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 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that the present specification which requires the simultaneous achievement on paintability, scratch resistance, mechanical properties, shrinkage rate stability, and blackness, without a slip agent depends on the roles of the constituents (i)-(iii).
The Applicant points to table 3 to demonstrate that the content of the thermoplastic elastomer rubber in the range of 15-20% by weight is critical to achieving acceptable paintability. The Applicant shows that when the thermoplastic elastomer rubber fell outside the range of 15-20% by weight the acceptance standard for paintability was not met regardless of the contents of other components. The Applicant points to comparative examples 1-4 failed the paintability testing and deviated from the acceptance standard.
The Applicant points to the glass fiber being an essential component for stabilizing the shrinkage rate of the composite resin. Specifically, the Applicant points to comparative examples 1, 3, 5, and 6 which do not include a glass fiber deviate significantly from the acceptance standard regardless of the content of rubber and glass beads. Therefore the Applicant is indicating the significance of glass fiber specifically.
The Applicant argues that these amounts of (i)-(iii) must be simultaneously satisfied.
The Applicant further provides examples 2 and 6 which indicates that even varying the amounts of glass fiber, thermoplastic elastomer rubber and glass beads to the full scope of the claims the synergistic effect extends to the claim scope.
The Examiner acknowledges the further examples are useful in identifying the composition ratio as extending the entire claim scope. However, these examples are not presented as an affidavit or declaration and cannot be relied upon to establish non-obviousness.
Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor. MPEP 716.01(c)(II).
The inventive Example in the specification is not commensurate in scope with the amounts of material (i)-(iii) presented in claim 1 and cannot be relied upon to establish non-obviousness. MPEP 716.02(d).
Further, the Examiner notes the polypropylene resin as described in the currently amended claim 1 can comprise any two polypropylene resins as long as they fall within the melt index, including a polypropylene copolymers or halogenated or otherwise functionalized polypropylene resins. The Examiner recommends indicating through arguments, affidavit and/or amendments how the examples (which include only one type of polypropylene composite resin) extend to the entire scope of claim 1.
Further the claims include a “thermoplastic elastomer”. This can comprise any polymer with wildly differing polymer backbones that falls within this limitation on the resulting properties. For example, thermoplastic polyurethanes, styrenic thermoplastic elastomers, and various polyethers. The Examiner recommends indicating through arguments, affidavit or amendments how the examples (which include only one type of thermoplastic elastomer) extend to the entire scope of claim 1.
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 1-5, 8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki US 20150315365 A1 in view of Takayama US 20210230415 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 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.
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.
Regarding claim 13, 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki US 20150315365A1 in view of Takayama US 20210230415 A1 in further 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki US 20150315365A1 in view of Takayama US 20210230415 A1 in further 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
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
Prosecution Insights