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 Objections
Claims 2-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2-5, the word “Claim” in line 2 of each claim does not need to be capitalized.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitations "the content of the thermoplastic resin" in line 5; “the content of the cellulose fiber” in line 6; and “the content of the organic fiber different from the cellulose fiber” in lines 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, these limitations will be interpreted as referring to “a content” of each of the listed components.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “at least one kind of a polypropylene resin and a polystyrene resin” is unclear due to the word “kind.” It is unclear if one of ordinary skill in the art is to choose at least one of a polypropylene resin and a polystyrene resin; or if one of ordinary skill in the art is to choose at least one “kind” of a polypropylene resin and a polystyrene resin. The first interpretation results in at least one of polypropylene resin or polystyrene being present, i.e., both resins are not required; and the second interpretation requires both polypropylene resin and polystyrene resin to be present. For the purpose of further examination, based on the examples in the instant specification, the Office will use the first interpretation of the phrase and only require one of a polypropylene resin or a polystyrene resin.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the limitation "the content of an alkoxysilane-modified polypropylene resin" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will be interpreted as referring to “a content” of an alkoxysilane-modified polypropylene.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the limitations "the melting point" in line 5; and “the organic fiber” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, these phrases together will be interpreted as referring to “a melting point of the organic fiber different from the cellulose fiber.”
Additionally, the brackets and parentheses in line 5 make the claim unclear as it is not clear if the language inside them is meant to be part of the claim. For the purpose of further examination, the language will be interpreted as part of the claim.
Further, claim 5 is rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The claim contains no steps directed to the method of producing the cellulose fiber reinforced thermoplastic resin formed body. There is a limitation describing the temperature of a device used in the preparation and molding of a mixture, but no definitive method steps, e.g., providing, mixing, combining, molding, etc., relating to the production of the formed body, which is to what the claim is directed. For the purpose of further examination, the claim will be examined based on the described temperature range used for mixing the organic fiber different from the cellulose fiber and the thermoplastic resin.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the limitations "the content of the thermoplastic resin" in line 5; “the content of the cellulose fiber” in line 6; and “the content of the organic fiber different from the cellulose fiber” in lines 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, these limitations will be interpreted as referring to “a content” of each of the listed components. Additionally, claim 6 recites the limitations "the melting point" in line 10; and “the organic fiber” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, these phrases together will be interpreted as referring to “a melting point of the organic fiber different from the cellulose fiber.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lummerstorfer et al. (WO 2018/024480).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Lummerstorfer et al. teaches a composite comprising 25 to 92.5% by weight, based on the total weight of the composite, of a polypropylene base material, 5 to 50% by weight of a cellulose-based fiber, and 2.5 to 25% by weight of a polymer-based fiber (Page 2, lines 11-24). The composite is used to make molded articles (Page 5, lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 2, Lummerstorfer et al. teaches that the polymer-based fiber is most preferably a polyethylene terephthalate fiber (Page 39, lines 15-19).
Regarding claim 5, Lummerstorfer et al. teaches a process of producing the composite comprising a step of impregnating the polymer-based fiber with the polypropylene material to obtain a polymer-based fiber reinforced polypropylene base material (Page 47, lines 9-11). This step of preparing the above mixture is carried out in a temperature range between 140 and 210° C (Page 48, lines 28-31). The melting point of polyethylene terephthalate is between 200 and 260° C (see, PET data sheet included herewith). Moreover, a quick google search for the melting point of polyethylene terephthalate provides a smaller range of 250 to 260° C. Using this smaller range, the device temperature should not exceed 230 to 240° C in order to meet the claim limitation, which it does not.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lummerstorfer et al. (WO 2018/024480).
Regarding claim 6, Lummerstorfer et al. teaches a composite comprising 25 to 92.5% by weight, based on the total weight of the composite, of a polypropylene base material, 5 to 50% by weight of a cellulose-based fiber, and 2.5 to 25% by weight of a polymer-based fiber (Page 2, lines 11-24). The composite is used to make molded articles (Page 5, lines 10-12). Additionally, Lummerstorfer et al. teaches a process of producing the composite comprising a step of impregnating the polymer-based fiber with the polypropylene material to obtain a polymer-based fiber reinforced polypropylene base material (Page 47, lines 9-11). This step of preparing the above mixture is carried out in a temperature range between 140 and 210° C (Page 48, lines 28-31). The melting point of polyethylene terephthalate is between 200 and 260° C (see, PET data sheet included herewith). Moreover, a quick google search for the melting point of polyethylene terephthalate provides a smaller range of 250 to 260° C. Using this smaller range, the device temperature should not exceed 230 to 240° C in order to meet the claim limitation, which it does not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lummerstorfer et al. (WO 2018/024480), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimano et al. (JP 2013-163742). The citations below for Shimano et al. are taken from an English language machine translation included herewith.
Lummerstorfer et al. teaches the composition and molded body of claim 1 as set forth above. While Lummerstorfer et al. teaches that the composite may contain adhesion promoters and other additives, Lummerstorfer et al. does not teach that the composition comprises from 5 to 20 mass parts of an alkoxysilane-modified polypropylene resin with respect to 100 mass parts of the polypropylene resin. However, Shimano et al. teaches a resin composition and a molded article thereof (¶1) comprising 10 to 58% by weight of a propylene polymer, 1 to 50% by weight of a plant fiber (cellulose fiber), and 1 to 50% by weight of a modified propylene polymer (¶9, 39). The modified propylene polymer is an alkoxysilane modified propylene polymer (¶43-44). Further, Shimano teaches that the most preferred range for the propylene polymer is from 30 to 50% by weight and the most preferred range of the modified propylene polymer is from 2 to 20% by weight (¶52). Using these amounts and converting to parts by mass with the propylene being 100 mass parts, the modified propylene polymer would be present in from 4 to 66 parts by mass (calculated by Examiner; 30/20 = 100/x, x=66; 50/2 = 100/x, x=4). Moreover, Example 1 in Table 1 of Shimano et al. uses 43.3 parts by mass of propylene polymer and 8 parts by weight of the modified propylene polymer, which provides an amount of 18 mass parts of the modified polymer to 100 parts by mass of the propylene polymer (calculated by Examiner; 43.3/8 = 100/x, x=18).
Lummerstorfer et al. and Shimano et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of propylene resin compositions containing cellulose fibers used for molded articles. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 4 to 66 parts by mass, per 100 parts by mass of propylene polymer, of an alkoxysilane modified propylene polymer, as taught by Shimano et al., to the composition, as taught by Lummerstorfer et al., and would have been motivated to do so to improve the flexural modulus, heat resistance, processability, and appearance of the molded article (¶52).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767