Weaver fail to disclose the influence of the added amount of polypropylene grated polydimethylsiloxane on the antimicrobial property as taught by instant specifications comparative examples 3 and 4.
In response, attention is drawn to the updated rejection of claim 1 that is rejected over Weaver in view Vernon and Taro.
Moreover, 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).
Applicant states Weavers antimicrobial agent to matrix resin ratio is significantly broader than instant application’s antimicrobial agent to matrix resin ratio and therefore Weaver does not have the improved stain-resistant property and improved antimicrobial property by adding the polypropylene grafted polydimethylsiloxane to the polypropylene resin system with the low content of antimicrobial agent.
In response, it is noted that Weaver in view of Vernon and Taro teach the polypropylene composition of the instant claims wherein all ingredients are within or overlap with the claimed ranges. With respect to the overlapping ranges, it is the Office’s position that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the portions of the ranges which overlap with the instantly claimed ranges for the reasons detailed in the modified grounds of rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above. Therefore the properties of improved stain-resistant property and improved antimicrobial property would naturally flow from Weaver and view of Vernon and Taro’s composition.
Applicant states the range of content of ethylene-α olefin copolymer used in Weaver is much greater than recited in amended claim 1, and that Weaver does not disclose the technical solutions of the present application.
In response, it is noted that Weaver in view of Vernon and Taro teach the polypropylene composition of the instant claims wherein all ingredients are within or overlap with the claimed ranges. With respect to the overlapping ranges, it is the Office’s position that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the portions of the ranges which overlap with the instantly claimed ranges for the reasons detailed in the modified grounds of rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above. Therefore the same technical solutions would naturally flow from Weaver and view of Vernon and Taro’s composition.
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US3865897 and WO2006004698 are cited as being relevant. Each documents discuss the grafting of polyolefins and polysiloxanes in order to improve compatibility.
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
Prosecution Insights