DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is based on the amendments filed November 14, 2025 for application 17/914464. Claims 1 and 6 are amended. Claims 1-9 are pending.
The verified English translations of Japanese Priority Application Nos. JP 2020-194374 and JP2020-058942 is received and acknowledged.
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 . 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nakatomi, whether considered alone or in combination with JP ’820, does not teach or suggest the claimed features as required by the independent claims. Applicant cites Graham v. John Deere Co. as well as KSR, and argues that a rejection must be supported by articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant. Rationale was provided in the 103 rejections below. Although it is not immediately envisaged, Nakatomi et al suggest carboxylic acid metal salts (B) may be used with an aromatic phosphate metal salt (A) within its polyolefin resin compositions. Further, JP ‘820 specifically teaches that such phosphate ester metal salts improve the mechanical strength of crystalline polymer compounds including polyolefins and thus, a skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that adding phosphate ester metals to Nakatomi would improve the mechanical strength of Nakatomi’s polyolefin resin compositions.
In this case, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Further, applicant does not explicitly argue the 103 rejection of JP ‘862 in view of JP ‘820.
Thus, the rejections are maintained for the reasons stated below.
Maintained Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nakatomi et al (US 2021/0403655; cited in the IDS mailed 9/26/22) in view of JP 2002/338820 (cited in the IDS mailed 5/29/24; see attached English translation herein, which is referred to below).
The applied reference Nakatomi et al (US 2021/0403655) has a common assignee and at least one common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 1, Nakatomi et al teach a nucleating agent for a polyolefin resin having an excellent β crystal-forming effect (abstract) and polyolefin resin compositions comprising a polyolefin resin; and the nucleating agent (paragraph 0014). The nucleating agent contains (B) a carboxylic acid metal salt having a structure represented by the following (see paragraphs 0026-0028):
PNG
media_image1.png
254
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein M represents a monovalent to trivalent metal atom having a specific gravity of 4.0 or less, or a hydroxy group-bound divalent or trivalent metal atom having a specific gravity of 4.0 or less; a represents 1 or 2, b represents 1 or 3; x represents an integer for 1 to 3; ax=2b is satisfied and Z represents a group represented by the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
377
291
media_image2.png
Greyscale
* represents a position at which each group is linked with Z of Formula I; Y represents a direct bond or alkylene group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms; and R1-R10 each independently represent a hydrogen atom, a hydroxy group, a halogen atom, an alkyl group having 1-10 carbon atoms, a halogenated alkyl group having 1-10 carbon atoms, alkoxy group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms or an alkenyl group having 2-10 carbon atoms (see paragraphs 0026-0028). M is preferably alkali and alkaline earth metal atoms, including lithium, sodium, potassium, calcium or hydroxyaluminum (paragraph 0036). Thus, Nakatomi et al clearly disclose a compound according to (B) recited in instant claim 1.
With respect to (A) in instant claim 1, Nakatomi et al disclose that its nucleating agent compositions can further include a different nucleating agent (paragraph 0041), such as sodium-2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphate, lithium-2,2’ methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl phosphate, or aluminum hydroxybis [2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6,-di,tert-butylphenyl phosphate] (paragraph 0048). Such nucleating agents correspond to compound (A) recited in instant claim 1.
Different nucleating agents such as sodium-2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphate, lithium-2,2’ methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl phosphate, or aluminum hydroxybis [2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6,-di,tert-butylphenyl phosphate] corresponding to (A) an aromatic phosphate metal salt in the instant claims are not immediately envisaged as part of the nucleating agents of Nakatomi et al.
However, it would have been obvious to select and use such agents since Nakatomi et al suggest they may be used individually or in combination with its carboxylic acid metal salt (B) discussed above. In KSR v. Telefex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (U.S. 2007), the Supreme Court has held that when there is market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. The court has reasoned a reasonable expectation of success in the art by stating that reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle. Sinclair & Carroll Co., 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.
Further, JP ‘820 teaches crystalline polymer compositions with improved mechanical strength comprising a phosphate ester metal salt (paragraph 0001) corresponding to (A) an aromatic phosphate metal salt recited in instant claim 1 (paragraph 0012). Crystalline polymer compounds used within the composition of JP ‘820 are preferably polyolefin-based polymers including polypropylene (paragraph 0011). According to JP ‘820, even a small addition of phosphate ester metal salt can provide its crystalline polymer composition with excellent mechanical strength (paragraph 0044).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the phosphate ester metal salt of JP ‘820 into the polyolefin resin compositions of Nakatomi et al. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so since Nakatomi et al suggest the addition of the claimed phosphate ester metal salts and JP ‘820 specifically teaches that such phosphate ester metal salts improve the mechanical strength of crystalline polymer compounds including polyolefins and thus, a skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that the mechanical strength of Nakatomi’s polyolefin resins would be improved.
Regarding instant claim 2; Nakatomi et al teach M2 can include metals atoms, such as sodium (paragraph 0036).
Regarding instant claims 3-5 and the mass ratio (A)/(B); Nakatomi et al teach its nucleating agent, (B) a carboxylic acid metal salt is 0.001 to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the polyolefin resin (paragraph 0015) and the content of the other nucleating agent (i.e., sodium-2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphate, etc) can be 0.001 to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of a polyolefin resin (paragraph 0048). Absent any criticality in the specification, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to manipulate the amount of each nucleating agent (A) and (B) within 0.001 to 10 parts by mass of the polyolefin resin to obtain the ratio of instant claims 3-5. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and reasonably expect success. It should be noted that generally difference in concentrations do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such a concentration is critical. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) & MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding instant claim 6; Nakatomi et al teach a nucleating agent for a polyolefin resin having an excellent β crystal-forming effect (abstract) and polyolefin resin compositions comprising a polyolefin resin; and the nucleating agent (paragraph 0014). The nucleating agent contains (B) a carboxylic acid metal salt having a structure represented by the following (see paragraphs 0026-0028):
PNG
media_image1.png
254
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein M represents a monovalent to trivalent metal atom having a specific gravity of 4.0 or less, or a hydroxy group-bound divalent or trivalent metal atom having a specific gravity of 4.0 or less; a represents 1 or 2, b represents 1 or 3; x represents an integer for 1 to 3; ax=2b is satisfied and Z represents a group represented by the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
377
291
media_image2.png
Greyscale
* represents a position at which each group is linked with Z of Formula I; Y represents a direct bond or alkylene group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms; and R1-R10 each independently represent a hydrogen atom, a hydroxy group, a halogen atom, an alkyl group having 1-10 carbon atoms, a halogenated alkyl group having 1-10 carbon atoms, alkoxy group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms or an alkenyl group having 2-10 carbon atoms (see paragraphs 0026-0028). M is preferably alkali and alkaline earth metal atoms, including lithium, sodium, potassium, calcium or hydroxyaluminum (paragraph 0036). Thus, Nakatomi et al clearly disclose a compound according to (B) recited in instant claim 6.
With respect to (A) in instant claim 6, Nakatomi et al disclose that its nucleating agent compositions can further include a different nucleating agent (paragraph 0041), such as sodium-2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphate, lithium-2,2’ methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl phosphate, or aluminum hydroxybis [2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6,-di,tert-butylphenyl phosphate] (paragraph 0048). Such nucleating agents correspond to compound (A) recited in instant claim 6.
Different nucleating agents such as sodium-2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphate, lithium-2,2’ methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl phosphate, or aluminum hydroxybis [2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6,-di,tert-butylphenyl phosphate] corresponding to (A) an aromatic phosphate metal salt in the instant claims are not immediately envisaged as part of the nucleating agents of Nakatomi et al.
However, it would have been obvious to select and use such agents since Nakatomi et al suggest they may be used individually or in combination with its carboxylic acid metal salt (B) discussed above. In KSR v. Telefex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (U.S. 2007), the Supreme Court has held that when there is market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. The court has reasoned a reasonable expectation of success in the art by stating that reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle. Sinclair & Carroll Co., 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.
Further, JP ‘820 teaches crystalline polymer compositions with improved mechanical strength comprising a phosphate ester metal salt (paragraph 0001) corresponding to (A) an aromatic phosphate metal salt recited in instant claim 1 (paragraph 0012). Crystalline polymer compounds used within the composition of JP ‘820 are preferably polyolefin-based polymers including polypropylene (paragraph 0011). According to JP ‘820, even a small addition of phosphate ester metal salt can provide the crystalline polymer composition with excellent mechanical strength (paragraph 0044).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the phosphate ester metal salt of JP ‘820 into the polyolefin resin compositions of Nakatomi et al. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so since Nakatomi et al suggest the addition of the claimed phosphate ester metal salts and JP ‘820 specifically teaches that such phosphate ester metal salts improve the mechanical strength of crystalline polymer compounds including polyolefins and thus, a skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that the mechanical strength of Nakatomi’s polyolefin resins would be improved.
With respect to the total content of (A) and (B) recited in claim 6; Nakatomi et al teach its nucleating agent, (B) a carboxylic acid metal salt is 0.001 to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the polyolefin resin (paragraph 0015) and the content of the other nucleating agent (i.e., sodium-2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphate, etc) can be 0.001 to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of a polyolefin resin (paragraph 0048). Absent any criticality in the specification, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to include the total content of each nucleating agent (A) and (B) within 0.001 to 10 parts by mass of the polyolefin resin composition. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and reasonably expect success. It should be noted that generally difference in concentrations do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such a concentration is critical. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) & MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding instant claim 7; Nakatomi et al teach its polyolefin resin compositions preferably comprise a polypropylene resin (paragraph 0016).
Regarding instant claim 8, Nakatomi et al teach a method of producing the resin composition that comprises dry-blending the polyolefin resin in a powder or pellet form with the nucleating agent and other additives (paragraph 0097).
Regarding instant claim 9; Nakatomi et al teach a method of producing molded articles composed of the resin composition utilizing various molding (i.e., injection molding, etc.) (paragraph 0099, 0101).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over JP 2020-015862 (cited in the IDS mailed 9/26/22; see attached English translation herein, which is referred to below) in view of JP 2002/338820 (cited in the IDS mailed 5/29/24; see attached English translation herein, which is referred to below).
JP ‘862 teaches a polyolefin nucleating agent, a polyolefin nucleating agent composition containing the same, a polyolefin-based resin composition, and a molded article thereof, and more particularly, to a polyolefin nucleating agent capable of improving crystallization of a polyolefin-based resin (pg. 3, paragraph 1).
The nucleating agent contains (B) a carboxylic acid metal salt having a structure represented by the following (pg. 2, first full paragraphs 3-4):
PNG
media_image3.png
116
569
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
104
255
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
87
204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
M1 represents a monovalent metal atom, M2 represents a hydrogen atom or a monovalent metal atom, wherein the metal atom of M1 may be bonded to a hydroxy group. a represents 1 to 3, b represents 0 to 3, c represents 1 to 3, x represents 1 to 3, and y represents 1 to 3, wherein t and u each independently represent 0 to 2 and A represents a group or a bond selected from the group consisting of a direct bond, a methylene group, an amide bond, a urea bond, and a urethane bond. In the general formula (2), * represents a position linked to A in the general formula (1), and R0 represents a hydrogen atom, a hydroxy group, a halogen atom, or an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms; and d represents 0 to 5. In the general formula (3), * represents a position linked to A in the general formula (1), and R1 is a hydrogen atom, a hydroxy group, a halogen atom, or an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms; and e represents 0 to 5. Thus, JP ‘862 clearly discloses a compound according to (B) recited in instant claim 1.
With respect to (A) in instant claim 1, JP ‘862 discloses that its nucleating agent compositions can further include a different nucleating agent, such as sodium-2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphate, lithium-2,2’ methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl phosphate, or aluminum hydroxybis [2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6,-di,tert-butylphenyl phosphate] (pg. 6, 2nd full paragraph). Such nucleating agents correspond to compound (A) recited in instant claim 1.
Different nucleating agents such as sodium-2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphate, lithium-2,2’ methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl phosphate, or aluminum hydroxybis [2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6,-di,tert-butylphenyl phosphate] corresponding to (A) an aromatic phosphate metal salt in the instant claims are not immediately envisaged as part of the nucleating agents of JP ‘862.
However, it would have been obvious to select and use such agents since JP ‘862 suggests they may be used individually or in combination with its carboxylic acid metal salt (B) discussed above. In KSR v. Telefex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (U.S. 2007), the Supreme Court has held that when there is market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. The court has reasoned a reasonable expectation of success in the art by stating that reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle. Sinclair & Carroll Co., 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.
Further, JP ‘820 teaches crystalline polymer compositions with improved mechanical strength comprising a phosphate ester metal salt (paragraph 0001) corresponding to (A) an aromatic phosphate metal salt recited in instant claim 1 (paragraph 0012). Crystalline polymer compounds used within the composition of JP ‘820 are preferably polyolefin-based polymers including polypropylene (paragraph 0011). According to JP ‘820, even a small addition of phosphate ester metal salt can provide the crystalline polymer composition with excellent mechanical strength (paragraph 0044).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the phosphate ester metal salt of JP ‘820 into the polyolefin resin compositions of JP ‘862. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so since JP ‘862 suggests the addition of the claimed phosphate ester metal salts and JP ‘820 teaches such phosphate ester metal salts improve the mechanical strength of crystalline polymer compounds including polyolefins and thus, a skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that the mechanical strength of JP ‘862’s polyolefin resins would be improved.
Regarding instant claim 2; JP ‘862 teaches M1/M2 can include metals atoms, such as sodium (pg. 3, paragraphs 5-6).
Regarding instant claims 3-5 and the mass ratio (A)/(B); JP ‘862 teaches its nucleating agent, (B) a carboxylic acid metal salt is 0.001 to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the polyolefin resin (pg. 4, paragraph 1) and the content of the other nucleating agent (i.e., sodium-2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphate, etc) can be 0.001 to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of a polyolefin resin (pg. 6, 2nd full paragraph). Absent any criticality in the specification, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to manipulate the amount of each nucleating agent (A) and (B) within 0.001 to 10 parts by mass of the polyolefin resin to obtain the ratio of instant claims 3-5. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and reasonably expect success. It should be noted that generally difference in concentrations do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such a concentration is critical. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) & MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding instant claim 6; JP ‘862 teaches a polyolefin nucleating agent, a polyolefin nucleating agent composition containing the same, a polyolefin-based resin composition, and a molded article thereof, and more particularly, to a polyolefin nucleating agent capable of improving crystallization of a polyolefin-based resin (pg. 3, paragraph 1).
The nucleating agent contains (B) a carboxylic acid metal salt having a structure represented by the following (pg. 2, first full paragraphs 3-4):
PNG
media_image3.png
116
569
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
104
255
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
87
204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
M1 represents a monovalent metal atom, M2 represents a hydrogen atom or a monovalent metal atom, wherein the metal atom of M1 may be bonded to a hydroxy group. a represents 1 to 3, b represents 0 to 3, c represents 1 to 3, x represents 1 to 3, and y represents 1 to 3, wherein t and u each independently represent 0 to 2 and A represents a group or a bond selected from the group consisting of a direct bond, a methylene group, an amide bond, a urea bond, and a urethane bond. In the general formula (2), * represents a position linked to A in the general formula (1), and R0 represents a hydrogen atom, a hydroxy group, a halogen atom, or an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms; and d represents 0 to 5. In the general formula (3), * represents a position linked to A in the general formula (1), and R1 is a hydrogen atom, a hydroxy group, a halogen atom, or an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms; and e represents 0 to 5. Thus, JP ‘862 clearly discloses a compound according to (B) recited in instant claim 6.
With respect to (A) in instant claim 6, JP ‘862 discloses that its nucleating agent compositions can further include a different nucleating agent, such as sodium-2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphate, lithium-2,2’ methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl phosphate, or aluminum hydroxybis [2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6,-di,tert-butylphenyl phosphate] (pg. 6, 2nd full paragraph). Such nucleating agents correspond to compound (A) recited in instant claim 6.
Different nucleating agents such as sodium-2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphate, lithium-2,2’ methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl phosphate, or aluminum hydroxybis [2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6,-di,tert-butylphenyl phosphate] corresponding to (A) an aromatic phosphate metal salt in the instant claims are not immediately envisaged as part of the nucleating agents of JP ‘862.
However, it would have been obvious to select and use such agents since JP ‘862 suggests they may be used individually or in combination with its carboxylic acid metal salt (B) discussed above. In KSR v. Telefex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (U.S. 2007), the Supreme Court has held that when there is market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. The court has reasoned a reasonable expectation of success in the art by stating that reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle. Sinclair & Carroll Co., 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.
Further, JP ‘820 teaches crystalline polymer compositions with improved mechanical strength comprising a phosphate ester metal salt (paragraph 0001) corresponding to (A) an aromatic phosphate metal salt recited in instant claim 1 (paragraph 0012). Crystalline polymer compounds used within the composition of JP ‘820 are preferably polyolefin-based polymers including polypropylene (paragraph 0011). According to JP ‘820, even a small addition of phosphate ester metal salt can provide the crystalline polymer composition with excellent mechanical strength (paragraph 0044).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the phosphate ester metal salt of JP ‘820 into the polyolefin resin compositions of JP ‘862. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so since JP ‘862 suggests the addition of the claimed phosphate ester metal salts and JP ‘820 teaches such phosphate ester metal salts improve the mechanical strength of crystalline polymer compounds including polyolefins and thus, a skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that the mechanical strength of JP ‘862’s polyolefin resins would be improved.
With respect to the total content of (A) and (B) recited in claim 6; JP ‘862 teaches its nucleating agent, (B) a carboxylic acid metal salt is 0.001 to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the polyolefin resin (pg. 4, paragraph 1) and the content of the other nucleating agent (i.e., sodium-2,2’-methylene-bis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphate, etc) can be 0.001 to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of a polyolefin resin (pg. 6, 2nd full paragraph). Absent any criticality in the specification, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to include the total content of each nucleating agent (A) and (B) within 0.001 to 10 parts by mass of the polyolefin resin composition. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and reasonably expect success. It should be noted that generally difference in concentrations do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such a concentration is critical. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) & MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding instant claim 7; JP ‘862 teaches its polyolefin resin compositions preferably comprise a polypropylene resin (pg. 8, 4th full paragraph).
Regarding instant claim 8, JP ‘862 teaches a method of producing the resin composition that comprises dry-blending the polyolefin resin in a powder or pellet form with the nucleating agent and other additives (pg. 9, 1st full paragraph).
Regarding instant claim 9; JP ‘862 teaches a method of producing molded articles composed of the resin composition utilizing various molding (i.e., injection molding, etc.) (pg. 9, 5th full paragraph).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHAEL E BREDEFELD whose telephone number is (571)270-5237. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 Monday-Friday.
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, Alex Beck can be reached at (571) 272-3606. 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.
/RACHAEL E BREDEFELD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786