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
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (JP 2003231758 A, attached with translation) in view of Nakayama (US 2018/0171100 A1) and further in view of Motohashi (JP 2013117014 A1, attached with translation) and Itakura (JP 2011016910 A1, attached with translation).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-6, Nomura teaches a composition of polypropylene, glass fibers, and additional polyamide or polyester resin (claims 7-9). The additional polyamide or polyester resin may be present in amounts ranging from 5-50 wt% of the total resin content (p. 6, [0019]). The fibers may be present in amounts ranging from 10-60 wt% (p. 6, [0020]). These prior art ranges overlap all claimed ranges. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art range overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
However, Nomura is silent as to use of a modified polyolefin resin, and as to the melt viscosity ratio of the polypropylene and additional resin. In the same field of endeavor, Nakayama teaches a composition including polypropylene, reinforcing fiber, polyamide, and modified polyolefin (p. 10, Table 1). Specifically, acid-modified polyolefin or maleic anhydride-modified polyolefin may preferably be used in amounts ranging from 0.1 to 30 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of resin (p. 8, [0164], [0169]). This prior art range overlaps the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art range overlaps the claimed range See MPEP 2144.05.
Nomura and Nakayama do not specify the melt viscosities of the resins in the composition. In the same field of endeavor, Motohashi teaches use of Amilan CM1007 nylon 6 in a composition with thermoplastic resin and carbon fiber (p. 15, Ex. 6; Abstract). Also in the same field of endeavor, Itakura teaches use of Prime Polypro J13B in a composition with a modified polyolefin, reinforcing fiber, and epoxy resin (p. 24, Ex. 4). The instant specification states that J13B has a melt viscosity of 38 Pa*s at 250*C, 120/sec, and that CM1007 has a melt viscosity of 112 Pa*s under the same conditions (p. 41, [0088]; p. 42, [0088]). These values result in a melt viscosity ratio of 38:112, or 0.339, which reads on the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the resins of Motohashi and Itakura for use in the composition of Nomura as modified by Nakayama, to arrive at the claimed invention and because of the art-recognized suitability for the intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 3, Nomura in view of Nakayama remains as applied to claim 1 above. Nomura further teaches use of nylon 6 (polyamide 6) in the composition (p. 8, [0026]).
Regarding claims 7-8, Nomura in view of Nakayama remains as applied to claim 1 above. Nomura is further silent as to use of the composition in a molded article. In the same field of endeavor, Nakayama teaches a composition including polypropylene, reinforcing fiber, polyamide, and modified polyolefin that may be used in molded articles (p. 10, Table 1; p. 9, [0191]). Specifically, the articles may be automobile interior components (p. 9, [0191]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the composition of Nomura with the automobile molded article application of Nakayama to arrive at the claimed invention, and to produce a molded article having superior mechanical strength and elastic modulus, as taught by Nakayama (p. 9, [0192]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH K AMATO whose telephone number is (571)270-0341. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 4:30 pm M-F.
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, Rob 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.
ELIZABETH K. AMATO
Examiner
Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762