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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/22/25.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 17-18, in the reply filed on 12/22/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2020001800 (herein Yusuke).
In setting forth the instant rejection, a machine translation has been relied upon. The machine translation is supplied with the instant action and the JP document was originally filed with the IDS on 2/16/23.
As to claims 1, 6-7, Yusuke disclose a polypropylene composition comprising a polypropylene resin (labeled a in Yusuke and reading on A of the claim, see abstract, paragraph 17-18 and examples), an ethylene alpha olefin polymer (labeled b in Yusuke and reading on A of the claim, see abstract, paragraph 19-21 and examples) and a hydrogenated block copolymer (labeled d in Yusuke and reading on C of the claim, see abstract, paragraph 22-32 and examples).
As to the ethylene alpha olefin polymer, Yusuke is silent on the polymer being a rubber. However, these polymers are exemplified as Tafmer (paragraph 87), which applicant admits are rubbers in paragraph 31 of the originally filed specification. Moreover, polymers such as ethylene-propylene and ethylene-octene copolymers read on the rubbers of the instant invention.
As to the hydrogenated block copolymer, it comprises block (referred to as block A in Yusuke reading on claimed block C-1) that has aromatic vinyl compound (e.g. styrene) and a block (referred to as block B in Yusuke reading on claimed block C-2) mainly composed of butadiene (Bd) and isoprene (Ip). See paragraph 25-28. The vinyl bond content (1,2-bond content) is taught as 10 mol% or less in paragraph 31 for hydrogenated block copolymer (d). The aromatic vinyl compound (styrene) unit (and thus block A of Yusuke) is taught as 10 to 30 mass%. See paragraph 27.
Also see examples in table 4 such as examples 1 and 3 comprising hydrogenated block copolymer d-2, propylene and ethylene alpha olefin. Hydrogenated block copolymer d-2 is taught in table 3 and reads on the claims with the proviso that the block C-2 doesn’t comprise butadiene. Nevertheless, paragraph 29 states that it can comprise both Bd and Ip.
As to claim 2, the content of the polypropylene is taught as 50 to 90 mass%, the ethylene alpha olefin is taught as 3 to 20 mass% (paragraph 50, preferably 7 to 12 mass% and the hydrogenated block copolymer d is taught as 3 to 20 mass%, preferably 7 to 12 mass%. This correlates to about 7 to 40 parts preferably 14 to 24 parts, per 100 parts polypropylene for both claimed components B and C, which falls within the claimed ranges. Also see examples 1 and 3 in table 4, which are within the claimed examples.
As to claim 4, the melt flow rate (MFR, same conditions of 230 oC and 21.6 N, which is 2.16 kgf according to JIS K7210), of the polypropylene is 0.1 to 30 g/10min (see paragraph 18). Also see examples, which are within the claimed range.
As to claim 5, the melt flow rate (MFR, same conditions of 230 oC and 21.6 N, which is 2.16 kgf according to JIS K7210), of the ethylene alpha olefin rubber is 0.1 to 30 g/10min (see paragraph 21). Also see examples, which are within the claimed range.
As to claim 9, the melt flow rate (MFR, same conditions of 230 oC and 21.6 N, which is 2.16 kgf according to JIS K7210), of the hydrogenated block copolymer d is 1.5 to 20 g/10min (see paragraph 40). Also see examples, which are within the claimed range.
As to claim 10, the copolymer is a triblock of styrene and Bd/Ip, thus a triblock copolymer of polystyrene-hydrogenated poly(butadiene/isoprene) polystyrene. See paragraph 34 and examples.
As to claim 17, molded articles are taught.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020001800 (herein Yusuke).
The discussion with respect to Yusuke set-forth above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to claim 3, the melt flow rate (MFR, same conditions of 230 oC and 21.6 N, which is 2.16 kgf according to JIS K7210), of the composition is not taught. However, the MFR of the polypropylene is 0.1 to 30 g/10min (see paragraph 18), the MFR of the ethylene alpha olefin rubber is 0.1 to 30 g/10min (see paragraph 21) and the MFR of the hydrogenated block copolymer d is 1.5 to 20 g/10min (see paragraph 40). Further, the MFR is controlled to improve molding processability. See paragraph 18, 21 and 40. Given that all components have a MFR that overlaps the claimed range (including component c with 1 to 20 g/10min in paragraph 39), it is reasonable the combination of these components would also be within or overlapping the claimed range.
It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). Also see MPEP 2144.05 stating that when there is overlap with the claimed ranges and the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select any amount within the disclosed ranges, including amounts within the scope of the instant claims.
Moreover, it would have obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the MFR in order to control and improve the molding processability as proposed in paragraphs 18, 21 and 40 of Yusuke.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020001800 (herein Yusuke) in view of US 2012/0010351 (herein Araki).
The discussion with respect to Yusuke set-forth above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to claim 8, Yusuke discloses that the composition may comprise additional resins such as alpha olefin resins. See paragraph 52. However, Yusuke is silent on the alpha olefin resin being specifically high density polyethylene (HDPE).
Araki discloses similar polypropylene resins compositions. See abstract and examples. Araki discloses that a preferred additional polymer/resin is high density polyethylene (HDPE), teaching that it is added for performance. See paragraph 108 of Araki.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the composition of Yusuke with the HDPE of Araki because one would want to add resins/polymers known to be added for performance.
As to claim 18, Yusuke is silent on the molded article being a decorative material for automobiles and is generally directed towards containers.
Araki discloses similar polypropylene resins compositions. See abstract and examples. Araki discloses that the compositions are for interior and exterior members such as bumper boards and metal panels, which are decorative instead of containers. See paragraph 119.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the composition of Yusuke with the for use in interior/exterior decorative material for automobiles (e.g. panels and bumper boards) as taught by Araki because one would want to utilize the composition for other uses taught as suitable for similar compositions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK S KAUCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 PM EST.
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.
/MARK S KAUCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764