DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Applicant’s amendment dated 19 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are pending.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
New grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment dated 19 February 2026. For this reason, this action is properly made final.
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
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 9, please replace “is 90 °C or more of the styrene-based resin composition.” with “of the styrene-based resin composition is 90 °C or more.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-2, 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KOBAYASHI (JP-S60233135-A) as evidenced by FARUK (Lightweight and sustainable materials for automotive applications, p. 181, 2017).
Regarding Claim 1, KOBAYASHI teaches a molding composition formed from a natural oil or its hydrogenated hardened oil and a styrenic resin (Abstract). KOBAYASHI teaches a blend of 0.5-3 parts by weight of its natural oil per 100 parts of styrenic resin (Abstract). KOBAYASHI teaches that its natural oils and fats are collected from animals and plants and include sesame oil, soybean oil, coconut oil, cottonseed oil, rapeseed oil, whale oil, beef tallow, castor oil and fish oil (p. 2, par.4). Since these oils are all of natural origin, its presumed that they would have a biomass carbon ratio of well over 10%. KOBAYASHI teaches that its natural oils and fats have a plasticizing effect (p. 2, par. 9) and are used to replace known plasticizers which may be toxic to humans or cause environmental problems (p. 1, Description: par. 7). KOBAYASHI exemplifies coconut oil (p. 3, par. 4). KOBAYASHI does not teach the SP value of coconut oil. Here, FARUK is used as an evidentiary reference to teach the inherent SP value of the coconut oil taught by KOBAYASHI. see MPEP 2131.01-III. for this use of a secondary evidentiary reference in 102 rejections FARUK discloses that the SP value of both refined and hydrogenated coconut oil is 8.4 (cal/cm3)0.5 which is within the 7.4-8.8 (cal/cm3)0.5 that is recited by the claim. KOBAYASHI exemplifies compositions which contain 100 parts styrene monomer, 0.3-5 parts coconut oil (p. 3, last par; Table 2), 0.2 parts benzoyl peroxide (p. 3, par. 6) and 0.35 parts talc (p. 2, second to last paragraph). This calculates to ranges of coconut oil of 0.49-2.9 mass% and ranges of styrene resin of 96.6-98.9 mass% which are both within the 0.1-15mass% and 82.5-99.9 mass% ranges recited by the claim.
Regarding Claim 2, KOBAYASHI teaches the invention of Claim 1 where the exemplified ranges of 0.49-2.9 mass% and 96.6-98.9 mass% for the coconut oil plasticizer and the styrenic resin are both within the narrower 90-99.9 mass% and 0.1-10 mass% recited by Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 7, KOBAYASHI teaches the invention of Claim 1. KOBAYASHI generally teaches that its styrene resin can be a styrene homopolymer or a copolymer with other vinyl compounds (p. 2, par. 10). KOBAYASHI exemplifies 100 parts styrene monomer as its resin (p. 3, par. 6 “Examples 2-6”) which is 100 mass% styrene which is within the range recited by the claim.
Regarding Claim 8, KOBAYASHI teaches the invention of Claim 1 where KOBAYASHI teaches and exemplifies compositions which contain 0.3-5 wt% coconut oil 8.4 (cal/cm3)0.5 in styrene monomer (see Claim 1 rejection). KOBAYASHI does not measure the total light transmission of 2 mm plates formed from its composition, but KOBAYASHI teaches similar compositions to those exemplified in the instant application. The instant specification discloses in Examples 61-65 (cur spec: Table 11-1) compositions based on PS-68 to PS-72 (cur spec: Table 10-1) which contain (0.5+0.4) to (1.5+1.2), or 0.9-2.7 mass% of a palm oil which is similar unmodified vegetable oil with a similar SP value of 8.2 (cal/cm3)0.5 (cur spec: Table 1) and obtains light transparencies of 90% (cur spec: Table 11-1) which is well over the recited requirement of 70%. One would inherently expect that the 2 mm plates formed from the compositions taught by KOBAYASHI containing 0.3-5 wt% coconut oil in styrene monomer would have a light transparency of at least 70% and would satisfy the claim.
Regarding Claim 9, KOBAYASHI teaches the invention of Claim 1 where KOBAYASHI exemplifies a styrenic resin with a Vicat softening temperature of 103°C which satisfies the requirement that the Vicat softening temperature is 90°C or more.
Regarding Claim 10, KOBAYASHI teaches the invention of Claim 1. KOBAYASHI teaches forming extruded foamed polystyrene paper (p. 2, 4th par. from bottom) with an extruder which has an injection port for a blowing agent (p. 2, 2nd par. form bottom). This satisfies the requirement of an injection blow molded article.
Regarding Claim 12, KOBAYASHI teaches the invention of Claim 1 where KOBAYASHI teaches forming an extruded foamed paper (Abstract; p. 2, par. 2). This satisfies the requirement of a sheet.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KOBAYASHI (JP-S60233135-A) as evidenced by FARUK (Lightweight and sustainable materials for automotive applications, p. 181, 2017) further evidenced by DAVISON (US-4331581-A).
Regarding Claim 3, KOBAYASHI teaches the invention of Claim 1 where KOBAYASHI teaches and exemplifies 0.49-2.9 mass% of coconut oil plasticizer, which the evidence of FARUK discloses has a SP value 8.4 (cal/cm3)0.5, in styrene monomer resin (see Claim 1 rejection). KOBAYASHI does not teach the SP value of polymerized styrene monomer. Here, DAVISON is used as evidence to disclose the inherent SP values of the styrene and polystyrene taught by KOBAYASHI. DAVISON discloses that Hildebrand’s solubility parameter, which has units of (cal/cm3)0.5 (Col 4: 3) for polystyrene is 9.1 (Col 4:33) and for styrene is 8.7 (Table 1). This suggests a range of SP values for the resin taught by NOSHINO of from 8.7-9.1 (cal/cm3)0.5. Comparing this to the 8.4 (cal/cm3)0.5 for the coconut oil plasticizer calculates to an absolute difference in SP values between the resin and the plasticizer of 0.3-0.7 (cal/cm3)0.5 which satisfies the requirement that the absolute difference is less than 2.5 (cal/cm3)0.5.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LYSENKO (US-20100298486-A1) as evidenced by DOSS (Database of Safer Solvents).
The LYSENKO (US-20100298486-A1) reference is in the IDS dated 29 May 2023.
Regarding Claims 1-2, LYSENKO teaches a general purpose polystyrene or high impact polystyrene which is plasticized with a nonfunctionalized, nonmineral oil (Abstract). LYSENKO teaches that its nonfunctionalized nonmineral oils are typically vegetable oils or liquid animal oils ([0033]). These nonfunctionalized vegetable and animal oils are interpreted as being of biological origin and having a biomass carbon ratio of well over 10%. LYSENKO teaches that its plasticizer is included in amounts of 0.1-10 wt%, preferably 1-3 wt% ([0036]). This is within the 0.1-15 mass% which is recited by the claim. LYSENKO generally teaches many specific vegetable oils ([0033]) including palm oil which the specification of the current invention discloses has an SP value of 8.2 (cur spec: Table 1). LYSENKO exemplifies 1% canola (rapeseed) oil (Table 1). LYSENKO does not teach the SP value of canola (rapeseed) oil. Here, DOSS is used as evidentiary reference to teach the inherent SP value of the canola oil taught by LYSENKO. DOSS discloses Hansen parameters (D, P, H) of 16.64, 1.71, and 4.13 (MPa)1/2 which calculates to an origin distance of 17.23 (MPa)1/2 which converts to 8.42 (cal/cm3)0.5 which is within the 7.4-8.8 (cal/cm3)0.5 range recited by the claim. LYSENKO teaches in this composition 0.8 wt% of canola oil, 78.77wt% of styrene monomer, 15 wt% of ethylbenzene and 5.26 wt% of diene rubber which calculates to either 93.77wt% or 99.03 wt% of the styrenic resin depending on whether the rubber is included in the resin. Both of these are within the 82.5-99.99 mass% and 90-99.9 mass% which are recited by Claim 1 and Claim 2. The 0.8 wt% canola oil is also within the 0.1-15 mass% and the 0.1-10 mass% which is recited by Claim 1 and Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 5, LYSENKO teaches the invention of Claim 1. LYSENKO teaches that following polymerization its 1% canola oil example contains 6.83 wt% rubber measures average particle sizes using three different methods of 1.52-1.67 microns (Table 3A). These are within the 3-36 mass% and 0.3-5.0 micron ranges recited by the claim.
Regarding Claim 7, LYSENKO teaches the invention of Claim 1. LYSENKO teaches that its monovinylidene aromatic monomer can be copolymerized with other monomers. LYSENKO generally teaches that its comonomer, when included, is present in 1-40 wt% ([0025]) leaving the remaining 60-99 wt% styrene. LYSENKO teaches that rubber can be included in high impact polystyrene in amounts of up to 20wt%, more preferably less than 10 wt% ([0032]) LYSENKO teaches examples which only contain styrene and ethylbenzene and 5.26wt% of diene rubber (Table 1). This satisfies the requirement that the amount of styrene is 50-100% of the styrene-based resin.
Regarding Claim 9, LYSENKO teaches the invention of Claim 1. LYSENKO generally teaches that nonfunctionalized nonmineral oils provide a higher Vicat softening point ([0011]). LYSENKO exemplifies Vicat softening temperatures of 218-219°F which converts to 103-104°C which satisfies the requirement that the Vicat softening temperature is 90°C or more.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LYSENKO (US-20100298486-A1) as evidenced by DOSS (Database of Safer Solvents) further evidenced by DAVISON (US-4331581-A).
Regarding Claim 3, LYSENKO teaches the invention of Claim 1 where LYSENKO teaches an example containing 0.8 wt% canola oil which the evidence of DOSS discloses has an SP value of 8.42 (cal/cm3)0.5 . LYSENKO teaches that its styrenic resin contains styrene monomer and ethylbenzene which and diene rubber which forms particles following polymerization of the styrene (Table 3A) which satisfies the requirements of the recited (a-2) component with the polymerized styrene and ethylbenzene satisfying the requirements of the (a-1) component. LYSENKO does not teach the SP value of its (a-1) styrene polymer. Here, DAVISON is used as evidence to disclose the inherent SP values of the styrene, polystyrene and ethylbenzene taught by LYSENKO. See MPEP 2131.01-III. for this use of a secondary evidentiary reference in 102 rejections. DAVISON discloses that Hildebrand’s solubility parameter, which has units of (cal/cm3)1/2 (Col 4: 3) for polystyrene is 9.1 (Col 4:33) and for ethylbenzene is 8.8 and for styrene is 8.7 (Table 1). This suggests a range of SP values for the resin taught by LYSENKO of from 8.7-9.1 (cal/cm3)1/2. Comparing this to the 8.42 (cal/cm3)1/2 for the canola plasticizer calculates to an absolute difference in SP values between the resin and the plasticizer of 0.28-0.68 (cal/cm3)1/2 which satisfies the requirement that the absolute difference is less than 2.5 (cal/cm3)1/2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LYSENKO (US-20100298486-A1) as evidenced by DOSS (Database of Safer Solvents) in view of FUJITA (JP-2001097343-A).
Regarding Claim 6, LYSENKO teaches the invention of Claim 1 above. LYSENKO teaches that following polymerization its 1% canola oil example contains 6.83 wt% rubber measures average particle sizes using three different methods of 1.52-1.67 microns (Table 3A). These are within the 3-36 mass% rubbery particles and 0.3-7.0 micron particle diameter ranges that are recited by the claim.
LYSENKO teaches 1% canola oil which contains fatty acids, but the instant specification requires that the “higher fatty acid” is a saturated linear carboxylic acid of 12-22 carbon atoms or a salt of this acid (cur spec: [0081]). LYSENKO does not teach a higher saturated fatty acid. FUJITA, in an invention of an impact resistant polystyrene with rubber particles (Abstract) which may contain a plasticizer ([0020]), teaches that its composition may contain up to 2.0 wt% of a mold release agent which can be a higher fatty acid or a higher fatty acid salt ([0016]) and teaches many specific release agents based on stearic acid (18 carbons) and its derivatives ([0016]). FUJITA exemplifies zinc stearate ([0023]). FUJITA exemplifies 0.5-1.5 wt% of this compound (Table 1: “release agent”) which is within the 0.02-2.5 mass% that is recited by the claim. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the invention of LYSENKO with the teachings of FUJITA and include up to 2 wt% of a higher fatty acid or higher fatty acid salt in its composition for the purpose of acting as a release agent.
Regarding Claim 11, LYSENKO teaches the invention of Claim 1 above. LYSENKO teaches that its composition can be molded ([0003], [0040]) but does not specify injection molding. FUJITA, in an invention of an impact resistant polystyrene with rubber particles (Abstract) which may contain a plasticizer ([0020]), teaches that its composition can be used to form injected molded containers ([0028]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the invention of LYSENKO with the teachings of FUJITA and use injection molding for the purpose of creating containers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-3 and 5-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The amendment to Claim 9 has addressed the indefiniteness pertaining to whether the Vicat limitation applied to the styrene-based resin or the entire composition. The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn. An objection has been added for this claim to improve the grammar.
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 DAVID R FOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-4821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
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, ARRIE L REUTHER can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/D.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights