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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 13, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed February 13, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1, 10 and 12 were amended and support for amendments are found in the original claims and Specification.
Drawings
It is noted that in instant Specification [Pages 23-25] refers to the drawings in color while the drawings as currently filed are in black and white. Applicant has the option to file the drawings in color, as set forth in the MPEP 608.02 V:
The Office will accept color drawings in utility patent applications only after granting a petition filed under this paragraph explaining why the color drawings are necessary. Any such petition must include the following:
(i) The fee set forth in § 1.17(h);
(ii) One (1) set of color drawings if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, or three (3) sets of color drawings if not submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system; and
(iii) An amendment to the specification to insert (unless the specification contains or has been previously amended to contain) the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings: The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, and 15 are rejected are under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Han et al. (CN 102336989 A; cited in the IDS submitted on 01/27/2023; English translation incorporated with the Office Action mail date 11/25/2025; hereafter as “Han”).
Han teaches a wood-plastic composite material with a wood grain profile [¶ 0002], corresponding to the multi-color wood-plastic molded material of Claim 1, and wood-plastic composite board of Claim 10. Han teaches the wood-plastic composite material comprises:
Wood grain color masterbatch [¶ 0016, 0029], corresponding to the color masterbatch of Claim 1;
A mixture of raw materials [¶ 0026], corresponding to the base material of Claim 1;
Said mixture of raw materials comprising:
Plastic, such as PVC [¶ 0008, 0026], corresponding to the plastic of Claim 1;
Organic filler, such as wood flour [¶ 0009, 0026], corresponding to the organic filler comprising a fiber material derived from a plant of Claim 1;
Inorganic filler [¶ 0010, 0026], corresponding to the inorganic filler of Claim 1;
Composite stabilizer, such as Polyethylene wax [¶ 0020, 0026], corresponding to the polyethylene of Claim 1; and
Pigment [¶ 0024], corresponding to the colorant of Claim 1; and
mixing, melting, and extruding [¶ 0042-0043], corresponding to mixing and melt-extruding of Claim 8.
Han is silent to polypropylene and does not require more than one polyethylene, so the polyethylene wax of Han will be interpreted to correspond to only one polyethylene of Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 1-2, and 9, however, Han is silent to wherein a ratio λ of a modulus of elasticity in tension (Et) of the color masterbatch to a modulus of elasticity in tension (Et) of the base material is from 0.26 to 1.47 of Claims 1 and 9, and wherein the modulus of elasticity in tension (Et) of the color masterbatch as measured in accordance with the standard GB/T 1040.2-2006/ISO 527-2: 1993 is within a range of from 1.12 x103 MPa to 2.11x103 MPa of Claim 2.
Nevertheless, the modulus of elasticity in tension of a material is a function of said material’s chemical and physical structure. Han teaches the same wood-plastic composite material, including the same color masterbatch and base material, as required by the claims as set forth in the rejection above. Thus, the wood-plastic composite material of Han would inherently result in a color masterbatch and base material with the same chemical and physical structures, and thus, the same ratio of a modulus of elasticity in tension (Et) of the color masterbatch to a modulus of elasticity in tension (Et) of the base material as required by the instant claims. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed wood-plastic composite material, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients (color masterbatch and base material) for the same utility (making a molded material) and for the same purpose (to obtain a multi-color wood-plastid molded material).
Regarding Claims 3, 12, and 15, Han further teaches:
Coupling agent [¶ 0026], thereby reading on the coupling agent of Claim 3, and the coupling agent of Claim 12;
Pigment [¶ 0024], corresponding to the colorant of Claim 12;
Light calcium carbonate [¶ 0070], corresponding to the light calcium carbonate of Claim 15.
Regarding Claims 5-7, Han teaches:
Wood grain profile and wood colored texture [¶ 0024], thereby reading on the line shape of Claims 5 and 7;
Wood grain color masterbatch [¶ 0016, 0029], corresponding to one color of Claim 6, and the color of the masterbatch of Claim 7;
Pigment [¶ 0024], corresponding to another color of Claim 6; and
the entire outer surface and core of the wood-plastic both have colored wood grain patterns [¶ 0016], corresponding to wherein in a surface and any one of face layers parallel to the surface of the wood-plastic molded material, the color masterbatch is present in a rheological form of Claim 5, and the color of the color masterbatch are present on a cross-section perpendicular to the surface of the wood- plastic molded material of Claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (CN 102336989 A; cited in the IDS submitted on 01/27/2023; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Han”).
Han teaches the wood-plastic composite material, claimed color masterbatch and base material as set forth above and incorporated by reference.
Han further teaches:
1-2 parts Wood grain color masterbatch [¶ 0016], corresponding to the color masterbatch;
A mixture of raw materials [¶ 0026], corresponding to the base material;
Said mixture of raw materials comprising:
100 parts Plastic, such as PVC [¶ 0008];
30-50 parts Organic filler, such as wood flour [¶ 0009];
10-20 parts Inorganic filler [¶ 0010, 0026];
5-7 parts Composite stabilizer, such as Polyethylene wax [¶ 0020, 0026];
Which is equivalent 153-188 parts base material, which is equivalent to 0.06-1.4 wt. % color masterbatch (
m
i
n
.
c
o
l
o
r
m
a
s
t
e
r
b
a
t
c
h
m
a
x
.
t
o
t
a
l
a
m
t
.
=
1
178
=
0.06
%
;
m
a
x
.
c
o
l
o
r
m
a
s
t
e
r
b
a
t
c
h
m
i
n
.
t
o
t
a
l
a
m
t
.
=
2
146
=
1.4
%
), which overlaps from 0.1 wt. % to 0.5 wt. % of color masterbatch of Claim 4, and 0.15 wt. % to 0.3 w. t% of Claim 16; and
Which is equivalent to a maximum of 40 wt. %
m
a
x
.
f
i
l
l
e
r
a
m
t
.
m
i
n
.
b
a
s
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
a
m
t
.
=
70
175
=
40
%
) organic and inorganic filler with respect to the base material.
Regarding Claims 4 and 16, however, Han does not explicitly teach the amount of the color masterbatch is from 0.1 wt. % to 0.5 wt. % of Claim 4, and 0.15 wt. % to 0.3 wt. % of Claim 16.
Nevertheless, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Han for the amount of color masterbatch (0.06-1.4 wt. %) overlaps the instantly claimed ranges (0.1-0.5 wt. % of Claim 4, and 0.15-0.3 wt. % of Claim 16) and is therefore considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 13, however, Han does not explicitly teach the blend of the organic filler and the inorganic filler constitutes 50 wt. % or greater of the base material of Claim 13.
Nevertheless, Han teaches the organic filler and the inorganic filler accounts for 40 wt. % of the base material [¶ 0009-0010, 0026]. The amount of 40 wt. % as taught by Han is substantially close to the range of 50 wt. % as required by the instant claims. One of ordinary skill would have expected compositions that are in such close proportions to those in prior art to be prima facie obvious and to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp., 227 USPQ 773 (CA FC 1985). See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the amount of 40% of organic filler and the inorganic filler as taught by Han would result in the same properties as the claimed range of 50% thereby rendering the claimed range obvious.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (CN 102336989 A; cited in the IDS submitted on 01/27/2023; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Han”) in view of Reinhard et al. (WO 2006050899 A1; hereafter as “Reinhard”).
Han teaches the wood-plastic composite material, claimed color masterbatch and base material as set forth above and incorporated by reference.
Han further teaches:
Polyethylene wax [¶ 0020, 0026], thereby reading on the polyethylene of Claim 11;
Pigment [¶ 0024], corresponding to the colorant of Claim 11; and
0 to 30 parts by weight of a filler and 0 to 5 parts by weight of an auxiliary agent, which includes the amounts of zero filler and zero auxiliary agent, and thus will be interpreted to not be required for the purposes of examination.
However, Han does not explicitly teach 30 to 60 parts by weight of polyethylene or polypropylene, and 20 to 50 parts by weight of a colorant of Claim 11, and wherein the colorant is selected from the group consisting of carbon black, iron oxide red, iron oxide yellow, and titanium dioxide of Claim 14.
Nevertheless, Reinhard teaches a molding compound comprising a block copolymer, wood particles that can look like wood [¶ 0002, 0020] comprising:
0.7668 wt. % titanium dioxide [¶ 0041], corresponding to the colorant of Claim 11, and thereby reading on the titanium dioxide of Claim 14; and
0.5-5 wt. % copolymer, such as propylene block copolymer [¶ 0043];
Which is equivalent to 50 parts by weight of titanium dioxide to 33 to 326 parts by weight of copolymer, which overlaps with 30 to 60 parts by weight of polyethylene or polypropylene, and 20 to 50 parts by weight of a colorant of Claim 11.
Reinhard offers the motivation that adjusting the amounts of colorants results in different shades of color in order to create an appearance compatible to wood [¶ 0019, 0041].
Han and Reinhard are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of methods of composite materials comprising polymers, colorants, foaming agents, antioxidants, and stabilizer, that has wood grain patterns.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the amount of colorant and polymer of Reinhard with the wood-plastic composite material of Han, with the motivation of creating a wood-like appearance, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Reinhard for the ratio of polymer to colorant (33 to 326 parts by weight of copolymer, and 50 parts by weight of titanium dioxide) overlaps the instantly claimed ranges (30 to 60 parts by weight of polyethylene or polypropylene, and 20 to 50 parts by weight of a colorant) and is therefore considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (571)270-7026. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DORIS LING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764