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 Amendment
All outstanding rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on 5/20/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 5/20/2026. In particular, claims 1 and 9 have been amended to incorporate the limitations of original claim 5. This combination of limitations was not present in the original claims. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because in lines 8-9, the thermoplastic elastomer is limited to “a styrenic thermoplastic elastomer, an olefinic thermoplastic elastomer, or a combination thereof” which is inconsistent with the definition of the thermoplastic elastomer in the last 8 lines of the claim which requires the combination of the styrenic thermoplastic elastomer and two of the olefinic thermoplastic elastomer.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (CN 105778388, machine translation) in view of Moritomi (US 8,278,392) and Tamada (US 9,206,304).
With respect to claims 1 and 9, Kim discloses a polypropylene resin composition comprising 30-69.8 wt % polypropylene, 10-25 wt % rubber, and 20-35 wt % inorganic fillers (abstract). Kim teaches that polypropylene can be a block copolymer of polypropylene (paragraph 0023) such as those based on propylene and ethylene (paragraph 0025). Kim discloses that the rubber preferably includes olefinic rubber such as ethylene butene and ethylene octene and styrene ethylene butene styrene rubber (paragraph 0029).
Kim fails to disclose (i) a mixture of two polypropylene block copolymers having melt flow rate of 20-40 g/10 min and 5-15 g/10 min, (ii) the amount of nucleating agent, (iii) or a thermoplastic elastomer comprising a first olefinic thermoplastic elastomer having melt index of 0.5-2 g/10 min, a second olefinic thermoplastic elastomer having melt index of 20-40 g/10 min, and a styrene thermoplastic elastomer having melt index of 10-20 g/10 min.
With respect to (i), Kim teaches that the melt index (at 230°C and under 2.16 kg) of the polypropylene resin composition is 0.2-150 g/10 min (paragraph 0040) but fails to disclose a mixture of two different propylene-ethylene block copolymers having claimed melt indexes.
Moritomi teaches that for application which require impact resistance, propylene-ethylene block copolymers are used, however, the dispersibility of the ethylene-propylene copolymer portion is poor which causes fish eyes (col. 1, lines 19-35). Moritomi utilizes a polypropylene resin composition comprising a mixture of 5-50 wt % of a first propylene-ethylene block copolymer having relatively higher intrinsic viscosity and 50-95 wt % of a second propylene-ethylene block copolymer having relatively lower viscosity (col. 14, line 31 to col. 15, line 3). Exemplified copolymers of higher viscosity have melt index of 0.05-5.5 g/10 mins (reads on claimed second block copolymer), and exemplified copolymer of lower viscosity have melt index of 24-45 g/10 min (reads o claimed first block copolymer) (col. 12, lines 6-51).
Given that Kim discloses a melt index of 0.2-150 g/10 min and further given that Moritomi discloses that a mixture of propylene-ethylene block copolymers having distinct melt indexes with the claimed ranges are suitable for forming polypropylene articles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an appropriate mixture of propylene-ethylene copolymers having melt index like claimed in order to mold articles with less fish eye defects.
With respect to (ii), Kim discloses various additives (paragraph 0044) for its composition used to prepare automotive interior parts (paragraph 0075) but fails to disclose a nucleating agent.
Tamada discloses an automotive interior compound comprising polypropylene copolymers and an elastomeric copolymer (abstract) and teaches adding nucleating agents as known additives in an amount of not more than 3.5 wt % (col. 12, line 65 to col. 13, line 6).
Given that both Kim and Tamada are drawn to automotive interior parts comprising propylene copolymers and further given that Kim is open to the use of known additives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a nucleating agent in an of 3.5 wt % which overlaps with claimed range of 0.2-2 wt % as taught by Tamada.
With respect to (iii), Kim discloses that the composition comprises 10-25 wt % rubber which is preferably olefinic rubber such as ethylene butene and ethylene octene and styrene ethylene butene styrene rubber (paragraph 0029). Exemplified ethylene-butene rubber has melt index (MI) of about 0.5 g/10 min (paragraph 0056), and exemplified ethylene octene rubber has MI of 27 g/10 min (paragraph 0057).
Kim fails to discloses a single embodiment comprising the mixture of all three elastomers, however, it is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Lindner 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a mixture of the three in equal amounts to provide an amount of each of 3.3-8.3 wt %.
Regarding the MI of the styrene ethylene butene styrene rubber (SEBS, i.e., styrenic thermoplastic elastomer), Kim is silent. Even so, Kim clearly teaches keeping the melt index of the polypropylene resin composition is 0.2-150 g/10 min (paragraph 0040) which allows for the composition to avoid defects and provide excellent fluidity (paragraph 0041). It is the examiner’s position that MI of the SEBS is a result effective variable because changing it will clearly affect the type of product obtained. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize appropriate MI of the SEB, including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results, i.e., suitable overall MI of the polypropylene resin composition.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Kim teaches that the polypropylene block copolymer has a flexural modulus of 1000-2100 MPa (i.e., about 10000-21000 kgf/cm2) (paragraph 0023).
With respect to claim 4, Kim states that the polypropylene resin composition has excellent impact resistance and teaches that propylene block copolymer has improved cantilever beam impact strength of 16-40 kJ/m (paragraph 0022).
Kim fails to disclose Izod Impact in units of kgf/cm2.
Even so, given that Kim teaches excellent impact strength and refers to the high impact strength at room temperature of the propylene block copolymer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a propylene block copolymer having an Izod impact property as claimed.
With respect to claim 6, Kim discloses that the inorganic filler is selected from talc, glass fiber, mica, calcium carbonate, wollastonite, barium sulfate, and clay (paragraph 0027).
With respect to claim 8, Tamada discloses that an especially preferred nucleating agent is 2,2’-methylene (bis-4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphate, i.e., a sodium phosphate (col. 14, lines 65-67).
With respect to claim 10, Kim teaches that the polypropylene resin composition is used in automotive interior and exterior trim parts (paragraph 0075). While it fails to disclose a sun visor, such parts are exposed to the sun and would be suitable to block the sun.
With respect to claim 11, Kim states that the polypropylene resin composition has excellent impact resistance and teaches that the polypropylene resin composition has improved cantilever beam impact strength of 16-40 kJ/m (paragraph 0014). Kim also teaches that impact resistance is affected and can be controlled by adjusting the amounts of inorganic filler, thermoplastic rubber, and compatibilizer (paragraphs 0026, 0028, 0030, and 0036). Moritomi teaches that fish eyes reduce impact resistance in molded article (col. 1, lines 34-35).
Kim fails to disclose Izod Impact in units of kgf/cm2.
Even so, given that Kim teaches excellent impact strength and refers to the high impact strength at room temperature of the polypropylene resin composition and further given that reducing fish eyes improving impact resistance as taught by Moritomi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expect or to optimize the Izod impact property as claimed at both room temperature and at -10°C.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (CN 105778388, machine translation) in view of Moritomi (US 8,278,392) and Tamada (US 9,206,304) and further in view of Kawai (US 4,626,565).
The discussion with respect to Kim, Moritomi, and Tamada in paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Kim does not disclose that its filler has an average particle size of 2 µm or less.
Kawai discloses a polypropylene composition comprising ethylene-propylene block copolymers, a copolymer rubber, and an inorganic filler (abstract) and teaches that the inorganic filler has a particle size of 6 µm or less because if more than 6 µm the impact resistance is reduced (col. 2, lines 65-68).
Given that an inorganic particle having a particle size of 6 µm or less reduces impact resistance in a polypropylene composition as taught by Kawai, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art utilize a particle size of 2 µm or less (which overlaps with 6 µm or less) in order to obtain improved impact resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that the claimed mixture of thermoplastic elastomers comprising first and second olefinic thermoplastic elastomer having melt index of 0.5-2 g/10 min and 20-40 g/10 min, respectively, and a styrene thermoplastic elastomer having melt index of 10-20 g/10 min provides criticality for improved Izod impact strength.
The data has been fully considered, but it fails to establish unexpected results for two reasons. First, there is no criticality for a styrene thermoplastic elastomer having specific melt index of 10-20 g/10 min because there are no comparative examples containing another styrene thermoplastic elastomer having melt index outside of the claimed range. Specifically, Example 1 and Comparative Example 1 both include a styrene thermoplastic elastomer with melt index of 10-20 g/min, but Comparative Examples 2 and 3 do not include any styrenic thermoplastic elastomer. Case law holds that comparative showings must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective. See In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179, 201 USPQ 67, 71 (CCPA 1979).
Second, because Kim discloses adding styrenic thermoplastic elastomer (specifically, SEBS) as a preferred thermoplastic elastomer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select it. Given that the presence of styrene block significantly increases the glass transition temperature of the thermoplastic elastomer, the observed increase in Izod impact strength is expected. Evidence to support the examiner’s position is found in Moren (US 6,359,068) which teaches that the hard styrene blocks of styrenic thermoplastic elastomers particularly provide for improved impact properties both at low and room temperatures when added to polyolefins (col. 1, lines 26-41).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/VICKEY NERANGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn
Prosecution Insights