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 .
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 1-2, 10-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itakura (US 2014/0031459 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 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 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.”
Regarding claim 2, Itakura teaches that the modified polypropylene resin (D) is produced by a reaction of a polypropylene polymer with an ethylenically-unsaturated monomer ([0089]), and that said ethylenically-unsaturated monomer may comprise an alkoxysilane group ([0077]).
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 %.”
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 14 and 15, Itakura is silent with regard to the claimed “spot” characteristics. Nevertheless, Itakura 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 applied to claim 1, above.
Claims 3-4 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).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Itakura teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, above. Itakura differs from claims 3 and 4 because it is silent with regard to the particular incorporation of either vinyltrimethoxysilane or (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 vinyltrimethoxysilane and (trimethoxysilyl) propyl methacrylate may be grafted to polyolefins (col. 34, claim 3). It therefore would have been obvious to use the that vinyltrimethoxysilane and (trimethoxysilyl) propyl methacrylate of Yalvac as modifying agents 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.).
Claims 5-9, 12-13, and 19 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) and further in view of Luo (Polymer Engineering and Science, 2012, 814-819).
Regarding claim 5, Itakura as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as described above. Itakura as modified differs from claim 5 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.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Itakura as modified by Yalvac and Luo do not explicitly disclose the claimed Q-value of a reaction aid having a vinyl group (alpha-methylstyrene). However, Luo and applicant both disclose an identical reaction aid having a vinyl group (alpha-methylstyrene). See [0021] of the instant Specification. Therefore, it would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the alpha-methylstyrene of Luo would have the Q-value as claimed.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, α-methylstyrene is a styrene-based compound.
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.
Regarding claim 19, Yalvac teaches the use of vinyltrimethoxysilane as described in the rejection of claims 3 and 4, above.
Claims 16-18 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) and Luo (Polymer Engineering and Science, 2012, 814-819), and further in view of Nagano (US 4,632,959).
Regarding claims 16-18, Itakura as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 as described above. Itakura as modified differs from claims because it is silent with regard to the incorporation of a reaction aid having a vinyl group which is not alpha-methylstyrene, is styrene, and has the claimed Q-value.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed April 22, 2025, with respect to the objection to the Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the Specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed April 22, 2025 with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant admits that Itakura teaches a modified polypropylene and organic fillers, but argues that Itakura fails to read on the claimed composition because it doesn’t explicitly teach the combination of a polypropylene resin, an alkoxysilane-modified polypropylene resin, and cellulose fiber, nor that the combination would provide the purportedly inventive benefits claimed in the instant Application. Applicant does not appear to dispute that all of the claimed components are present in Itakura, but merely argues that Itakura fails to explicitly lay out the claimed combination.
However, references 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). Therefore, the teachings of Itakura properly read on the claimed composition.
Furthermore, the motivation or reason to combine the prior art references need not be the same as that of the Applicant’s. The reason to or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what is claimed, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by the Applicant. See MPEP 2144(IV).
Finally, the discovery of a new property of a previously disclosed composition does not confer patentability (See MPEP 2112.I). Therefore, the teachings of Itakura read on the claimed composition regardless of whether Itakura contemplates the purportedly improved mechanical strength in high temperature and high humidity of the instant application.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are directed towards allegations of unexpected results. Whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d).
Importantly, the provided examples which purportedly assert non-obviousness of tensile strength after heat-moisture treatment, appear to fall within the claimed composition because they all include cellulose fibers, a polypropylene base resin, and a modified polypropylene resin. However, while the claims are open to virtually any polypropylene base resin, virtually any cellulose fiber, and virtually any modified polypropylene resin, the example compositions comprise only three kinds of modified polypropylenes (SiMA-PP, VTMS-PP, and SiMA-PP without styrene), presumably a single kind of cellulose fiber (generically disclosed as “cellulose fiber”), and presumably a single kind of polypropylene base resin (generically disclosed as “PP”). The applicant therefore argues that a showing of unexpected results for a narrow portion of a claimed range would be sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.
The applicant need not present evidence for every embodiment falling within the scope of the claims, but the evidence of record is not reasonably representative of the full scope of the claims. No discernible trend can be ascertained from the exemplary data which could reasonably extend to the full scope of the claims. The examples provided are therefore insufficient to overcome a prima facie determination of obviousness.
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 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