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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (US20180072931, herein Cui).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 3, 11-13, Cui teaches an additive composition, comprising:
the compound represented by compound No 7 [0322], reads on (A) an aromatic phosphate sodium salt represented by the following Formula (1), structure see below and matches the claimed formula (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
572
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, R1 to R4 each independently represents t-butyl groups, and R5 is a hydrogen atom; and M represents sodium, lies in the claimed range of the groups of R1 to R5, in the range of “0.001 to 10 parts by mass of at least one compound (F)” [0033].
alkali metal salt (G), sodium stearate [0168] reads on (B) a fatty acid sodium salt, with 18 carbon atoms, lies in the claimed range, and in the range as “0.01 to 5.0 parts by mass” [0169]
(C) talc, [0226] and “0.01 to 80 parts by mass” [0227]
Therefore, a mass ratio (B)/(A) of the content of the component (B) with respect to the content of the component (A) is 0.1 to 3, B/A ratio range is accordingly: 0.01/10 to 5/0.001=0.001 to 5000, overlap the claimed range.
a mass ratio (C)/[(A)+(B)+(C)] of the content of the component (C) with respect to a total content of the components (A), (B), and (C) is 0.2 to 0.8. (C)/[(A)+(B)+(C)] range is accordingly: 0.01/(5+10+0.01)=0.0007 to 80/(0.001+0.01+80)=0.99, hence, overlap the claimed range.
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).
Regarding Claim 4, Cui teaches the additive composition as set forth in claim 1, further comprising (D) a hydrotalcite, [0222], in the range of “1 to 50 parts by mass” [0223]
wherein a mass ratio (D)/[(A)+(B)+(C)] of the content of the component (D) with respect to a total content of the components (A), (B), and (C) is 0.01 to 20. (D)/[(A)+(B)+(C)] is accordingly 1/(1+10+5)=0.063 to 50/(50+0.001+0.01)=0.99, hence, overlap the claimed range.
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).
Regarding Claims 5, 14-16, Cui teaches resin composition, comprising:
a polyolefin-based resin; [0153] and the additive composition “resin additives may be incorporated into a thermoplastic resin separately from the resin additive composition of the present invention.” [0209]
Regarding Claim 8, Cui teaches “thermoplastic resin in the thermoplastic resin composition of the present invention, polypropylenes” [0153]
Regarding Claims 9, 19-20, Cui teaches “Using resin compositions that were blended based on the respective formulations (parts by mass) shown in Tables 3 to 6” [0404] including the additives as set forth in claims 1, 2, 3, and the “polypropylenes” [table 3, 0414] indicates the blended polyolefin-based resin.
Regarding Claim 10, Cui teaches “molded article” [0366].
Claims 6, 7, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (US20180072931, herein Cui).
Regarding Claim 6, Cui teaches resin composition, comprising:
a polyolefin-based resin; [0153]; (A) an aromatic phosphate sodium salt represented by the following Formula (1); [0322]
PNG
media_image1.png
572
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, R1 to R4 each independently represents t-butyl groups, and R5 is a hydrogen atom; and M represents sodium, lies in the claimed range of the groups of R1 to R
alkali metal salt (G), sodium stearate [0168] reads on (B) a fatty acid sodium salt; (C) talc, [0226]; a mass ratio (B)/(A) of the content of the component (B) with respect to the content of the component (A) is 0.1 to 3, B/A ratio range is accordingly: 0.01/10 to 5/0.001=0.001 to 5000, overlap the claimed range.
a mass ratio (C)/[(A)+(B)+(C)] of the content of the component (C) with respect to a total content of the components (A), (B), and (C) is 0.2 to 0.8.
(C)/[(A)+(B)+(C)] range is accordingly: 0.01/(5+10+0.01)=0.0007 to 80/(0.001+0.01+80)=0.99, hence, overlap the claimed range.
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).
Regarding Claim 7, Cui teaches the additive composition as set forth in claim 1, further comprising (D) a hydrotalcite, [0222], in the range of “1 to 50 parts by mass” [0223]
wherein a mass ratio (D)/[(A)+(B)+(C)] of the content of the component (D) with respect to a total content of the components (A), (B), and (C) is 0.01 to 20. (D)/[(A)+(B)+(C)] is accordingly 1/(1+10+5)=0.063 to 50/(50+0.001+0.01)=0.99, hence, overlap the claimed range.
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).
Regarding Claims 17, 18, Cui teaches “thermoplastic resin in the thermoplastic resin composition of the present invention, polypropylenes” [0153]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because:
In response to the applicant’s argument that “the examples of Cui '931 do not prepare any additive composition (paragraphs [0380] and [0407]). In addition, the examples of Cui '931 do not employ (B) a fatty acid sodium salt and (C) talc. Specifically, the examples of Cui '931 contain lithium myristate or lithium stearate as "Fatty acid metal salt (I)" and/or sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (NaDBS), lithium p-toluensulfonate (LiOTs), or lithium stearate (Lis) as "Alkali metal salt (G)" (see Tables 1 to 6). However, these metal salts are not the claimed (B) fatty acid sodium salt. In addition, Cui '931 discloses that, in the resin composition, any known resin additives may also be incorporated, with a broad list of resin additives including fillers (paragraph [0209]). The list of fillers includes talc (paragraph [0226]). However, the examples of Cui '931 do not contain any fillers (paragraphs [0380], [0381], [0404], and [0407] and Tables 1 to 6).” and “However, these ranges disclosed in Cui '931 relate to those in the resin composition, rather than in the additive composition.” are not persuasive.
It is acknowledged that Cui does not teach these ingredients in the exemplary embodiments. However, case law has held that all the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art even though the art teachings relied upon are phrased in terms of a non-preferred embodiment or even as being unsatisfactory for the intended purpose, In re Boe, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966); In re Smith, 65 USPQ 167 (CCPA 1945); In re Nehrenberg, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960); In re Watanabe, 137 USPQ 350 (CCPA 1963). Therefore, the components (B) and (C) are disclosed by Cui and not all components are expected to be present in the exemplary embodiments within a reference.
Furthermore, the ranges disclosed in Cui can apply to the additive composition, as determining suitable amounts of individual compositional components within predetermined ranges is wtihin the level of ordinary skill in the art and represents no more than routine experimentation.
It is for these reasons that Applicants arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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.
/Z.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767