DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites a crystallization temperature as measurement by DSC without mentioning cooling rate. Crystallization temperature by DSC is heavily dependent on the cooling rate. Without reciting cooling rate, a crystallization temperature is meaningless from scientific point of view.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al (US 2015/0315365) in view of Minowa et al (US 2018/0327580).
Aoki teaches a composition for a molded article comprising 100 parts by weight of a propylene-ethylene random copolymer A, 10-200 parts by weight of a glass fiber C, 5-200 parts of a thermoplastic elastomer D ethylene-octene copolymer, 5-50 parts of a propylene polymer resin E with Tm of 166°C, an acid modified polyolefin in an amount determined depending on the intended use and in general 0.01-0.5 parts, 0.01-0.5 parts of a lubricant such as fatty acid amides (0001, Claims, example 22, 0295-0296, 0303). Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Aoki does not teach a nucleating agent.
However, Minowa teaches a similar composition and teaches using a nucleating agent in an amount of 0.05-0.5 parts can improve dimension stability and impact strength, the nucleating agent can be calcium 1,2-cyclohexanedicarboxylate [0117-0121, 0176]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made include a nucleating agent of Minowa into the composition of Aoki to improve dimension stability and impact strength.
Aoki is silent with respect to the crystallization temperature of the composition. However, the teachings from Aoki have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients and amounts thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise.
Claims 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al (US 2015/0315365) in view of Minowa et al (US 2018/0327580) and further in view of PlasticsNet (Milliken chemical features enhanced lineup of polymer additives at NPE 2006).
Aoki and Minowa teach the limitation of claim 1, as discussed above.
Aoki and Minowa do not teach M being sodium.
However, PlasticsNet teaches Hyperform HPN-68L provides better results for polypropylene composition than Hyperform HPN-20E. Hyperform HPN-68L is disodium-bicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-2,3-dicarboxylate, Hyperform HPN-20E is calcium 1,2-cyclohexanedicarboxylate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a sodium salt nucleating agent Hyperform HPN-68L for the composition of Aoki to improve dimension stability and impact strength.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on (571)272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763