DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This communication responds to the Amendment filed March 05, 2026. Claims 8-12 were added. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and under examination.
In view of the amendment, a new ground of rejections of claims 1-7 under 103 are made. New claims 8-12 are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
This office action is made final.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A polypropylene-based resin composition comprising:
40 to 90 mass% of a component (A): polypropylene-based polymer;
0.1 to 10 mass% of a component (B): acid-modified polypropylene-based polymer; and
10 to 60 mass% of a component (C): glass fiber having a water-soluble base component content of more than 0 and 0.1 mmol/g or less and a water-soluble weak acid salt content of more than 0 and 0.1 mmol/g or less,
wherein the polypropylene-based resin composition has a melt flow rate of from 1 to 13 g/10 min as measured under conditions of a temperature of 230°C and a load of 2.16 kgf.
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 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 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiminori et al. (JP2005-126601(A)) as listed on the IDS dated 3/02/2023, full English Machine translation provided by Applicant) in view of Owens Corning (News Release Short Glass Fiber Reinforcements for Polypropylene, March 30,2011).
Regarding claims 1-2, Kiminori et al. teach a propylene- based resin composition comprising a polypropylene -based resin (A) (claim 3), an acid modified polyolefin resin (B), glass fibers (claim 5) (C), wherein the mass ratio of the polyolefin resin and the modified polyolefin resin (A+B) to the glass fibers (C) is 20-95 mass% : 5 to 80 mass % (claim 1), wherein the amount of the modified polyolefin resin (B) to be blended with the polyolefin resin (A) is usually 0.1 to 10% by weight, preferably 0.1 to 5% by weight, and more preferably 0.5 to 3 % by weight [0040]. Kiminori et al. further teach 69 mass% of propylene, 1 mass% of maleic anhydride modified polypropylene resin and 30 mass% of glass fibers (Example 1, Table 1 [0059] original document), as required by the instant claim. Kiminori et al. teach the composition is suitable to produce automobile parts [0049].
Kiminori et al. are silent on the glass fiber having a water-soluble base component content of 0.1 mmol/g or less and a water-soluble weak acid salt content of 0.1 mmol/g or less. Kiminori et al. are further silent on the nitrogen content of the glass fibers as recited in the instant claim.
However, Owens Corning’s news release discloses “249 A” short glass fibers (chopped strands) for polypropylene (PP) specifically engineered for automotive applications same as the claimed invention, wherein 249A short fibers is considered the same component C-1, CS-249A-10C by Owens Corning used in the instant specification ([0188], p.164). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the 249 A short glass fibers disclosed by Owens Corning would have a water-soluble base component content of 0.1 mmol/g or less, a water-soluble weak acid salt content of 0.1 mmol/g or less and a total nitrogen content of 70 ppm or more as recited by the instant claims. Owens Corning offers the motivation of using the glass fibers 249 A due to its ability to provide an exceptional balance of high-performance mechanical properties, tensile strength and impact resistance to meet increasingly tough automotive application requirements while reducing overall systems costs (p.1). In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the CS-249 A on the propylene based resin composition of Kiminori et al. , thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Although Kiminori et al. in view of Owens Corning are silent on the MFR of the composition, the composition of Kiminori et al. in view of Owens Corning is substantially identical to the claimed invention. Therefore, the propylene-based composition of Kiminori et al. in view of Owens Corning is expected to possess the claimed property of melt flow index as recited in the instant claim. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).).
PNG
media_image1.png
450
1088
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Kiminori et al. in view of Owens Corning are silent on the melt flow rate of the polypropylene-based resin composition.
Kiminori et al. teach a polypropylene-based resin composition for automotive applications. In view of the substantially identical composition of Kiminori et al. in view of Owens, the composition of Kiminori et al. in view of Owens is expected to possess the claimed property of melt flow index as recited in the instant claims 3 and 8. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Kiminori et al. teach the polypropylene resin is modified with maleic anhydride ([0025]-[0026]), wherein the modification method is graft modification [0026]. Kiminori et al. teach a maleic anhydride grafting amount 0.1 to 14 mass%, more preferably from 0.8 to 8 mass % and the MRF (temperature 230°C, load 2.16 Kg.) of the modified polypropylene resin is from 5 to 800 g/10min [0027].
Kiminori et al. and the claim differ in that Kiminori et al. do not teach the exact same claimed range for the MRF.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Kiminori et al., overlap the instantly claimed range (300 g/10 min or less for claim 4 and 170 to 300 g/10 min for claim 9) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Kiminori et al. teach a molded product comprising the polypropylene-based resin [0048], as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Kiminori et al. teach the molded article is used for automobiles parts including engine under cover, engine cover, radiator box. It is noted that Kiminori et al. teach the composition have improved heat resistance, rigidity and durability ([0048]-[0049], which are required for a composition used for engine parts. Thus, It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the molded product comprising the polypropylene based resin in an air intake manifold considering the air intake manifold is a part of an automobile’s engine.
Regarding claim 10, Kiminori et al. teach the glass fiber is a chopped strand with an average fiber diameter of 3 to 25 µm [0032].
Claims 5 , 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiminori et al. (JP2005-126601(A)) in view of Owens Corning News Release, as set forth above for claim 1 and further in view of Iwanami et al. (U.S. Patent No 4,990,550).
Regarding claim 5, 11 and 12, The disclosure of Kiminori et al. is adequately set forth in paragraph 8 and incorporated herein by reference. Kiminori et al. teach the fiber reinforced polypropylene-based resin composition contains additives including nucleating agents [0041].
Kiminori et al. in view of Owens Corning are silent on the amount of nucleating agent in the polypropylene-based resin composition. . Kiminori et al. in view of Owens Corning are further silent on the nucleating agent in the polypropylene-based resin composition as recited in the instant claims 11 and 12.
However, Iwanami et al. in the same field of endeavor (polymer composition for automobile parts) teach 0.03-3 mass% of at least one nucleating agent such as metal salt of aromatic carboxylic acid (which correspond to the metal carboxylate of claim 11), and provide as examples sodium benzoate, aluminum p-tert-butylmonohydroxybenzoate (col.4: 65-68, col.5:1-3, col.10:22-26), thereby reading on the nucleating agent of instant claims 11 and 12. Iwanami et al. offer the motivation to use the amount of the nucleating agent due to its ability to provide a composition with improved impact resistance and modulus (col.3: 33-34). In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the nucleating agent in the amounts disclosed by Iwanami et al. on the propylene based resin composition of Kiminori et al. in view of Owens Corning, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitano et al. (CN 1827677 (A) as listed on the IDS dated 9/05/2025, full English Machine translation provided by Applicant) in view of Owens Corning (News Release Short Glass Fiber Reinforcements for Polypropylene, March 30,2011) and Kohler et al. (U.S. Patent No 2016/0137824 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 8, Kitano et al. teach a propylene- based resin composition comprising: 20-95 mass% of a polypropylene resin (which corresponds to (A)), wherein the polypropylene resin comprises polypropylene modified with an unsaturated carboxylic acid or derivative thereof (which corresponds to (B)) and 5-80% of glass fibers (which corresponds to component (C)) (claims 1-3). Kitano et al. further teach 58 mass% of propylene homopolymer, 2 mass% of maleic anhydride modified polypropylene resin and 40 mass% of glass fibers (example 1, Table 1, p.14-15 of the original document), as required by the instant claim. Furthermore, Kitano et al. teach that the glass fibers are coated with sizing agents including polyolefin resins, polyurethane resins, polyester resins, acrylic resins, epoxy resins, among others or pretreated with a surface treatment agents including silane coupling agents, titanate coupling agents, etc. [0049]-[0052].
Kitano et al. are silent on the glass fiber having a water-soluble base component content of 0.1 mmol/g or less and a water-soluble weak acid salt content of 0.1 mmol/g or less.
However, Owens Corning’s news release discloses “249 A” short glass fibers (chopped strands) for polypropylene (PP) specifically engineered for automotive applications same as the claimed invention, wherein 249A short fibers is considered the same component C-1, CS-249A-10C by Owens Corning used in the instant specification ([0188], p.164). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the 249 A short glass fibers disclosed by Owens Corning would have a water-soluble base component content of 0.1 mmol/g or less, a water-soluble weak acid salt content of 0.1 mmol/g or less and a total nitrogen content of 70 ppm or more as recited by the instant claims. Owens Corning offers the motivation of using the glass fibers 249 A due to its ability to provide an exceptional balance of high-performance mechanical properties, tensile strength and impact resistance to meet increasingly tough automotive application requirements while reducing overall systems costs (p.1). In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the CS-249 A on the propylene based resin composition of Kitano et al., thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Kitano et al. are silent on the melt flow rate of the polypropylene-based resin composition.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form polypropylene-based resin composition according to Kohler et al. having a melt flow rate of 2 to 20 g/10 min measured a load of 2.16 kg. at 230°C ([0006]), as Kohler et al. demonstrates this range as being suitable for similar compositions. This represents the use of a suitable range of melt flow rate in a similar automobile application. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-21 (2007). See MPEP 2141. Further, 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).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kohler et al..
Regarding claim 4, Kitano et al. teach the modified polyolefin resin used is maleic anhydride modified polypropylene resin having a melt flow rate of 60 g/10 min and a maleic anhydride grafting amount of 0.6% by weight ([0064], [0120]), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Kitano et al. teach a molded product comprising the polypropylene-based resin ([0002], [0077]), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Kitano et al. teach the molded product is used for interior parts of automobiles requiring heat resistance and rigidity including engine components [0078]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the molded product comprising the polypropylene based resin in an air intake manifold considering the air intake manifold is an important component of an automobile’s engine.
Claims 5, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitano (CN 1827677 (A) in view of Owens Corning (News Release, March 30,2011) and Kohler et al. (U.S. Patent No 2016/0137824 A1) as set forth above for claim 1 and further in view of Iwanami et al. (U.S. Patent No 4,990,550).
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 12, Kitano et al. in view of Owens Corning and Kohler teach the composition according to claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Kitano teaches the fiber reinforced polypropylene-based resin composition contains additives including nucleating agents [0068].
Kitano et al. in view of Owens Corning are silent on the amount of nucleating agent in the polypropylene-based resin composition. Kitano et al. in view of Owens Corning are further silent on the nucleating agent in the polypropylene-based resin composition as recited in the instant claims 11 and 12.
However, Iwanami et al. in the same field of endeavor (polymer composition for automobile parts) teach 0.03-3 mass% of at least one nucleating agent such as metal salt of aromatic carboxylic acid (which correspond to the metal carboxylate of claim 11), and provide as examples sodium benzoate, aluminum p-tert-butylmonohydroxybenzoate (col.4: 65-68, col.5:1-3, col.10:22-26), thereby reading on the nucleating agents as recited by the instant claims 11 and 12. Iwanami et al. offer the motivation to use the nucleating agent in the disclosed amounts due to its ability to provide a composition with improved impact resistance and modulus (col.3: 33-34). In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of the nucleating agent as disclosed by Iwanami et al. on the propylene based resin composition of Kitano et al. in view of Owens Corning and Kohler et al. , thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.4-8, filed 03/05/2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, and in light of the amendment, a new ground of rejection is made under 103 over Kitano et al. in view of Owens Corning and Kohler et al. (U.S. Patent No 2016/0137824 A1) for claims 1-4 and 6-8 and a 103 rejection of claims 5, 11 and 12 over Kitano et al. in view of Owens Corning and Kohler et al. further in view of Iwanami et al. and a 103 rejection of the claims over Kiminori et al. in view of Owens Corning.
Applicant states “The specification of the present application demonstrates the criticality of the specified glass fiber in the presently claimed invention”.
In response, Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant has demonstrated superior results based on specific amounts of polypropylene-based polymer A (61.5 wt.% and 48.5 wt.%), specific amount of acid modified polypropylene B (1.5 wt. %) and specific amounts of glass fibers C (37 wt.% and 50wt.%), with values within the claimed ranges (Tables 2 and 3). However, Applicant has not provided sufficient data showing that the lower and the upper limit of the amount of the polypropylene-based polymer A, the lower and upper limit of the amount of acid modified polypropylene and the lower and upper limit of the amount of glass fibers, and the use of the specific glass fibers are critical. Therefore, these compositions disclosed in the examples and comparative examples would not support unexpected results given that the data is not reasonable commensurate in scope with the scope of the claims. It is for these reasons that Applicant's arguments are not found to be 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLGA L. DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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.
/OLGA LUCIA DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763