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 .
This communication is responsive to the claims filed on 06/05/2026. Claims 1-2, 6-8 and 15 are pending. Claims 3-5, 9-14 and 16-18 are canceled.
The elected claims 1-2 are under consideration in this Office Action. The non-elected claims 6-8 and 15 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-2 are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a previous Office Action.
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/05/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 U.S.C. 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The instant claims 1-2 are inserted the amendments “a crystallization behavior of the resin composition is controlled by the nucleating agent and the ratio t2/t1 (T2/T1) represents a degree of crystallization rate control.” Applicant points out of page 2, lines 13 to 18; page 6, lines 11 to 13; and page 9, lines 10 to 13 of the specification in support of the amendments. However, page 2, lines 13 to 18; page 6, lines 11 to 13; and page 9, and lines 10 to 13 disclose that a nucleating agent promotes crystallization rate of a polyolefin composition; as such t2/t1 and T2/T1 is less than 1; the values of t2/t1 and T2/T1 are measures of the degree to which the crystallization rate is promoted by a nucleating agent. The paragraphs do not disclose that a crystallization behavior of the resin composition is controlled by the nucleating agent. The paragraphs neither disclose that the ratio t2/t1 represents a degree of crystallization rate control, nor disclose that the ratio T2/Tl represents a degree of crystallization rate control. Thus, the amendments contain new matter.
35 U.S.C. 112(b)
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 1-2 recite “a crystallization behavior of the resin composition is controlled by the nucleating agent and the ratio t2/t1 (T2/T1 in Claim 2) represents a degree of crystallization rate control.” They are indefinite because it merely recites use of the nucleating agent without any active, positive steps delimiting how the nucleating agent controls a crystallization behavior.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tse et al.
(US20060189744 Al).
Tse teaches a resin composition comprising a polyolefin resin and a nucleating agent (ab.),
wherein the commercial nucleating agent NA-11 is one of the preferred nucleating agents (Table 1). NA-
11 has the structure of the claimed general formula (1). Tse further teaches the resin composition
comprising a filler ([0340]) and a thermoplastic elastomer ([0126]). Furthermore, the examples of Tse do
not contain sodium stearate. Moreover, Tse discloses that addition of the nucleating agent to polyolefin
making the composition having a high crystallization rate ([0004] and [0028], [0307]), therefore, one skilled artisan would reasonably infer that both t2/t 1 and T2/Tl of the resin composition < 1.
Tse is silent on the specific values; however, Tse discloses that nucleating agents increase crystallization rate ([0307]) and improve one or more performance parameters of the polyolefin, such as increased clarity, reduced haze, increased stiffness, increased impact toughness, increased heat deflection temperature; and/or processing parameters, such as reduced cycle time or increased line speed ([0309]). Nonetheless, the properties have to be in appropriate ranges, for example, over-stiffness would increase brittleness and may impair processing uniformly; increasing impact toughness may decrease heat deflection temperature and cause uneven volumetric shrinkage. Thus, one skilled artisan must balance the advantages and disadvantages caused by increasing crystallization rate, therefore, the t2/t1 and T2/T1 values would be considered a result effective variable before the effective filling date of instant application. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed t2/t1 ratio or T2/T1 values cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the t2/t1 and T2/T1 values so as to obtain a composition having the desirable properties rendered by a faster crystallization rate and to reduce loss of useful properties caused by a faster crystallization rate, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.05(b )).
As to “a crystallization behavior of the resin composition is controlled by the nucleating agent and the ratio t2/t1 (T2/T1 in Claim 2) represents a degree of crystallization rate control,” Tse discloses nucleating agents promotes crystallization rate (isothermal and/or non-isothermal) of the polyolefin ([0307]). In addition, the clauses do not recite steps or limit a particular structure of nucleating agent, t2/t1 and T2/T1, therefore, the clauses do not further limit the scopes of the instant Claims 1-2. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claim apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114 II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: “[W]hile the purpose of incorporating a nucleating agent in Tse was to improve the crystallization rate (paragraphs [0004] and [0307]), the present invention is a technology for
appropriately controlling crystallization behavior (page 2, lines 13 to 18 of the specification). Thus
the goal in Tse and in the present invention do not simply reflect an optimization relationship, but
rather have different technological directions.”
Examiner’s answer: the Examiner does not agree with Applicant’s argument. The Applicant pointed paragraphs do not recite “behavior” and “control.” Actually, nowhere of the original filed specification recites “behavior” and “control.” Page 2, lines 13 to 18 of the instant specification says nucleating agent accelerates crystallization rate. Tse also discloses nucleating agent increases crystallization rate. Tse does not explicitly state “the degree to which the nucleating agent accelerates the crystallization rate of the polyolefin- based resin influences dimensional stability during molding (page 2, lines 13 to 18 of the instant specification). However, in support of the assertion, the instant examples tested t2/t1 and T2/T1 which are “a measure of the degree to which the crystallization rate is promoted by the nucleating agent (page 6, lines 11 to 13; and page 9, and lines 10 to 13 of the instant specification).” Nonetheless, Tse shows the crystallization half time is shortened by adding nucleating agent into polyolefin resin or polyolefin resin composition (Table 4b). Although the crystallization half time is measured on the different conditions as those of the instant t2/t1 and T2/T1, the crystallization half-time is the time required for half of the final crystallinity to develop ([0395]), a comparison of crystallization half-time between the samples with and without a nucleating agent indicates the degree of crystallization rate is promoted by the nucleating agent. For physical properties, the instant application tested flexural modulus and dimensional stability; Tse tested tensile strength, break strain% and modulus at strain; those properties are related to dimensional stability. Therefore, the disclosure of Tse also can be summarized as “a technology for appropriately controlling crystallization behavior.”
Applicant’s argument: t2/t1 or T2/T1 would be consider as a result effective variable because prior art does not recognize the variables.
Examiner’s answer: the Examiner does not agree. Tse does name the crystallization half time as t2/t1 or T2/T1; however, Tse discloses nucleating agents increase the rate of crystallization (isothermal and/or non-isothermal) of the polyolefin ([0307]). In particular, Tse shows the crystallization half time is shortened by adding nucleating agent into polyolefin resin or polyolefin resin composition (Table 4b). Although the crystallization half time is measured on the different conditions as those of the instant t2/t1 and T2/T1, the crystallization half-time is the time required for half of the final crystallinity to develop ([0395]), a comparison of crystallization half-time between the samples with and without a nucleating agent indicates the degree of crystallization rate.
Nor does the Examiner agree with Applicant’s argument that Tse neither disclose nor suggest any
relationship between such a parameter (t2/t1 or T2/T1) and dimensional stability during molding. As discussed above, Tse discloses that crystallization half time is shortened by adding nucleating agent into a polyolefin resin or a polyolefin resin composition and a comparison of crystallization half-time between the samples with and without a nucleating agent indicates the degree of crystallization rate. Therefore, Tse discloses that nucleating agent promotes crystallization rate of a polyolefin resin composition. In para. [0309]. Tse discloses:
Suitable nucleating agents also include those that promote crystallization in syndiotactic polypropylene (sPP). Suitable nucleating agents preferably improve one or more performance parameters of the polyolefin, such as increased clarity, reduced haze, increased stiffness, increased impact toughness, increased heat deflection temperature; and/or processing parameters, such as reduced cycle time or
increased line speed.
Increased stiffness, increased impact toughness, increased heat deflection temperature, reduced cycle time or increased line speed contributes to dimensional stability during molding. Therefore, Tse suggests adding a nucleating agent into a nucleating agent into a polyolefin resin composition should improve the dimensional stability.
For the reasons above, the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUIHONG QIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8315. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 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.
/HUIHONG QIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights