DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 6/22/2026. Claims 13-17 were added. Claims 1-17 are currently pending and under examination.
The rejection of claims 1-12 set forth in the Office Action dated 03/30/2026 are MAINTAINED for the reasons set forth below. New claims 13-17 are REJECTED for the reasons set forth below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/22/2024 has been entered.
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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiminori et al. (JP2005-126601(A)), full English Machine translation provided by Applicant) in view of Owens Corning (News Release Short Glass Fiber Reinforcements for Polypropylene, March 30,2011).
The rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-10 are adequately set forth in the March 30 Office Action at paragraphs 7-13, which are incorporated by reference herein.
Regarding claim 13, note that supra for claim 1 as it presently applies, wherein Kiminori et al. 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.
Regarding claim 14, note that supra for claim 1 as it presently applies, 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 [0040], which overlaps with the claimed ranges (48.5-61.5 mass% of A, 1.5 mass% of B and 37-50 mass% of C). 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 Kiminori et al. in view of Owens.
By examiner calculation, Kiminori et al.in view of Owens overlaps the claimed ranges:
(A+B) / C = 20-95 wt.% : 5 to 80 wt. %, then A+B+C = 100
B/A = 0.1-10 wt.% .
-Assuming that A = 49 wt.% and B = 1.5 wt.%, then (1.5/49) x 100 = 3.06 wt.%, which satisfies the ratio B/A of 0.1-10 wt.%.
A+B+C = 100, then C= 100- (49 +1.5) wt.% = 49.5 wt.%, which falls within the claimed range of 37-50 wt.%
-Assuming A= 61.5 wt.% and B = 1.5 wt.%, then (1.5/61.5) x 100 = 2.44 wt.%, which satisfies the ratio B/A of 0.1-10 wt.%.
A+B+C = 100, then C= 100- (61.5 +1.5) wt.% = 37 wt.%, which falls within the claimed range of 37-50 wt.%
Claims 5, 11-12 and 17 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 Zhao (US 2013/0037743 A1).
Kiminori et al. in view of Owens teach the propylene-based resin composition of claim 1 as set forth in the March 30 Office Action at paragraph 8 and it is incorporated herein by reference. Kiminori et al. teach the fiber reinforced polypropylene-based resin composition contains additives including nucleating agents [0041].
Regarding claims 5, 11-12 and 17, Kiminori et al. in view of Owens 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 specific nucleating agent in the polypropylene-based resin composition as recited in the instant claims 11-12 and 17.
However, Zhao teaches a nucleating agent composition comprising a phosphate nucleating agent including sodium 2,2'-methylene-di(4,6-di-t-butyl phenyl) phosphate and aluminum bis[2,2'-methylene-di(4,6-di-t-butylphenyl)] phosphate (which correspond to the nucleating agent of claim 17) and carboxylate nucleating agent including sodium benzoate and hydroxyl aluminum para-tertiary butyl benzoate (which correspond to the nucleating agent of claims 11-12), wherein these nucleating agents are suitable for polypropylene to improve crystallization which results in increased bending modulus, thermal deformation and impact strength (abstract, [0001],[0005], [0027]-[0028], [0031]), wherein the nucleating agent incorporated into polypropylene is used in an amount of 0.01-2 wt.%, preferably 0.05-0.15 wt.% ([0029], [0046]) and can be used with other additives to improve other properties ([0030], wherein the polypropylene modified with the nucleating agent is used in manufacturing of molded articles exposed to high temperatures and mechanical stress, such as automobile parts [0032]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific nucleating agents in the specific amounts as the optional nucleating agents taught by Kiminori et al. in view of Owens, with the expected result of improving mechanical properties.
Claims 15-16 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 1-4, 6-10, 13 and 14 and further in view of Sanada et al. (JP2004-197068 (A).
The disclosure of Kiminori et al. in view of Owens is adequately set forth in paragraph 8 of the March 30 Office Action. Kiminori et al. in view of Owens are silent on the graft efficiency of component B.
Regarding claim 15, Sanada et al. teach polyolefin resin compositions that maintain mechanical strength such as rigidity and impact strength and exhibit excellent durability such as fatigue strength [0001], wherein the composition comprises a polyolefin resin (polypropylene), an acid modified polyolefin resin (maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene,[0044]) and a filler such as glass fibers([0008], claims 1-2, 4-7). Sanada et al. further teach that incorporation glass fibers into polypropylene enhances the mechanical properties; however, the interfacial adhesion between polypropylene and glass fibers is poor. Attempts to increase the grafting amount of acid onto polypropylene to improve adhesion requires to use additional peroxide, which lead to reduced mechanical properties and degradation of the polypropylene ([0002]-[0004]). Sanada et al. teach the modified polypropylene has a graft amount of at least 0.3 wt.%, preferably, and a grafting efficiency of 0.80 or higher (80%) to improve the mechanical properties and durability such as fatigue strength of the reinforced composition [0010]-[0011]. Sanada et al. offers the motivation of using the acid modified polypropylene resin having a grafting efficiency of 80% or higher to improve the durability (fatigue strength) of the composition [0011]. In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the acid modified polypropylene resin on the polypropylene composition of Kiminori et al. in view of Owens, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, note that supra for claim 15 as it presently applies.
Kiminori et al. in view of Owens and further in view of Sanada et al. do not particularly teach the claimed graft efficiency of component B.
Kiminori et al. in view of Owens and further in view of Sanada et al. teach the component B has a graft efficiency of 80% or more (see rejection of claim 15). However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I) (citing Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium . "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937) ("Where the component elements of alloys are the same, and where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys.").) Thus, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, the slight difference of the graft efficiency of component B between the composition of Kiminori et al. in view of Owens and further in view of Sanada et al. ( 80 wt.%) and the claimed range (75%) is negligible.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 13 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).
The rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-8 are adequately set forth in the March 30 Office Action at paragraphs 15-19, which are incorporated by reference herein.
Regarding claim 13, note that supra for claim 1 as it presently applies, wherein 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.
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).
The rejections of claims 5, 11 and 12 are adequately set forth in the March 30 Office Action at paragraphs 20-21, which are incorporated by reference herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.5-10, filed 06/22/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant states “The specification of the present application demonstrates the criticality of the specified glass fiber in the presently claimed invention” (p.6).
In response, Examiner acknowledges the Applicant demonstrated an improvement in the wet heat resistant based on specific amounts of polypropylene polymer A (61.5 wt.% , 48.5 wt.%, 57 wt.%), specific amount of maleic anhydride modified polypropylene B (1.5 wt. % and 13 wt.%) and specific amounts of glass fibers C1 and C3 (30 wt.%, 37 wt.% and 50 wt.%) (Tables 2 and 3 and Table 1A (p.3-4 declaration). Although, Applicant provided examples within 48 wt.% to 89.5 wt.% of component A ( including PP with different MFRs); 0.2 wt.% to 1.5 wt.% of maleic anhydride modified polypropylene as component B, and 9 wt.% to 50 wt.% of the specific C1 (claimed glass fibers of instant claim 1) that demonstrate the compositions containing C1 lead to an improvement of the wet heat resistant property (Table 2A, p.5-7 of Declaration); the comparative examples including glass fibers C3 are limited to a narrow portion of the claimed range (30 wt.%, 37 wt.% and 50wt.%). Thus, Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence showing that the lower and the upper limit of the amount of the glass fibers is critical (i.e. 10 wt.% of glass fibers C3, 60 wt.% of glass fibers C3 or above).
In addition, the examples 1-6 and comparative examples 1-3 provided one particular acid-modified polypropylene based polymer (maleic anhydride modified polypropylene) and claim 1 does not specify any type of acid-modified polypropylene based polymer.
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 acid-modified polypropylene based polymer and the claimed range of component C. It is for these reasons that Applicant's arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights