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 .
Appeal Brief
The finality of the rejection is hereby withdrawn to correct procedural/legal aspects of the rejection, specifically in the rejection of Zeng in view of Lei, the statement of rejection is anticipatory in lieu of obviousness. Having said that, the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief will be addressed to further clarify examiner’s position. Additionally, since the office action is non-final additional art will be applied to further clarify that compatibilizers will perform the same function with respect to the nonpolar polypropylene and polar additives.
Response to Arguments
In the appeal brief dated 12/17/2025 the applicants argued following:
With respect to rejection of claims 1-3, 5 and 6 over Kebo in view of Lei:
One of ordinary skill in the art would not have combines the teachings as asserted by the Examiner because:
Kebo utilizes a toughener PEO and that paragraph teaches maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene (MA-PP). The examiner suggested using maleic anhydride grafted styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (MA-SEBS) of Lei as a replacement of toughener of Kebo.
The examiner cannot pick and choose only one aspect of the prior art reference and exclude other aspects or ignore central teachings of the reference.
The examiner cannot stich together an obviousness finding from discrete portions of prior art references without considering the reference as a whole.
Examiner’s response:
Applicants arguments in this case misrepresent the rejection made. While the teachings of primary references are directed to polypropylene composites that are melt processed to form various articles, all primary references are preoccupied with ensuring that the composition include compatibilizers which by definition will improve compatibility between the non-polar polyolefin and polar components of the composition. The polar components may include other polymers of filler.
Lei is a secondary reference in all rejection. Lei teaches polypropylene composition which is melt blended in the extruder and extruded to form an article. Lei also teaches use of compatibilizers wherein MA-SEBS is exemplified in [0054, 0056] While Lei comprises other fillers, the grounds of rejection were directed to use of compatibilizers that can be utilized with polypropylene to perform the same function, which is compatibilization of the components of the composition.
Consequently, the examiner did not pick and choose embodiments or ignored the rest of the disclosure. The examiner ensured that the compatibilizers are suitable for use with polypropylene as matrix polymer, that they can be melt-processed in order to obtain the composition and that they will perform the same intended function, which is compatibilization. MA-PP, MA-POE and MA-SEBS are well known for that and they are all shown to be compatible with polypropylene. It should be noted also that:
“[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of claim would have been obvious] need no seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court to take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.“ KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc. 127 S. Ct 1727, 1740-1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441, F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). See DyStar Textilfarben GmBH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patric Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir 2006) (“The motivation need not be found in the references sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself.”; In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)(“Having established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.’”); In re Hoeschelle, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-407, 160 USPQ 809, 811-12 (CCPA 1969) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the references but also the inference which one skilled in the art would reasonable be expected to draw therefrom …”). The analysis supporting obviousness, however, should be made explicit and should “identify reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine elements” in manner claimed. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Kebo teaches mineral whisker reinforced polypropylene composite having good spraying coating property. Kebo states it is often necessary to improve impact resistance of polypropylene by adding toughening agent for post blending [0005]. To improve the strength and modulus of polypropylene Kebo due to non-polar nature of the polypropylene [0007]. Kebo further notes that spraying performance can be enhanced by physical or chemical methods [0007]. Kebo notes that maleic anhydride grafted polyolefin elastomer (MA-POE) as well as polycarbonate being applied to compatibilization between inorganic fillers and plastics.
Examiner’s response:
As disclosed in the final rejection dated 5/23/2025 Kebo teaches polypropylene composite comprising basic magnesium whiskers, polar modifier, toughener and additives. It is examiner’s position that the applicants confuse polar modifier and toughener. To meet the limitation of polar modifier examiner relied upon [0023] of Kebo which teaches following:
PNG
media_image1.png
88
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To meet the limitation of toughener examiner relied on [0024] of Kebo which teaches following:
PNG
media_image2.png
62
486
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The two compounds are related by the fact that they are both thermoplastic polyolefin elastomers (POE), but that is where their similarity ends. Modifying MPOE with polar groups such as maleic anhydride imparts to the POE a set of very different properties, which most importantly includes polarity.
The composition of Kebo is melt processed via extruder to make the molded article. The fact that the article is treated with physical or chemical methods to enhance coating performance is irrelevant to the composition itself. These physical or chemical methods are directed at the treatment of the surface of already made article with claimed composition so that the article can be painted based on the intended use disclosed by Kebo. These treatments are not viewed as composition altering methods and it is viewed further processing of the article or future use.
Lei teaches high strength low heat conductivity polypropylene composite for pipe insulation [0005]. Lei aims to provide high-strength and low thermal conductivity polypropylene composite material for heat insulation. Examiner characterized Lei as teachings a “polypropylene composition which used plasticizers in order to improve compatibility of the hydrophobic polymer with hydrophilic components. Even with the corrected statement (utilizing plasticizers replaced with compatibilizers Lei does not provide such teachings as characterized by the Examiner. Regarding compatibilizers [0018] states that the compatibilizer is one or two of ethylene-propylene diene rubber grafted maleic anhydride (MA-EPDM) and MA-SEBS.
Examiner’s response: Lei is directed to polypropylene composition that is melt processed and extruded to form an article, in this case the article is an insulation deposited by the extruder onto a pipe. The composition comprises polypropylene matrix, compatibilizers, additives and fillers (all of which fall under limitation of “comprising” but most importantly Lei was not utilized for the use of compatibilizers suitable for melt processing polypropylene compositions.
As mentioned above in response to arguments 1 and 2, the two references teach polypropylene compositions that are melt processed using extruder and extruded to make the article. Both discloses compatibilizers that are suitable for use with polypropylene matrix and can be subject to melt processing.
It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
As such the compatibilizer of Lei will work in the same manner in the composition of Kebo because both are polypropylene based compositions which are melt processed and extruded. Both disclosure seek compatibility between non polar polypropylene and polar additives and fillers.
With respect to utilizing term “plasticizer” instead of “compatibilizer” when characterizing reference of Lei, the statement in the advisory was repeat of applicant’s arguments dated 8/12/2025 directed at the final office action. The final office action states following:
PNG
media_image3.png
396
678
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Term “plasticizer does not even appear in the final rejection dated 5/23/2025.
When considering teachings of Kebo and Lei as a whole there does not appear to be any reason to make the modification asserted by the examiner that is to use MA-SEBS as replacement for the toughener of Kebo. There is nothing in the teachings of Lei, which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to pick the specific MA-SEBS for its polypropylene composite as replacement for the toughener of Kebo. The MA-PP of Kebo corresponds to the acid modified polypropylene in comparative examples F-3, F-4 and F-5 of the instant invention.
Examiners response: The obviousness analysis may “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). For example, the analysis may “include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.” Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
In the rejection of Kebo in view of Lei, the examiner clearly indicated that the modification which included substituting MA-POE of Kebo with MA-SEBS of Lei would still impart compatibility between polypropylene matric and polar components of Kebo.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp. 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
The suitability of the MA-SEBS is its function as a compatibilizer just like MA-POE. It should also be pointed out (and will be added to the rejection itself) that MA-SEBS is a thermoplastic polymer comprising monomers having olefin or alpha olefin unsaturation where the monomers polymerize. Consequently SEBS will also read on thermoplastic polyolefin elastomer.
Lei in [0020] teaches that nucleation enhancer is basic magnesium sulfate whisker, calcium carbonate whisker or both.
Examiner’s response: Lei was utilized for its recitation of MA-SEBS not for its recitation of whiskers.
Examiner does not seem to understand the arguments with respect to unexpected results and seems to suggest that the applicants compare the claimed invention with the results of the combination proposed by the examiner.
Examiner’s response: The examiner understands how to evaluate unexpected result. The issue is that while MA-PP is a compatibilizer, it is not the compatiblizer disclosed in Kebo. While polypropylene is one of the monomers utilized in making thermoplastic olefin elastomer, by itself it is NOT an elastomer. Kebo clearly discloses that his compatibilizers is MA-POE. As such the results do not compare over the closest prior art of record.
Claim 5 is directed to method of producing composition with the content of components as claimed. Kebo and Lei do not teach mixing components in specified amounts:
Examiner’s response: Instant claims require following:
PNG
media_image4.png
246
642
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kebo discloses following:
PNG
media_image5.png
120
206
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
48
666
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The components of the composition of Kebo lie within claimed ranges, where in polar modified is 5-10%, which is less than 0.5 of the content of whisker.
The examiner in advisory action stated that both references are directed to polypropylene composition. However, the examiner does not address why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings in the proposed manner.
Examiner’s response: In the advisory action the examiner responded to the arguments set forth by the applicants. The examiner made a conclusory statement indicating that the claims are not allowable over the prior art of record, but did not repeat the rejection. The obviousness statement is found in the final office action dated 5/23/2025. The final office action states:
PNG
media_image7.png
178
640
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Having said that, if another advisory action is issued, the examiner will ensure that all rejections of record are repeated or that there is a statement incorporating the rejections of record into the the advisory action.
With respect to rejection over Zeng in view of Lei:
The acid modified elastomer of Zeng is also a maleic anhydride thermoplastic polyolefin like Kebo. For at least these reasons discussed above the rejection should be reversed.
Examiner’s response: The examiner agrees that Zeng teaches MA-POE, however as indicated above MA-PP and MA-POE are not the same. While polypropylene may be part of the polymer which is the thermoplastic polyolefin elastomer, by itself polypropylene is NOT thermoplastic olefin. The examiner further indicated above that SEBS of Lei meets the definition of thermoplastic olefin elastomer. The rejection will be rested not only to further clarify the subject matter, but also because wrong statement of rejection was utilized. The statement of rejection should be obviousness not anticipation.
It appears the applicants did not argue the rejection over Wang in view of Lei.
In view of the above arguments, following office action is hereby restated as a non-final rejection.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kebo (CN 101250303) in view of Lei (CN 105176209 translation provided).
With respect to claims 1 and 2, Kebo teaches following composition:
50-70 wt.% of polypropylene [0012]
15-30 wt.% of inorganic whiskers [0013], wherein inorganic whiskers are basic magnesium whiskers [0021]. See also claim 4 of Kebo.
5-10 wt.% of polar modifier [0015], which is defined in [0023] as maleic anhydride polyolefin thermoplastic (MA-POE) elastomer that reads on instant claim 4.
5-15 wt.% of toughener [0016], which is defined as polyolefin thermoplastic elastomer (POE) [0024] that reads on instant claim 2.
0.1-3 wt.% of other additives [0018]. Other additives as defined in [0026] include lubricants. It should be noted that while calcium stearate is defined as the mold release agents, is also be definition a lubricant.
The composition of Kebo is compounded using extruders, melt processed and molded into article which later will be painted.
Kebo defines MA-POE as graft polymer which as compatibilizers in a compositions comprising polar and nonpolar components. This includes polymers and inorganic fillers. In Kebo’s teachings polypropylene is a non-polar polymer which is mixed with polar fillers and additives such as whiskers. By definition well established in the art olefins are compounds having alkene group. Thermoplastic olefin elastomers are polymers comprising thermoplastic polymer such as polypropylene or other olefin (ethylene butylene and the like) and an elastomer.
The difference between instant invention and Kebo is use of compatibilizer that is a maleic anhydride modified SEBS rubber.
Lei teaches polypropylene composition which is also compounded using extruder, melt-processed and extruded material is formed into a layer (insulation deposited around a pipe) [0050]. Lei utilized compatibilizers in order to improve compatibility of hydrophobic polymer with hydrophilic components which include fillers such as glass beads and magnesium sulfate whiskers. The specific compatibilizer is MAG-g-SEBS [0018].
MAH-SEBS in itself is also hydrophobic but offers improved compatibility with polar materials due to presence of maleic anhydride. By virtue of it being a rubber it also imparts properties such as impact resistance, elasticity, roughness and softer haptics.
In the light of the above disclosure it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of instant invention to utilize MAG-g-SEBS of Lei in lieu of MAH-POE and still obtain teachings of Kebo. Such modification would still impart compatibility between polypropylene and other components of the composition which is required by Kebo. Added impact resistance that comes with SEBS is also a property required by articles made by Kebo.
The combination of the references is further obvious because both references are directed at melt-processable polypropylene composition that are extruded and both disclosures utilize compatibilizers which are well established in the art. Wherein the compatibilizers improve compatibility between nonpolar polypropylene and polar additives such as fillers.
It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp. 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
With respect to claim 3, Kebo discloses use of inorganic powders such as talc, mica or calcium carbonate [0022] which are utilized in the amount of 5-15 wt.%.
With respect to claim 5, the process disclosed in Kebo mixes all ingredients of the composition as shown above (see also content of each ingredient) in a high-speed mixer or extruder [0029], extruded and granulated by a twin-screw extruder [0030], wherein twin-screw extruders are kneading extruders, then injection molded into test sample which inherently means that the sample composition was melted. See Table 2 for temperature profile.
With respect to claim 6, the composition is used to mold articles which find use in automobiles and appliances [0002].
Claims 1—3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kebo (CN 101250303) in view of Chundury (US 6,150,442).
With respect to claims 1 and 2, Kebo teaches following composition:
50-70 wt.% of polypropylene [0012]
15-30 wt.% of inorganic whiskers [0013], wherein inorganic whiskers are basic magnesium whiskers [0021]. See also claim 4 of Kebo.
5-10 wt.% of polar modifier [0015], which is defined in [0023] as maleic anhydride polyolefin thermoplastic (MA-POE) elastomer that reads on instant claim 4.
5-15 wt.% of toughener [0016], which is defined as polyolefin thermoplastic elastomer (POE) [0024] that reads on instant claim 2.
0.1-3 wt.% of other additives [0018]. Other additives as defined in [0026] include lubricants. It should be noted that while calcium stearate is defined as the mold release agents, is also be definition a lubricant.
The composition of Kebo is compounded using extruders, melt processed and molded into article which later will be painted and it is flame retardant composition. The flame retardancy of the composition of Kebo is required because the articles made therefrom are utilized in wire cables, automotive industry, building materials and home applicances [0009].
Kebo defines MA-POE as graft polymer which are applied to compatibilize compositions comprising polar and nonpolar components. This includes polymers and inorganic fillers. In Kebo’s teachings polypropylene is a non-polar polymer which is mixed with polar fillers and additives such as whiskers. By definition well established in the art olefins are compounds having alkene group. Thermoplastic olefin elastomers are polymers comprising thermoplastic polymer such as polypropylene or other olefin (ethylene butylene and the like) and an elastomer.
The difference between instant invention and Kebo is use of compatibilizer that is a maleic anhydride modified SEBS rubber.
Chundury also discloses composition that is flame retardant polypropylene composition which further comprises a compatibilizers (abstract). The composition is also melt-processed and extruded just like composition of Kebo. Similarily to Kebo, the composition of Chundury is utilized in electrical components, household fixtures, automotive parts and appliance parts.
The compatibilizer disclosed in Chundury is based on styrene and diene monomers (Abstract, claim 1). It includes diblock of styrene and diene, triblock or styrene and diene as well as multiblocks. In column 4, starting line 40, Chundury discloses the multiblock compatibilizers such as Kraton G-1652 and Kraton FG1901X, which are maleic anhydride grafted SEBS thermoplastic elastomers.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize compatibilizer of Chundury in the composition of Kebo and thereby obtain the claimed invention. The modification to Kebo would still provide melt processable polypropylene composition which can be utilized in the same field of endeavor. The modification will also result in polypropylene composition with good compatibility between non-polar polypropylene and polar additive and fillers.
The combination of two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to for a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose may be prima facie obvious. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445, 169 USPQ 423, 426 (CCPA 1971).
It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp. 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
With respect to claim 3, Kebo discloses use of inorganic powders such as talc, mica or calcium carbonate [0022] which are utilized in the amount of 5-15 wt.%.
With respect to claim 5, the process disclosed in Kebo mixes all ingredients of the composition as shown above (see also content of each ingredient) in a high-speed mixer or extruder [0029], extruded and granulated by a twin-screw extruder [0030], wherein twin-screw extruders are kneading extruders, then injection molded into test sample which inherently means that the sample composition was melted. See Table 2 for temperature profile.
With respect to claim 6, the composition is used to mold articles which find use in automobiles and appliances [0002].
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Zeng (CN 102002184) submitted in the IDS dated 9/22/2022 in view of Lei (CN 105176209).
Note: the parts of the composition are not normalized as such specific example will be used [0042] and values will be translated to parts by mass based on the entire mass of the composition.
With respect to claim 1, Zeng discloses polypropylene composition utilized in making parts for appliances and automotive industry [0004] Zeng teaches teaches following example [0042]:
(50) parts by mass of polypropylene
20 (10) parts by mass of ethylene-1-octene elastomer (POE)
0.1 parts my mass of antioxidant
50 (25) parts by mass of m-HSH, which is defined in [0006] as basic magnesium sulfate whisker having diameter of 0.5-1.0 microns and length of 20-80microns.
(5) parts by mass of expanded graphite
5 parts my mass of triphenyl phosphate flame retardant
2 part by mass montmorillonite
1 (0.50 part by mass of PTFE powder which when in powder form such as this one is also a lubricant.
10 (5) parts by mass of glycidyl methacrylate grafted polyolefin elastomer (POE).
Total mass of the composition above is 198.1. as such the amount based on the total composition are shown in parenthesis next to the published amount. Components that are currently not claimed but encompassed by the term “comprising” were omitted.
Compatibilizers of Zeng include MA-PP and glycidyl methacrylate grafted polyolefin elastomer (POE-g-GMA-co-Sty), where in Sty refers to styrene based elastomer [0023].
Important aspect of the teachings of Zeng that needs to be clarified is that Zeng teaches surface modifier which is [0031] and styrene based compatibilizer [0023] as defined above. It is important to understand that the examiner is not relying on surface treatment modifier but on the compatibilizer. The two components serve very different purpose.
The difference between instant invention and Zheng is use of compatibilizer that is a maleic anhydride modified SEBS rubber.
Lei teaches polypropylene composition which is also compounded using extruder, melt-processed and extruded material is formed into a layer (insulation deposited around a pipe) [0050]. Lei utilized compatibilizers in order to improve compatibility of hydrophobic polymer with hydrophilic components which include fillers such as glass beads and magnesium sulfate whiskers. The specific compatibilizer is MAG-g-SEBS [0018].
MAH-SEBS in itself is also hydrophobic but offers improved compatibility with polar materials due to presence of maleic anhydride. By virtue of it being a rubber it also imparts properties such as impact resistance, elasticity, roughness and softer haptics.
In the light of the above disclosure it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of instant invention to utilize MAG-g-SEBS of Lei n lieu of MAH-PP and still obtain teachings of Zeng. Such modification would still impart compatibility between polypropylene and other components of the composition which is required by Zeng.
The combination of the references is further obvious because both references are directed at melt-processable polypropylene composition that are extruded and both disclosures utilize compatibilizers which are well established in the art. Wherein the compatibilizers improve compatibility between nonpolar polypropylene and polar additives such as fillers.
It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp. 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
With respect to claim 2, POE is used in amount of 20 (10) parts by mass.
With respect to claim 3, expanded graphite meets the limitation of non-fibrous filler.
With respect to claim 5, according to of Zeng, the composition is compounded (see rejection of claim 1 for the content of each component), were melt-kneaded [0042] and molded to obtain sheet for testing. Having said that since molded articles are part for items such as appliances [0043] extrusion and/or molding is required.
With respect to claim 6, the composition as disclosed in [0042] is mixed and kneaded for 15 minutes and made into a sheet at 185oC to make a test component. To make molded article such as automobile parts and home appliance parts [0009].
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (CN 102002184) submitted in the IDS dated 9/22/2022 in view of Chundury (US 6,150,442).
Note: the parts of the composition are not normalized as such specific example will be used [0042] and values will be translated to parts by mass based on the entire mass of the composition.
With respect to claim 1, Zeng discloses polypropylene composition utilized in making parts for appliances and automotive industry [0004] Zeng teaches teaches following example [0042]:
(50) parts by mass of polypropylene
20 (10) parts by mass of ethylene-1-octene elastomer (POE)
0.1 parts my mass of antioxidant
50 (25) parts by mass of m-HSH, which is defined in [0006] as basic magnesium sulfate whisker having diameter of 0.5-1.0 microns and length of 20-80microns.
(5) parts by mass of expanded graphite
5 parts my mass of triphenyl phosphate flame retardant
2 part by mass montmorillonite
1 (0.50 part by mass of PTFE powder which when in powder form such as this one is also a lubricant.
10 (5) parts by mass of glycidyl methacrylate grafted polyolefin elastomer (POE).
Total mass of the composition above is 198.1. as such the amount based on the total composition are shown in parenthesis next to the published amount. Components that are currently not claimed but encompassed by the term “comprising” were omitted.
Compatibilizers of Zeng include MA-PP and glycidyl methacrylate grafted polyolefin elastomer (POE-g-GMA-co-Sty), where in Sty refers to styrene based elastomer [0023].
Important aspect of the teachings of Zeng that needs to be clarified is that Zeng teaches surface modifier which is [0031] and styrene based compatibilizer [0023] as defined above. It is important to understand that the examiner is not relying on surface treatment modifier but on the compatibilizer. The two components serve very different purpose.
The difference between instant invention and Zheng is use of compatibilizer that is a maleic anhydride modified SEBS rubber.
Chundury also discloses composition that is flame retardant polypropylene composition which further comprises a compatibilizers (abstract). The composition is also melt-processed and extruded just like composition of Kebo. Similarily to Kebo, the composition of Chundury is utilized in electrical components, household fixtures, automotive parts and appliance parts.
The compatibilizer disclosed in Chundury is based on styrene and diene monomers (Abstract, claim 1). It includes diblock of styrene and diene, triblock or styrene and diene as well as multiblocks. In column 4, starting line 40, Chundury discloses the multiblock compatibilizers such as Kraton G-1652 and Kraton FG1901X, which are maleic anhydride grafted SEBS thermoplastic elastomers.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize compatibilizer of Chundury in the composition of Zeng and thereby obtain the claimed invention. The modification to Zeng would still provide melt processable polypropylene composition which can be utilized in the same field of endeavor. The modification will also result in polypropylene composition with good compatibility between non-polar polypropylene and polar additive and fillers to make an automotive and appliance parts.
The combination of two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to for a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose may be prima facie obvious. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445, 169 USPQ 423, 426 (CCPA 1971).
It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp. 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
With respect to claim 2, POE is used in amount of 20 (10) parts by mass.
With respect to claim 3, expanded graphite meets the limitation of non-fibrous filler.
With respect to claim 5, according to of Zeng, the composition is compounded (see rejection of claim 1 for the content of each component), were melt-kneaded [0042] and molded to obtain sheet for testing. Having said that since molded articles are part for items such as appliances [0043] extrusion and/or molding is required.
With respect to claim 6, the composition as disclosed in [0042] is mixed and kneaded for 15 minutes and made into a sheet at 185oC to make a test component. To make molded article such as automobile parts and home appliance parts [0009].
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 102649854) cited in the IDS dated 5/18/2023 in view of Lei (CN 105176209).
With respect to instant claim 1,5 and 6, claim 1 of Wang teaches composition comprising: 40-80 % of polypropylene, 0-40 % of impact resistant propylene copolymer, 10-25% of inorganic filler, 5-20% of coating modifier, 0-1% of lubricant, wherein inorganic filler includes basic magnesium sulfate (see page 8 and 9).
Coating modifier of Wang as defined on page 3 include MA-POE. The modifier acts as compatibilizers between polypropylene and inorganic filler which results in binding degree. The modifier is incorporated into polypropylene composition, uniformly mixed, melt processed using extruder (kneading action)(page 4). The composition is then molded into an article for household appliance and automotive industry. As such when Wang discloses coating performance, it refers to the coating of the surface of molded article.
The difference between instant invention and Wang is use of compatibilizer that is a maleic anhydride modified SEBS rubber.
Lei teaches polypropylene composition which is also compounded using extruder, melt-processed and extruded material is formed into a layer (insulation deposited around a pipe) [0050]. Lei utilized compatibilizers in order to improve compatibility of hydrophobic polymer with hydrophilic components which include fillers such as glass beads and magnesium sulfate whiskers. The specific compatibilizer is MAG-g-SEBS [0018].
MAH-SEBS in itself is also hydrophobic but offers improved compatibility with polar materials due to presence of maleic anhydride. By virtue of it being a rubber it also imparts properties such as impact resistance, elasticity, roughness and softer haptics.
In the light of the above disclosure it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of instant invention to utilize MAG-g-SEBS of Lei in lieu of MAH-POE and still obtain teachings of Wang. Such modification would still impart compatibility between polypropylene and other components of the composition which is required by Wang.
The combination of the references is further obvious because both references are directed at melt-processable polypropylene composition that are extruded and both disclosures utilize compatibilizers which are well established in the art. Wherein the compatibilizers improve compatibility between nonpolar polypropylene and polar additives such as fillers.
It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp. 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
With respect to claim 2, impact resistant copolymers are listed in claim 4 of Wang. Impact resistant polymers are defined as elastomers on page 3 of Wang, specifically POE, EPR, EPDM and SEBS.
With respect to claim 3, up to 40% of non-fibrous includes zero as such non-fibrous filler is viewed as optional. It should be noted that inorganic filler according to claim 5 of Wang can be a mixture by the virtue of statement “at least one” however, examples do not provide any guidance as to what the content of the two fillers would be.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, as stated above Wang teaches process, for example on page 5 where the mixture is melt-blended using twin screw extruder (meets the definition of kneading) and then the composition is molded into, for example, automobile bumper.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 102649854) cited in the IDS dated 5/18/2023 in view of Chundury (US 6,150,442).
With respect to instant claim 1,5 and 6, claim 1 of Wang teaches composition comprising: 40-80 % of polypropylene, 0-40 % of impact resistant propylene copolymer, 10-25% of inorganic filler, 5-20% of coating modifier, 0-1% of lubricant, wherein inorganic filler includes basic magnesium sulfate (see page 8 and 9).
Coating modifier of Wang as defined on page 3 include MA-POE. The modifier acts as compatibilizers between polypropylene and inorganic filler which results in binding degree. The modifier is incorporated into polypropylene composition, uniformly mixed, melt processed using extruder (page 4). The composition is then molded into an article for household appliance and automotive industry. As such when Wang discloses coating performance, it refers to the coating of the molded article.
The difference between instant invention and Wang is use of compatibilizer that is a maleic anhydride modified SEBS rubber.
Chundury also discloses composition that is flame retardant polypropylene composition which further comprises a compatibilizers (abstract). The composition is also melt-processed and extruded just like composition of Kebo. Similarily to Kebo, the composition of Chundury is utilized in electrical components, household fixtures, automotive parts and appliance parts.
The compatibilizer disclosed in Chundury is based on styrene and diene monomers (Abstract, claim 1). It includes diblock of styrene and diene, triblock or styrene and diene as well as multiblocks. In column 4, starting line 40, Chundury discloses the multiblock compatibilizers such as Kraton G-1652 and Kraton FG1901X, which are maleic anhydride grafted SEBS thermoplastic elastomers.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize compatibilizer of Chundury in the composition of Wang and thereby obtain the claimed invention. The modification to Wang would still provide melt processable polypropylene composition which can be utilized in the same field of endeavor. The modification will also result in polypropylene composition with good compatibility between non-polar polypropylene and polar additive and fillers.
The combination of two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to for a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose may be prima facie obvious. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445, 169 USPQ 423, 426 (CCPA 1971).
It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp. 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
With respect to claim 2, impact resistant copolymers are listed in claim 4 of Wang. Impact resistant polymers are defined as elastomers on page 3 of Wang, specifically POE, EPR, EPDM and SEBS.
With respect to claim 3, up to 40% of non-fibrous includes zero as such non-fibrous filler is viewed as optional. It should be noted that inorganic filler according to claim 5 of Wang can be a mixture by the virtue of statement “at least one” however, examples do not provide any guidance as to what the content of the two fillers would be.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, as stated above Wang teaches process, for example on page 5 where the mixture is melt-blended using twin screw extruder (meets the definition of kneading) and then the composition is molded into, for example, automobile bumper.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 5712701046. 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.
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 January 14, 2025