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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 4, 2025 has been entered.
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 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, 6-13, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itakura (US 2014/0031459 A1) in view of Yalvac (US 9,012,563, B2), Luo (Polymer Engineering and Science, 2012, 814-819), and Nagano (US 4,632,959).
Regarding claims 1, 6-7, 15, and 17, Itakura teaches a modified polypropylene resin (Abstract), comprising:
A filler (F), which may be cellulose fibers ([0116])
A polypropylene resin (P), which is a homopolymer of polypropylene ([0096])
A modified polypropylene resin (D) ([0094]), which is produced by a reaction of a polypropylene polymer with an ethylenically-unsaturated monomer ([0089]), wherein said ethylenically-unsaturated monomer may comprise an alkoxysilane group ([0077]).
Wherein said ethylenically-unsaturated monomer is a monomer having polar groups of the kinds suggested by Itakura ([0077]), It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the ethylenically-unsaturated monomer disclosed by Itakura including a monomer having alkoxysilane functionality, motivated by the desire to form the modified polypropylene resin of Itakura; and, Itakura states that such a monomer is desirable.
Itakura differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the particular incorporation of (trimethoxysilyl)alkyl (meth)acrylate. Itakura does however teach the incorporation of ethylenically unsaturated monomers which comprise an alkoxysilane groups ([0077]), and also teaches the incorporation of methacrylate-based modifiers ([0079]).
In the same field of endeavor, Yalvac teaches silane-grafted polyolefins (Abstract), and specifically teaches that (trimethoxysilyl) propyl methacrylate may be grafted to polyolefins (col. 34, claim 3). It therefore would have been obvious to use the (trimethoxysilyl) propyl methacrylate of Yalvac as a modifying agent reacting with polypropylene (a polyolefin) within the formulation of Itakura, as it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06.II.).
Itakura further teaches that the inventive resin may be formed into formed products via molding methods ([0119]), which reads on the claimed “resin formed body, which is obtained by molding a cellulose fiber reinforced resin composition.”
Itakura as modified further differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the incorporation of a reaction aid having a vinyl group.
In the same field of endeavor, Luo teaches the radical grafting of maleic anhydride onto polypropylene, using α-methylstyrene as a co-reagent (Abstract). Luo further teaches that α-methylstyrene improves the efficiency of the grafting other monomers onto polypropylene, all while preventing undesirable chain scission (p. 814, Introduction section). Itakura also teaches the incorporation of maleic anhydride as an equivalent monomer which may be grafted onto polypropylene ([0079], p. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate α-methylstyrene into the formulation of Itakura, as taught by Luo, for the purpose of improving the grafting efficiency of the grafting reaction while preventing undesirable polypropylene chain scission.
Itakura as modified further differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the incorporation of a reaction aid having a vinyl group which is not alpha-methylstyrene.
In the same field of endeavor, Nagano teaches a modified polyolefin composition comprising a modified polyolefin (Abstract) which may be polypropylene (col. 30, Claim 16), wherein the modified polyolefin may be a polyolefin modified with a styrene-type hydrocarbon produced by a graft-polymerization method (col. 3, lines 34-40). Nagano further specifies that the styrene-type hydrocarbon may be inter alia styrene or alpha-methylstyrene (col. 3, lines 57-58), and thus recognizes alpha-methylstyrene and styrene as equivalents suitable for the same purpose. It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate styrene into the formulation of Itakura, as taught by Luo in view of Nagano, as Nagano recognizes styrene and alpha-methylstyrene as equivalents suitable for grafting to polypropylene. Utilizing styrene in this manner meets the limitations wherein the claimed “reaction aid having a vinyl group” is styrene and is not alpha-methylstyrene. Furthermore, the use of styrene meets the claimed limitation wherein “the reaction aid having a vinyl group has a Q-value of 1.00 to 5.00” because the instant specification states that styrene has a Q-value of 1.00 (see instant Specification p. 14, line 21). 1.00 falls within the claimed range of “1.00 to 5.00,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Itakura as modified is silent with regard to the claimed “spot” characteristics. Nevertheless, Itakura as modified teaches a composition which is structurally identical to the claimed cellulose fiber reinforced resin formed body, containing all of the same components. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed “spot” characteristics will therefore necessarily be present in Itakura as modified, as applied above.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 18, as described above, Itakura as modified includes styrene. Styrene is a styrene compound.
Regarding claim 10, Itakura teaches the incorporation of between 0.1 and 10 percent by weight of the modified polypropylene resin (D) (claim 14, p. 21), which falls within the claimed range of “0.1 to 20 mass %,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 11, Itakura teaches an inventive example wherein the modified polypropylene is produced via a melt compounding reaction between the polypropylene homopolymer, maleic anhydride (an unsaturated reactive species), and t-butylperoxybenzoate (an organic peroxide) (Example 1, [0204]). Itakura specifies that a grafting reaction is affected ([0204]). As mentioned above, Itakura recognizes maleic anhydride as an alternate unsaturated reactive species, which could have been an ethylenically unsaturated alkoxysilane monomer ([0077]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute an alkoxysilane monomer in place of the maleic anhydride to produce an alkoxysilane-modified polypropylene. The teachings of Itakura therefore read on the limitations of the claimed step (a) of the claimed method.
Itakura also teaches an inventive example wherein the modified polypropylene is further compounded ([0092], which reads on the claimed “melt-mixing”) with polypropylene homopolymer and talc (Example 13, [0226]). Itakura recognizes talc as an alternate filler material, which could have been cellulose ([0098]), and more specifically cellulose fibers ([0116]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute cellulose fibers in place of the talc to produce a cellulose fiber-filled modified-polypropylene composite. Finally, Itakura teaches that the inventive compositions may comprise between 0.1 and 10 percent by weight of the modified polypropylene resin (D) (claim 14, p. 21), and Example 13 contains 2 parts by mass of the modified polypropylene resin per 100 parts of the formulation (Example 13, [0226]), all of which reads on the claimed step (b) of the claimed method.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Itakura teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as described above; also, as described above, Luo teaches the incorporation of α-methylstyrene, which reads on the claimed “reaction aid having a vinyl group” and “a styrene compound.” Luo teaches that α-methylstyrene improves the grafting reaction (p. 814, Introduction section) therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate α-methylstyrene into the modification step of Itakura as taught by Luo for the purpose of improving the grafting efficiency while preventing undesirable polypropylene chain scission during the modification step.
Furthermore, as described above, Nagano teaches the equivalence of alpha-methylstyrene and styrene, and indicates them as suitable for the same purpose. It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate styrene into the modification step of Itakura for the purpose of improving the grafting efficiency while preventing undesirable polypropylene chain scission during the modification step.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the prior art reference Itakura only uses maleic anhydride in its working examples, and asserts that the instant application refutes the equivalence of maleic anhydride and an alkoxysilane group-bearing component.
Importantly, patents are relevant as prior art for all of the information that they contain, and non-preferred and alternative embodiments nonetheless constitute prior art (see MPEP 2123.I and II). The mere fact that Itakura only utilizes maleic anhydride in its working examples therefore does not refute the fact that Itakura also contemplates the use of alkoxysilanes. Furthermore, while the applicant’s disclosure may show the two aforementioned options as performing differently in terms of appearance after heat-moisture treatment, this does not refute the fact that the prior art has recognized these materials as equivalent. The prior art is not required to contemplate the same advantage or result discovered by the applicant in order to properly motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify a teaching (see MPEP 2144(IV)). As described above, Itakura teaches the use of maleic anhydride ([0079]) and also teaches the use of alkoxysilanes ([0077]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights