DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 4/3/2026.
Claims 1-14, are now pending in the application.
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 1-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2275485 to Posch in view of WO2018117271 to Yasumoto et al. (as found on the IDS dated 5/9/2023).
Regarding Claims 1-8, and 11-12 Posch teaches a heterophasic polypropylene copolymer [title] comprising 45-70 wt% (A) [0014] that is a propylene copolymer comprising 1.0 to 3.0 wt% of comonomers such as 1-butene [0018] with a MFR2 of greater than 80 g/10 minutes [0020] thus reading on all elements of (a); and 25 to 40 wt% of a propylene-ethylene copolymer having an ethylene content of 20-50 wt% with an intrinsic viscosity of ≥ 3.3 dl/g [0014] thus reading on all elements of (b); wherein the heterophasic polypropylene composition has a MFR2 of ≥ 5 [0014].
Posch does not particularly teach the heterophasic copolymer in a thermoplastic polyolefin composition.
However, Yasumoto teaches a masterbatch composition comprising a propylene copolymer and propylene ethylene copolymer that is added to a polypropylene resin [abstract]. The polypropylene resin comprises a masterbatch and an essential block polypropylene [Yasumoto, 0045] (i.e., thermoplastic polyolefin composition) at a ratio of 2-70 : 98-30 [Yasumoto, 0045] thereby reasonably reading on the heterophasic copolymer of 8% to 30% by weight of claim 1, 8% to 25% by weight of claim 11 and 10% to 20 wt% of claim 12.
The motivation to add the heterophasic copolymer taught by Posch in a thermoplastic polyolefin composition taught by Yasumoto is to provide good surface appearance and excellent fluidity [Yasumoto, abstract].
Though the prior art range of 2-70 is not identical to the claimed ranges of 8-30 wt%, 8-25 wt%, and 1—2- wt%, it does overlap. It has been held that, 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 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding Claim 9, Posch in view of Yasumoto teaches the heterophasic copolymer of claim 1, that has a Charpy notched impact strength at 23°C of ≥ 25 kJ/m2 [0014] reading on 40-100 25 kJ/m2
Regarding Claims 13-14¸ Posch in view of Yasumoto teaches the thermoplastic polyolefin composition of claim 1, that is used to make automotive parts [Posch, 0073]
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2275485 to Posch in view of WO2018117271 to Yasumoto et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2017198633 to Wang et al.
Regarding Claim 10, Posch in view of Yasumoto teaches the heterophasic copolymer of claim 1, as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Posch in view of Yasumoto is silent regarding a value of Charpy impact resistance at -20°C ranging from 3.0 to 5.0 KJ/m2.
However, Wang teaches a propylene composition [title] with a Charpy notched impact strength at -20°C in the range of 2.5-10.0 kJ/m2 [page 7, P1]. Posch and Wang are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely heterophasic propylene copolymers.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the Charpy impact resistance taught by Wang’s in Posch’s heterophasic copolymer, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation to modify Posch with Wang is that this Charpy impact resistance range features an improved toughness [page 6, L30-32, Wang] that are applicable for injection molded articles [page 7, L16-22, Wang] which is used in Posch’s invention [abstract, Posch].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states the prior art does not anticipate the newly amended claims, specifically referring to claims 1-10.
In response, Examiner agrees, and attention is directed to the updated rejection of claims 1-10 wherein that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posch in view of Yasumoto.
Applicant states Posch and Wang do not teach or suggest a thermoplastic composition of claim 1 and therefore claim 10 is non-obvious under U.S.C 103 as claim 10 is dependent on claim 1.
In response, it is noted that the thermoplastic composition of Claim 1 is rejected by Posch in view of Yasumoto as set forth above and Claim 10 is rejected by Posch in view of Yasumoto in further view of Wang as set forth in the rejection above.
Applicant expressly disagrees with the Examiner’s assertations of obviousness made in the action and the Examiners characterization of the cited art, specifically referring to the combination of Posch in view of Yasumoto of claims 11-14. This is based on that the compositions of Posch do not include a thermoplastic polyolefin composition, that the modification would substantially alter the design and purpose of the compositions of Posch and that the combination would include the heterophasic components in an amount substantially lower than the amounts required by Posch.
In response, it is noted that Posch does teach thermoplastic polyolefin compositions, as the main ingredients of Posch (A)-(C) are all considered thermoplastic and polyolefins.
Regarding substantially altering the purpose of Posch, it is noted that the rejection of claim 1 suggests adding the heterophasic copolymer taught by Posch into Yasumoto, rather than adding the block polypropylene component of Yasumoto into Posch. Adding Posch’s heterophasic copolymer into Yasumoto would have a reasonable expectation of success as Yasumoto already envisions a masterbatch composition containing 65-85wt% propylene(co)polymer (i.e., component (1)) and 15-35 wt% of a propylene ethylene copolymer (i.e., component(2)) [Yasumoto, abstract] with highly overlapping comonomer content, melt flow rates, and intrinsic viscosities values. Moreover, Posch and Yasumoto are from the same field of endeavor, namely polyolefin compositions for automotive parts, and Posch's composition is not suspectable to the occurrence of marks [Posch, 0001] and has excellent surface quality [Posch, 0075] which would have been of use to Yasumoto [Yasumoto, 0002].
Regarding applicants arguments that the combination would include the heterophasic components in an amount substantially lower than the amounts required by Posch, It is noted that Yasumoto teaches polypropylene resin comprises a masterbatch and an essential block polypropylene [Yasumoto, 0045] at a ratio of 2-70 parts masterbatch [Yasumoto, 0045] (thereby reasonably reading on a thermoplastic composition comprising 8-30 wt% of a heterophasic copolymer) to 98-30 parts essential block polypropylene.
Regarding it is noted the purpose of Posch would not be altered as Posch teaches having a composition especially suited for the automotive applications because they have excellent impact strength/stiffness balance, high flowability, and are not susceptible to the occurrence of flow marks [Posch, 0001] and Yasumoto teaches the same purpose of polypropylene resin compositions used for automobiles such as automotive bumpers, and altering fluidity and the formation of defects of surface appearance such as flow marks [Yasumoto ,0002]
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING whose telephone number is (703)756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 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 at (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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights