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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 01/26/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-10 are currently under examination on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kanzaki et al (US 2010/0292392, of record, see IDS 01/31/25, ‘392 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-7, ‘392 discloses a propylene-based resin composition comprising a propylene-based polymer ([0011], [0019]-[0028], Example 1, [0179]); an olefin-based polymer being ethylene-1-butene or the like as in present claim 4 ([0011], [0050]-[0053], Example 1), an inorganic filler including talc, calcium carbonate and the like as in the present claims 2-3 ([0012], [0058]-[0062], Example 1); and a hindered amine light stabilizer being UVINUL 5050H, which is not a Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyi) sebacate, in a preferred range of 0.1 to 0.3 parts per 100 parts of the composition, satisfying present claims 5-6 ([0013], [0064]-[0075], [00154]-[0159], Example 1, [0178], 0.25 parts D1 per 100 parts of propylene-based polymer A-1, A-2 and filler C ). ‘392 does not expressly set forth an amine compound concentration in a volatile gas generated from molded body of the propylene-based resin composition as recited in the present claims 1 and 7. However, as discussed above, the propylene-based resin composition of ‘392 contains a hindered amine light stabilizer (UVINUL 5050H), which is identical to the hindered amine light stabilizer used in the present application (See Example 3 as in the present application); and the content of the light stabilizer used in the composition of ‘392 falling within the content range used in the present application; therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the amine compound concentration in a volatile gas generated by heating the propylene-based resin molded body of ‘392 would have been within the presently claimed range as recited in the present claims 1 and 7, in absence of an objective showing to the contrary. Case law holds that “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977, see MPEP 2112(V) and 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 10, ‘392 also discloses a molded body comprising the polypropylene-based resin composition ([0112]-[0114]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Kanzaki et al (US 2010/0292392, of record, see IDS 01/31/25, ‘392 hereafter) in view of Marczinke et al (US 6,733,717, ‘717 hereafter).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, ‘392 teaches all the limitation of claim 1, ‘392 also discloses that the polypropylene-based resin composition may further include other additives such as lubricant and processing aid, but does not specifically name a processing aid being a fatty acid zinc. However, it is well known in the art that the fatty acid zinc can function as a lubricant or mold-releasing agent to improve processibility for polypropylene-based resin as evidenced by ‘717 (C11/L5-L48). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a fatty acid zinc as a lubricant or mold releasing agent, to modify the polypropylene -based resin composition of ‘392, in order to improve its processibility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782