DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment and Arguments/Remarks filed on 12/30/2025. Claim 8 was added. Claims 1 and 3-8 are now pending in the application.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A polypropylene-based resin composition comprising
a polypropylene-based polymer (A),
a flame retardant (B),
and glass fibers (C) having an aspect ratio of a weight-average fiber length to an average fiber diameter, measured within the polypropylene-based resin composition, of 41 to 60,
wherein the flame retardant is at least a phosphorous-containing flame retardant,
wherein the flame retardant is free of a halogenated diphenyl alkane-based compound,
and wherein the glass fibers (C) have a length of 200 to 600 µm.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (US Patent 4,990,554) in view of Liu (CN103937091 A as cited on the IDS dated 10/31/2024).
The disclosure of Nomura in view of Liu et al. is adequately set forth on pages 3-6 of the Office Action dated 10/8/2025 and is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 1, Nomura teaches a polyolefin composition, wherein the polyolefin contains a polypropylene hompolymer and a fibrous inorganic filler have an aspect ratio of 20-60 (claim 1) thereby overlapping with the claimed range of 41-60, wherein the fibrous organic filler is a glass fiber (claim 3), wherein the composition further comprises a flame retardant (claim 9) and wherein the flame retardant is selected from a phosphor-based flame retardant (col. 6 lines 57-59).
Nomura does not particularly teach the aspect ratio of the glass fiber is measured within the polypropylene-based resin composition.
The aspect ratio of the glass fiber is the measurement of the fiber length to fiber diameter. Nomura teaches the same aspect ratio of the glass fiber as required by the instant claim wherein the aspect ratio is determined before the glass fiber is mixed with the polyolefin composition. The glass fiber of Nomura undergoes the same processing as disclosed in the instant specification (kneading in a co-kneader, taught by Nomura col. 4 line 68; the same process is disclosed in the instant specification [0008]). Therefore, the aspect ratio of the glass fiber after mixing in the polyolefin composition of Nomura is expected to be the same aspect ratio as before mixing which is the same aspect ratio 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 polyolefin composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients (polyolefin, glass fiber and flame retardant) with the glass fiber having the same claimed aspect ratio for the same utility (molded articles).
Nomura does not particularly teach the glass fibers having a length of 200 to 600 µm.
Liu teaches a flame retardant polypropylene composition comprising polypropylene, a flame retardant and a glass fiber (claim 1), wherein the glass fiber has a diameter of 15 to 25 µm and a length of 0.3 to 0.6 mm (300 to 600 µm; claim 3) thereby reading on the claimed range of 200 to 600 µm. Liu offers the motivation of using the length of glass fiber that can uniformly mix with the polypropylene (Abstract). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the length of glass fibers as taught by Liu in the polypropylene resin composition disclosed by Nomura thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Nomura teaches acid modified polyolefin (col. 5 line 50) thereby reading on the acid modified polyolefin-based polymer (D).
Regarding claim 4, Nomura is further silent on the claimed ranges for the components as required by instant claim 4.
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches the polypropylene in a combined amount of 55-85% (5-15% copolymerized polypropylene and 50-70% homopolymerized polypropylene) [0012] thereby reading on a claimed range of 30 to 70 wt%, a flame retardant in an amount of 15-35% [0014] thereby reading on the claimed range of 5 to 50 wt%, and glass fibers in an amount of 7-20% [0015] thereby reading on the claimed range of from 5 to 40 wt% and further reading on having a whole amount of 100 wt%. Liu offers the motivation of choosing these particular amounts due to the resulting composition having high strength, meeting environmental protection requirements and having a flame retardant grade reaching UL94V-1 [0006-0007]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the the amounts of the components as taught by Liu in the polypropylene resin composition disclosed by Nomura thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Nomura teaches a molded article (claim 10).
Regarding claim 6, Nomura is further silent on the molded article having the dimensions as required by the instant claim.
The particular dimensions required in the instant claim 6 are discrete elements of the claimed molded article, however, the present application is not a design application but a utility application with all claims directed to articles or products of manufacture. There is no evidence that the claimed dimensions have any mechanical function in relation to the underlying article. Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that the claimed dimensions relate only to matters of ornamentations or aesthetic design and the particular dimensions affixed to the claimed article does not patentably distinguish this article from that of the prior art because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in this art to provide each of the articles in the references cited in the 102 rejections above with a design having the corresponding claimed dimensions which are not germane to the patentability of claims for utility inventions under 35 US 101. Therefore, the dimensions as claimed would be an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 7, Nomura teaches flame retardants other than halogen-based flame retardants (col. 5 lines 57-59) thereby reading on the “free from halogen-based flame retardants” as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Nomura teaches the glass fibers are in an amount of 25 wt% (claim 1).
Nomura does not particularly teach the amount of glass fibers from 30-40 wt%.
However, case law has held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one in ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 f.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore the amount of glass fibers at 25 wt% as taught by Nomura is “close enough” to the claimed range of 30 wt% such that the resulting polypropylene composition would be expected to have the same properties.
Claims 1, 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN103937091 A as cited on the IDS dated 10/31/2024) in view of Nomura (US Patent 4,990,554).
The disclosure of Liu et al. in view of Nomura is adequately set forth on pages 6-9 of the Office Action dated 10/8/2025 and is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Liu teaches a flame retardant polypropylene composition comprising polypropylene, a flame retardant and a glass fiber (claim 1), wherein the glass fiber has a diameter of 15 to 25 µm and a length of 0.3 to 0.6 mm (300 to 600 µm; claim 3) thereby corresponding to an aspect ratio of 12 – 40 (300/25 = 12; 600/15 = 40) and reading on the claimed range of 20-60. Liu teaches the glass fiber having a length of 300 to 600 µm (claim 3) thereby reading on the claimed range of 200 to 600 µm.
Liu does not particularly teach the aspect ratio in the claimed range of 41-60.
However, Liu teaches the aspect ratio of 40 as set forth in the rejection above. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one in ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 f.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore the aspect ratio of 40 as taught by Liu is “close enough” to the claimed aspect ratio of 41 such that the resulting polypropylene composition would be expected to have the same properties.
Liu does not particularly teach the aspect ratio of the glass fiber is measured within the polypropylene-based resin composition.
The aspect ratio of the glass fiber is the measurement of the fiber length to fiber diameter. Liu teaches the same aspect ratio of the glass fiber as required by the instant claim wherein the aspect ratio is determined before the glass fiber is mixed with the polyolefin composition. The glass fiber of Liu undergoes the same processing that is disclosed in the instant specification (kneading the mixture on a twin-roll mixer; Liu claim 4 part d; which is the same process as disclosed in the instant specification [0008]). Therefore, the aspect ratio of the glass fiber after mixing in the polyolefin composition of Liu is expected to be the same aspect ratio as before mixing which is the same aspect ratio 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 polyolefin composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients (polyolefin, glass fiber and flame retardant) with the glass fiber having the same claimed aspect ratio for the same utility (molded articles).
Liu does not teach the flame retardant is free of a halogenated diphenyl alkane based compound.
Nomura teaches a polyolefin composition, wherein the polyolefin contains a polypropylene hompolymer and a fibrous inorganic filler have an aspect ratio of 20-60 (claim 1), wherein the fibrous organic filler is a glass fiber (claim 3), wherein the composition further comprises a flame retardant (claim 9) and wherein the flame retardant is selected from a phosphor-based flame retardant (col. 6 lines 57-59) as a functional equivalent to halogenated diphenyl alkane based flame retardant as disclosed by Liu. Case law has held that substituting known equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. (MPEP 2144.08.I.). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the phosphor-based flame retardant of Nomura as the flame retardant in the polyolefin composition of Liu, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches the polypropylene based resin composition according to claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Liu does not teach the resin composition further comprising an acid-modified polyolefin-based polymer.
Nomura teaches a polyolefin composition, wherein the polyolefin contains a polypropylene hompolymer and a fibrous inorganic filler have an aspect ratio of 20-60 (claim 1), wherein the fibrous organic filler is a glass fiber (claim 3), wherein the composition further comprises a flame retardant (claim 9) and an acid modified polyolefin (col. 5 line 50) thereby reading on the acid modified polyolefin-based polymer (D). Nomura offers the motivation of including an acid modified polyolefin in a polypropylene resin composition due to its ability to further improve the strength of molded articles (col. 5 line 15). In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the acid modified polyolefin-based polymer of Nomura, in the resin composition of Liu to improve the strength of the resulting products, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches the polypropylene in a combined amount of 55-85% (5-15% copolymerized polypropylene and 50-70% homopolymerized polypropylene) [0012] thereby reading on a claimed range of 30 to 70 wt%, a flame retardant in an amount of 15-35% [0014] thereby reading on the claimed range of 5 to 50 wt%, and glass fibers in an amount of 7-20% [0015] thereby reading on the claimed range of from 5 to 40 wt% and further reading on having a whole amount of 100 wt%.
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches the composite is used in products such as packaging, transportation, home appliances, automobiles and other applications [0004].
Liu does not particularly teach the products are molded.
Nomura teaches a molded article (claim 10) containing the polypropylene resin composition. Nomura offers the motivation of using the resin composition to form molded articles due to their ability to form molded products having good surface appearance in particular glossiness and improved mechanical strengths with low warping and deformation (Abstract). In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the resin composition of Liu to form a molded article with improved mechanical strength, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Liu in view of Nomura is further silent on the molded article having the dimensions as required by the instant claim.
The particular dimensions required in the instant claim 6 are discrete elements of the claimed molded article, however, the present application is not a design application but a utility application with all claims directed to articles or products of manufacture. There is no evidence that the claimed dimensions have any mechanical function in relation to the underlying article. Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that the claimed dimensions relate only to matters of ornamentations or aesthetic design and the particular dimensions affixed to the claimed article does not patentably distinguish this article from that of the prior art because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in this art to provide each of the articles in the references cited in the 102 rejections above with a design having the corresponding claimed dimensions which are not germane to the patentability of claims for utility inventions under 35 US 101. Therefore, the dimensions as claimed would be an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 8, Liu teaches the glass fibers are in an amount of 20 wt% [0015].
Liu does not particularly teach the amount of glass fibers from 30-40 wt%.
However, case law has held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one in ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 f.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore the amount of glass fibers at 20 wt% as taught by Liu is “close enough” to the claimed range of 30 wt% such that the resulting polypropylene composition would be expected to have the same properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 1-8, filed 12/30/2026 with respect to the rejections under 103 over Nomura in view of Liu and Liu in view of Nomura have been fully considered and are not found to be persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
In response to applicant’s arguments that “there is a significant different between the aspect ratio of the glass fiber raw material and that of the glass fibers present in the final composition.” In response, attention is drawn to the rejection as set forth above, wherein the glass fibers of Nomura and Liu undergo the same processing as disclosed in the instant specification (instant specification [0008]). Therefore, the aspect ratio of the glass fiber after mixing in the polyolefin composition of Nomura and Liu are expected to be the same aspect ratio as before mixing which is the same aspect ratio as required by the instant claims.
Further, case law wherein it has held that because the USPTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ594 (CCPA 1980).)
Applicant further states the presented claimed invention provided unexpected results derived from the specified aspect ratio. In response, attention is drawn to the rejection as set forth above, wherein both Nomura and Lui teach the claimed aspect ratio or a substantially similar aspect ratio. As such, the data is not unexpected.
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
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 LANEE REUTHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7026. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764