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 .
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on June 29, 2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCTCN20200098851 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response to a Nonfinal rejection filed September 9, 2025.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
This Action is a SECOND Final rejection.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A polymer composition comprising polypropylene, glass fiber and a pigment comprising an inorganic zinc salt and an inorganic barium salt,
wherein the MFI of the polypropylene is in the range from 17 to 75 dg/min, as measured according to ISO 133 at 230°C/2.16kg,
wherein the xylene soluble part of the polypropylene is in the range from 9.3 to 19.6 wt% as measured according to by ISO 16152:2005,
wherein the amount of the polypropylene is in the range from 29.6 to 79.8 wt% based on the total amount of the polymer composition,
wherein the amount of the glass fiber is in the range from 17 to 34 wt% based on the total amount of the polymer composition.
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 1-8, 13-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderlik et al. (WO 2010089241 as listed on IDS dated December 28, 2022) in view of Liang (WO 2018019762).
The examiner will refer to the English translation of WO2010089241 by Anderlik et al. provided in the Office Action dated July 7, 2025.
Regarding claim 1, Anderlik et al. disclose a composition in Example 1 comprising 43 parts by weight of polybutylene terephthalate, 2 parts by weight of a batch of 25 wt% of carbon black and 75 wt% of polybutylene terephthalate, and 30 parts by weight of a glass fiber, equivalent to 42 wt% of polybutylene terephthalate and 29.4 wt% of glass fiber and lying within the claimed amount of 29.6 to 79.8 wt% of polypropylene and 17 to 34 wt% of glass fiber recited in the instant claims.
Anderlik et al. do not teach the composition of Example 1 comprises polypropylene.
However, Anderlik et al. broadly teach the thermoplastic polymer is a polyolefin such as polypropylene homopolymers or copolymers [0140]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the polybutylene terephthalate in Example 1 with polypropylene since Anderlik et al. teach both may be used.
Anderlik et al. do not teach the composition of Example 1 comprises an inorganic zinc salt and an inorganic barium salt.
However, Anderlik et al. broadly teach the pigment is lithopone, which is a mixture of zinc sulfide and barium sulfate [0190], thereby reading on claim instant 1, 4, 5, 16, and 17. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the carbon black in Example 1 with lithopone since Anderlik et al. teach both may be used.
Anderlik et al. are silent on the properties of the polypropylene as recited in the instant claims.
Liang teach a polypropylene composition comprising a heterophasic propylene copolymer with a melt flow index of at least 10 dg/min and/or at most 50 dg/min and a xylene soluble fraction of 5-40 wt% (page 7, line 14-35), thereby overlapping the claimed range of a MFI of 17 to 75 dg/min and a xylene soluble part ranging from 9.3 to 19.6 wt% of instant claim 1 and a MFI of 20 to 60 dg/min of instant claim 6 and a xylene soluble part 11.2 to 18.4 wt% of instant claim 7. Liang offer the motivation that the propylene copolymer has good impact strength over a wider temperature range (page 3, line 13-20). Anderlik et al. is also concerned with the impact strength of the composition [0018]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the polypropylene of Anderlik et al. with the polypropylene of Liang with reasonable expectation that the impact strength would improve.
Regarding claim 2, Anderlik et al. are silent on the molar ratio between the zinc salt and barium salt as recited in the instant claim.
However, Anderlik et al. teach the same trademark lithopone as used in the examples in the instant specification (See instant specification page 10, line 20-23). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the molar ratio to be overlapping since Anderlik et al. teach the same trademark and thereby teach the same product as recited in the instant specification.
Regarding claim 3, Anderlik et al. disclose in Example 1 the composition comprises 2 parts by weight of a batch of 25 wt% of carbon black and 75 wt% of polybutylene terephthalate, equivalent to 2 wt% of the composition and thereby lying within the claimed range of 1.3 to 6.2 wt%.
Anderlik et al. do not teach the composition of Example 1 comprises an inorganic zinc salt and an inorganic barium salt.
However, Anderlik et al. broadly teach the pigment is lithopone, which is a mixture of zinc sulfide and barium sulfate [0190], thereby reading on instant claim 1, 4, 5, 16, and 17. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the carbon black in Example 1 with lithopone since Anderlik et al. teach both may be used.
Regarding claim 8, Anderlik et al. is silent on the intrinsic viscosity of the xylene soluble part of the polypropylene.
Liang teach a polypropylene composition comprising a heterophasic propylene copolymer with the properties as recited in the rejection for claim 1.
Liang is also silent on the intrinsic viscosity of the xylene soluble part of the polypropylene.
However, the intrinsic viscosity is dependent on the polymer itself. Liang et al. teach a substantially identical polypropylene polymer. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the intrinsic viscosity of the xylene soluble part of the polypropylene to be expected.
Regarding claim 13 and 14, Anderlik et al. teach the composition is formed by melt blending and injection molding the composition into a platelet [0285], thereby reading on the second step of instant claim 13 and an article comprising at least 90 wt% of the polymer composition of instant claim 14.
Anderlik et al. are silent on if the composition is in pellet form.
Liang teach the polypropylene composition is shaped into a pellet form. Liang offer the motivation that this form allows for easy processing into a shaped article (page 13, line 1-7). Anderlik et al. is also concerned with forming a shaped article [0285]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form pellets as taught by Liang from the polymer composition of Anderlik et al. with reasonable expectation that the processing would improve.
Regarding claim 18, Anderlik et al. teach lithopone as a pigment as recited in the rejection for claim 1 above. Anderlik et al. disclose in Example 1 the composition comprises 2 parts by weight of a batch of 25 wt% of carbon black and 75 wt% of polybutylene terephthalate, equivalent to 2 wt% of the composition and thereby lying outside the claimed range of 2.3 to 4.8 wt%.
However, Anderlik et al. broadly teach the amount of pigment is 0.01 to 20 wt% (claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the range taught by Anderlik et al.
Claims 9, 11-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderlik et al. (WO 2010089241 as listed on IDS dated December 28, 2022) in view of Liang (WO 2018019762) in further view of Ryosho et al. (JP 2012241055).
The polymer composition of claim 1 is incorporated by reference.
The examiner will refer to the English translation of JP 2012241044 by Ryosho et al. provided in the Office Action dated July 7, 2025.
Regarding claims 9, 11, and 19, Anderlik et al. teach the composition comprises additives such as elastomers [0196-0200].
Anderlik et al. is silent on the polyolefin being an ethylene-1-octene copolymer of claim 9 and the density of claim 11 and claim 19.
Ryosho et al. teach a polypropylene resin composition and molded product comprising polypropylene and a thermoplastic elastomer (claim 1). Ryosho et al. further teach the thermoplastic elastomer used is an ethylene-octene copolymer elastomer Engage 8200, which has a shore A hardness of 66 and density of 0.870 g/cm3 as evidenced by the data sheet provided in the Office Action dated July 7, 2025, thereby reading on the copolymer of instant claim 9, and lying outside the claimed range of 0.845 to 0.865 g/cm3 of instant claim 11 and the claimed range of 0.853 and 0.860 of instant claim 19.
However, Ryosho et al. broadly teach the range of the polyolefin based elastomer is 0.85 to 0.885 g/cm3 [0004], thereby overlapping the claimed range of 0.848 to 0.865 of instant claim 11 and 0.853 to 0.860 g/cm3 of instant claim 19. Ryosho et al. offer the motivation that the ethylene octene elastomer provides better performance in balancing physical properties such as impact strength [0050]. Anderlik et al. is also concerned with the impact strength of the composition [0018]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the ethylene-octene copolymer of Ryosho et al. with the polymer composition of Anderlik et al. with reasonable expectation that the impact strength would improve. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the range taught by Ryosho et al.
Regarding claim 12, Anderlik et al. disclose in example 1 the total amount of polybutylene terephthalate and glass fiber is 73 wt%, thereby lying outside the range. However, Anderlik et al. teach the composition comprises 20 to 99.99 wt% of polypropylene and 0.1 to 60 wt% of glass fibers (claims 1-3), thereby overlapping the claimed range of at least 81 wt%. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the broader range taught by Anderlik et al.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderlik et al. (WO 2010089241 as listed on IDS dated December 28, 2022) in view of Liang (WO 2018019762), in further view of Ryosho et al. (JP 2012241055), and in further view of Rebih (WO 2017194969).
The polymer composition of claim 1 is incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 10, Anderlik et al. is silent on the shore A hardness of polyolefin based elastomer as recited in the instant claim.
Rebih teach a composition comprising a polymer resin and an impact modifier such as Engage 8842, an ethylene-octene copolymer having a Shore A hardness of 54 and a density of 0.857 g/cm3 as evidenced by the datasheet provided (claims 19-20, page 25, line 1-9), thereby lying within the claimed range of 47 to 60 of instant claim 10 . Impact modifiers are used to improve impact strength. Anderlik et al. is also concerned with the impact strength of the composition [0018]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the ethylene-octene copolymer of Rebih with the polymer composition of Anderlik et al. with reasonable expectation that the impact strength would improve.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderlik et al. (WO 2010089241 as listed on IDS dated December 28, 2022) in view of Liang (WO 2018019762) in further view of Mcnair et al. (EP 1852938).
The polymer composition of claim 1 is incorporated by reference.
Anderlik et al. is silent on if the article of the polymer composition is an antenna housing as recited in the instant claim.
Mcnair et al. teach a housing comprising a polypropylene composition (claim 1). Anderlik et al. is also concerned with a polypropylene composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use propylene copolymer of Anderlik et al. to form an antenna housing as taught by Mcnair et al. since they are both related to similar compositions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states “ZnS-BaSO4 in combination with polypropylene and glass fiber provides improved mechanical properties as compared to polypropylene and glass fiber in combination with TiO2 or ZnS.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the relied-upon data do not support Applicant’s conclusions. Applicant relies on a single Example (IE1) to support its assertion that the claimed combination is critical. It is not clear from Example (IE1) that either the upper or lower limits of the amount of the polypropylene, are indeed critical. For instance, the amount of polypropylene in IE2 (which is similar to is 62.85, which is well above the claimed lower limit of 29.6 wt%. Further, Applicant has provided no examples below the lower limit to show the mechanical properties are reduced or otherwise changed. Thus, the Applicant has not shown the criticality of the lower limit. Without more data points, the examiner is unpersuaded that the claimed combination of the ZnS-BaSO4, polypropylene, and glass fiber is indeed critical. Similar points can be made for the amount of glass fiber, and the MFI and xylene soluble amount of the polypropylene. Simply put, while the claimed combination may indeed be critical, Applicant has not persuasively shown that that is the case.
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 ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M F 8 - 5.
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 at (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 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.
/ANDREA WU/ Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763