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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfschwenger (WO2011061096, herein Wolfschwenger), in view of Beck (J of Applied Polymer Science - Volume11, Issue5 May 1967 Pages 673-685).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, Wolfschwenger teaches a modifying agent for polyolefin resins, comprising a calcium-containing inorganic filler whose particle surface is modified, which is the particulate mineral solid support comprises calcium carbonate, as calcium salt of the dicarboxylic acid [P8; L7], via reaction of dicarboxylic acid molecules brought into contact with the surface of the mineral solid support undergo a chemical reaction to the corresponding salt [P9; L21], wherein, the particulate solid support has a medium particle size d50 of from 0.5 μm to 7 μm [P7; L15] lies in the claimed range.
Wolfschwenger teaches the polypropylene composition [P2; L14] as polyolefin resin.
Wolfschwenger does not explicitly teach the specified the modifier of alicyclic dicarboxylic acid represented by formula (2), however, Beck teaches the salts were prepared by reaction of acid with the metal carbonate [P674; Para. 3] as nucleating agent, wherein, the acid is cis-4-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic acid [P679; Table V] formed the Na salt; Al salt [P679; Table V] which serving as the nucleating agent, wherein the “cis-4-cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboxylic acid.” [P679; Table V] as taught by Beck, matches the “formula (2) include 4-cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboxylic acid” [Instant Application, P3; 0041] with cis-configuration.
Wolfschwenger and Beck are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the metal salt/acid-based nucleating agent development into polyolefin resin composites. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the specified “cis-4-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic acid” [P679; Table V] as formula (2); from Beck to substitute the dicarboxylic acid from “dicarboxylic acid molecules brought into contact with the surface of the mineral solid support undergo a chemical reaction to the corresponding salt.” [P9; L21] as taught by Wolfschwenger, i.e., apply this specific alicyclic dicarboxylic acid from Beck to react and modify the calcium carbonate and forming calcium organic acid based salt from Wolfschwenger and use as nucleating agent, into the polypropylene composites development. Doing so would further achieve the management of “nucleating ability” [P682; Para. 1], owing to the selection criteria of “The nucleating ability of analogous dicarboxylates decreases as the ring progressively becomes more aromatic in character;” [P682; Para. 1] as taught by Beck.
Regarding Claims 5, 6, Wolfschwenger and Beck teach the modifying agent for polyolefin resins as set forth in the claim 1, which limits the selection of formula 1, as an optional formula. Hence, the features of formula 1 are not required.
Regarding Claim 8, Wolfschwenger and Beck teach the modifying agent for polyolefin resins as set forth in the claim 1.
Wolfschwenger does not explicitly teach the specified the modifier of alicyclic dicarboxylic acid represented by formula (1), however, Beck teaches that the nucleating ability of analogous dicarboxylates decreases as the ring progressively becomes more aromatic in character [P682; Para. 2], with the cyclohexane nucleus showing better nucleating ability than the cyclohexene nucleus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the cyclohexene nucleus of 4-methyl-4-cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboxylic acid with a cyclohexane nucleus in order to achieve improved nucleating ability, thereby arriving at 4-methyl-4-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic acid. This reads on the claimed formula (1).
Wolfschwenger and Beck are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the metal salt/acid-based nucleating agent development into polyolefin resin composites. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform 1) lowering the aromatic character of the specified “4-Methyl-4-cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboxylic” [P679; Table V] into “4-methylcyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic acid” [Instant App. US20230174742; 0034] as formula (1), i.e., transform cyclohexene into cyclohexane, in order to improve the nucleating ability; then 2) substitute the as-modified 4-methylcyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic acid to the dicarboxylic acid from the “dicarboxylic acid molecules brought into contact with the surface of the mineral solid support undergo a chemical reaction to the corresponding salt.” [P9; L21] as taught by Wolfschwenger, i.e., apply this specific modified alicyclic dicarboxylic acid from Beck matches the formula (1) to react and modify the calcium carbonate and forming calcium organic acid based salt from Wolfschwenger and use as nucleating agent, into the polypropylene composites development. Doing so would further achieve the management of “nucleating ability” [P682; Para. 1], owing to the selection criteria of “The nucleating ability of analogous dicarboxylates decreases as the ring progressively becomes more aromatic in character;” [P682; Para. 1] as taught by Beck.
Regarding Claim 9, Wolfschwenger teaches “on its surface free dicarboxylic acid molecules, molar ratio of the salt of the dicarboxylic acid to the corresponding free dicarboxylic acid can be at least 1 :2, more preferably at least 1: 1, even more preferably at least 4: 1” [P8; L25], wherein the “calcium salt of the dicarboxylic acid, e.g. calcium pimelate” [P8; L8] indicate the mole of calcium equals to the mole of dicarboxylic acid, which lies in the claimed range.
Regarding Claims 10, 11, Wolfschwenger teaches “beta-nucleating agent comprises on the surface of the particulate mineral so lid support a dispersing and/ or grinding agent.” [P9; L6] reads on the modifying agent; “polypropylene” [P5; L24], and the “the beta-nucleating agent is present in an amount of from 0.001 wt% to 5 wt%, based on the total amount of the polymer composition” [P6; L25], hence the ratio between beta-nucleating agent to polypropylene is 0.001/(100-0.001)=0.001% to 5/(100-5)=5.26%, which 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 12, Wolfschwenger teaches “polypropylene; injection moulded” [P24; L6].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfschwenger (WO2011061096, herein Wolfschwenger), and Beck (J of Applied Polymer Science - Volume11, Issue5 May 1967 Pages 673-685) as applied in claim 1, and in the further view of Aramaki (JP2001234060, herein Aramaki, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regarding Claim 3, Wolfschwenger and Beck teach the modifying agent for polyolefin resins as set forth in claim 1. Wolfschwenger is silent on wherein the calcium-containing inorganic filler is calcium silicate, however, Aramaki teaches “calcium silicate” [0049].
Wolfschwenger and Aramaki are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the modified calcium based inorganic filler-based polyolefin resin composites development. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the specified “calcium silicate” [0049] from Aramaki, into calcium based filler selection to develop the polypropylene composites of Wolfschwenger. Doing so would further achieve a desirable property of “The thermoplastic resin composition of the present invention has excellent moldability and the obtained molded articles have excellent rigidity, strength, impact resistance, heat resistance, rigidity when absorbing water, and dimensional stability, and is therefore expected to be applied to various parts such as automobile parts, electronic and electrical parts, and industrial machine parts.” [0086] as taught by Aramaki.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this case, firstly, Wolfschwenger teaches a modifying agent for polyolefin resins, comprising a calcium-containing inorganic filler whose particle surface is modified, which is the particulate mineral solid support comprises calcium carbonate, as calcium salt of the dicarboxylic acid [P8; L7], via reaction of dicarboxylic acid molecules brought into contact with the surface of the mineral solid support undergo a chemical reaction to the corresponding salt [P9; L21], wherein, the particulate solid support has a medium particle size d50 of from 0.5 μm to 7 μm [P7; L15] lies in the claimed range, which can lead to sufficiently high stiffness [P5; L20], matches the improved mechanical performance [Instant App. US20230174742; 0010].
Secondly, as analogous art, Beck teaches the salts were prepared by reaction of acid with the metal carbonate [P674; Para. 3] as nucleating agent for polypropylene composite [P678; Para. 1], wherein, the acid is cis-4-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic acid [P679; Table V] formed the Na salt; Al salt [P679; Table V] which serving as the nucleating agent, wherein the “cis-4-cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboxylic acid.” [P679; Table V] as taught by Beck, matches the “formula (2) include 4-cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboxylic acid” [Instant Application, P3; 0041] with cis-configuration. Furthermore, Beck teaches that the nucleating ability of analogous dicarboxylates decreases as the ring progressively becomes more aromatic in character [P682; Para. 2], with the cyclohexane nucleus showing better nucleating ability than the cyclohexene nucleus as taught by Beck, further matches modifying agent has an absolutely excellent nucleating agent effect on polyolefin resins [Instant App. US20230174742; 0010].
Hence, neither Wolfschwenger nor Beck teaches away the instant application.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 on (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.
/Z. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767