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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Aoki teaches a broad range of melt indexes for its polypropylene components unlike the narrow, non-overlapping melt index disclosed by the claims.
The Applicant further argues that the specification specifically teaches away from broad overlapping ranges. The Applicant notes that the specification teaches that if either polypropylene resin melt index is too high defects are likely generated after injection molding and mechanical strength is weekend. The Applicant also argues that insufficient melt index results In inadequate flowability which indicates that the indiscriminate selection within Aoki’s broad melt ranges would lead to unacceptable results.
The Applicant further elaborates this point using Table 3 of the specification. The Applicant argues that Table 3 shows that the melt index combination yields synergistic and unpredictable effects that could not have been expected from Aoki’s disclosure. The Applicant argues these results confirm that routine parameter tuning could not have resulted in this but a selective technical choice achieved this balance of properties.
It is the Applicant’s responsibility to indicate that the criticality of the claimed range by indicating the new unexpected results that result from the claimed range. This could be done with a comparative example that does show the criticality of the claimed range. The criticality of the claimed range must be indicated with data that shows the range is critical.
Table 3 shows that Example 1 has an overall fluidity, excellent paintability, and superior scratch resistance and stable mechanical properties. However, there is no indication on the melt index of the polypropylenes of example 1 and the polypropylenes of the comparative examples. In order to indicate that the melt index is important to the resulting properties the Applicant would need to demonstrate that the melt index of each polypropylene in example 1 falls within the claimed range and would need further examples to indicate that the examples are commensurate in scope with the claims. The Applicant would also need to demonstrate how the comparative examples show polypropylenes with melt indexes outside the claimed range.
The Applicant also argues that Aoki does not suggest the criticality associated with the mass ratio of the polypropylene resins. The Applicant claims that the mass ratio is demonstrated as important by the comparative examples of Table 4.
This is because the Applicant shows that the comparative examples mass ratios fall inside the range of Aoki but outside the claimed mass-ratio range. The Applicant argues these comparative examples exhibit deficiencies such as poor paintability and inferior scratch resistance, low melt index, and excessive shrinkage rates and deterioration of mechanical properties. The Applicant argues that the examples that fall within the claimed mass-ratio range achieve the balanced stable performance targeted by the present invention.
The Examiner acknowledges this. However, the Examples that are not comparative (example 1) are not commensurate with the full scope of the claims. The Examiner highly recommends including further examples or arguments that show these desirable mechanical properties extend to the full scope of the claims. Specifically, example 1 only has a ratio of 53:10 for the amount of second propylene resin to first propylene resin which does not encompass the full scope of the claims for the claimed mass ratio.
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 1-6, 8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki US 20150315365 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Aoki teaches a polypropylene composition (Abstract). Aoki teaches that the polypropylene composition comprises a polypropylene ethylene random copolymer having a melt flow rate from 0.5-200 g/10 minutes (Paragraph [0050]). This reads on the claimed first polypropylene resin. The melt flow rate of 0.5-200 overlaps with the claimed range of 40-50 g/10 minutes. Aoki also teaches that the composition comprises a component B which is a propylene copolymer which has a MFR of 0.5-200 g/10 minutes (Paragraph [0111]). This reads on the second polypropylene resin. This range overlaps with the claimed range of 90-110 g/10 minutes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select a polypropylene ethylene random copolymer having a melt flow rate within the claimed range of 40-50 g/10 minutes and a propylene copolymer having a melt flow rate within the claimed range of 90-110 g/10 minutes since these values are recognized as being suitable. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Aoki also teaches the composition comprises a thermoplastic elastomer (Paragraph [0256]). This reads on the claimed thermoplastic elastomer.
Aoki also teaches the composition comprises glass fibers (Paragraph [0210]). This reads on the claimed “glass fiber.”
Aoki teaches the composition comprises 100 parts by weight propylene ethylene copolymer (A) (Paragraph [0023]). Aoki teaches the composition comprises 10-250 parts by weight of component B (Paragraph [0028]). Therefore Aoki teaches the ratio of (A) to (B) is from 1:0.1 to 1:2.5. This overlaps with the claimed range of 1:1.75 to 15:50.
Regarding claim 3, Aoki teaches the composition comprises 5-200 parts by weight thermoplastic elastomer (Paragraph [0033]). Aoki teaches the composition also comprises 10-200 parts by weight of a fiber (Paragraph [0023]). Therefore Aoki teaches the composition comprises 13-80% (A), 2-68% (B), 2-63% fiber, and 1-62% thermoplastic elastomer. This overlaps with the claimed range of the first polypropylene resin, the second polypropylene resin, the thermoplastic elastomer, and the glass based reinforcement.
Regarding claim 4, Aoki teaches the thermoplastic elastomer has a melt flow rate of 0.5-100 g/10 minutes (Paragraph [0258]). This reads on the claimed range of 30-40 g/10 minutes.
Regarding claim 5, Aoki teaches that the thermoplastic elastomer can be ethylene octene copolymers (Paragraph [0261]). This reads on the claimed ethylene octene copolymer.
Regarding claim 8, Aoki teaches the glass fiber can have a length of preferably 3-10 mm (Paragraph [0218]). Aoki teaches the diameter of the fiber is preferably from 6-20 microns (Paragraph [0223]). The ratio of Length to diameter is then 150-1666. This overlaps with the claimed range of 200-250.
Regarding claim 10, Aoki teaches the composition is used to form a molded article (Paragraph [0316])
Regarding claim 12, Aoki teaches the composition can be used to form automobile parts (Paragraph [0319]). This reads on the claimed vehicle comprising molded product of claim 10.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki US 20150315365A1 in view of 3M Glass Bubbles S60HS (retrieved from: https://web.archive.org/web/20210617065632/https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/b40064618/, June 7, 2021, retrieved on 9/26/2025).
Regarding claim 7, Aoki teaches the composition can also comprise glass beads (Paragraph [0214]). However Aoki is silent on the diameter of the glass beads. 3M Glass Bubbles teaches a glass bead used as a filler for polymer compositions (Page 2). 3M glass bubbles also teaches this filler is used for automotive injection molded plastics (Page 2). 3M Glass bubbles teaches this filler has an average particle diameter of 30 microns (Page 1). This reads on the claimed range of 15-30 microns. It would have been obvious to use the glass bead filler of 3M as the glass bead filler of Aoki because 3M also teaches this filler is suitable for use for plastics used in automotive applications. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki US 20150315365A1 in view of Takayama US 20210230415 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Aoki teaches Aoki teaches the composition comprises 5-200 parts by weight thermoplastic elastomer (Paragraph [0033]). Aoki teaches the composition also comprises 10-200 parts by weight of a fiber (Paragraph [0023]). Therefore Aoki teaches the composition comprises 13-80% (A), 2-68% (B), 2-63% fiber, and 1-62% thermoplastic elastomer. This overlaps with the claimed range of the first polypropylene resin, the second polypropylene resin, the thermoplastic elastomer, and glass fiber. However Aoki is silent on the amount of glass beads in the composition.
Takayama teaches a polypropylene resin composition that comprises polypropylene (B) at thermoplastic elastomer (C) (Abstract). Takayama also teaches more than one propylene resin can be used (Paragraph [0025]) Takayama also teaches the composition comprises glass spheres as filler (Paragraph [0055]). Takayama teaches that the composition can be used to form automobile parts (Paragraph [0066]). Takayama teaches that the amount of filler (glass sphere/glass fibers) used in the composition is 0.01-20 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of components (A-D). This corresponds to 0.008-16% filler. This overlaps with the claimed amount of 5-15% glass beads.
It would have been obvious to use the amount of glass beads added in the composition of Takayama as a guideline or target when adding the glass beads in the composition of Aoki as this range is suitable for similar polymer compositions used in similar applications. "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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki US 20150315365A1 in view of Kito US 20140364569A1.
Regarding claim 11, Aoki teaches the composition can be used to form automobile parts (Paragraph [0319]). However, Aoki does not specifically teach that the composition is used to form a car trunk.
Kito teaches a composition comprising a polyolefin resin which can be a polypropylene resin (Abstract). Kito also teaches that the composition comprises two or more polyolefin resins (Paragraph [0037]). Kito also teaches the composition comprises a thermoplastic elastomer (Paragraph [0054]). Kito also teaches the composition comprises glass components like glass beads and glass fibers (Paragraph [0125]). Kito also teaches the composition can be used to form a molded article (Paragraph [0127]). Kito teaches the composition can be used to form automotive materials (Paragraph [0127]). Kito also teaches the molded article can be used to form a trunk lid (Paragraph [0127]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the composition of Aoki to form the trunk lid of Kito because both teach polypropylene resin compositions which form molded articles and comprise thermoplastic elastomers and glass components and both are used to form automotive components and therefore the composition of Aoki would be suitable to form the trunk lid of Kito. Therefore, this reads on the claimed trunk cover.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LILY K SLOAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30 ET.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/LILY K SLOAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762