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.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019107526 Aoyama et al. (as found on the IDS dated 9/06/2023) in view of JPH10120931 to Yasushi et al. For the purposes of examination, citations for Aoyama are taken from the English equivalent document, US2021/0371554. For purposed of examination, citations for Yasushi are taken from a machine translation equivalent of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in March, 2026.
Regarding Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, and 12, Aoyama teaches a styrene resin composition [title] comprising 100 parts by mass of thermoplastic resin comprising 80-100% by mass styrene resin having syndiotactic structure [abstract] reading on (A); 0-20% by mass of a rubbery elastic material [abstract] preferably SBR [0137] reading 2.0-30.0% of (B) of claim 1 and styrene butadiene block copolymer of claims 2 and 3; 1.5-5.0 parts modified polyphenylene ether [abstract] reading on 0.4-5 wt% compatibilizer (C) as a modified polyphenylene ether of claims 1, 5, and 6; 5-50 mass% glass filler [abstract] treated with a titanium coupling agent [0160] reading on inorganic filler of claim 1 and 5-50% glass filler treated with titanium of and claims 7-9; and a colorant [0158] (i.e., colorant (E)).
Aoyama does not teach the amount of colorant as required by instant claim.
However, Yasushi teaches organic pigments such as perylene pigments [Yasushi, 0008] wherein the organic pigment (SPS coloring agent) is used in an amount of 0.001 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts of the the SPS compound [Yasushi, 0031] thereby reading on 0.0001 to 6.5 mass% colorant of claim 1, and organic pigment of claim 10 and 12. Aoyama and Yasushi are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely compositions comprising syndiotactic styrene and elastomers.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add Yasushi’s colorant in the amount specified into Aoyama’s composition, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation to modify Aoyama with Yasushi is to provide color to an SPS styrene-based resin composition that does not cause mold contamination due to colorant bleeding during molding [Yasushi, 0001] and provide transparency, clarity, color ability, heat resistance, and weather resistance [Yasushi, 0004].
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Aoyama in view of Yasushi teaches the styrene-based resin composition of claim 1, wherein the elastomer is Septon 8006 [Aoyama, 0233] which is the same commercially available product used in instant specification [instant specification, 0149] and therefore have the same styrene/diene ratio as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, the inorganic pigment of claim 11 is considered an optional embodiment because claim 11 depends from claim 10 , and claim 10 recites a Markush group for the colorant (E) including carbon black, an inorganic pigment, an organic pigment, and an organic dye. Aoyama in view of Yasushi teaches the colorant of claim 10, wherein the colorant is the organic pigment such as perylene pigment, [Yasushi, 0008]. As such, the limitation of claim 11 is considered to be met because claim 11 is further narrowing an optional embodiment (inorganic pigment) and claim 10 is rejected by a different colorant (organic pigment).
Regarding Claim 13, Aoyama in view of Yasushi teaches the styrene-based resin composition of claim 1, wherein Yasushi teaches organic pigments such as perylene pigments [Yasushi, 0008] in an amount of 0.001 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts of the the SPS compound [Aoyama, 0031] reasonably reading on a range of 1.0 mass% or less of organic pigment.
Though the prior art range is not identical to the claimed range (1.0 mass% or less), it does overlap. It has been held that, where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding Claim 14, Aoyama in view of Yasushi teaches the styrene-based resin composition of claim 1, that comprises substantially no olefin-based elastomer.
Regarding Claim 17, Aoyama in view of Yasushi teaches the styrene-based resin composition of claim 1, and a molded article thereof [0001].
Regarding Claims 15, The recitation “A resin molding material for table ware” is intended use. Case law has held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since Aoyama in view of Yashushi have the same structural limitations as the resin molding material in the instant claim, the composition of Aoyama in view of Yasushi can be used for table ware.
Regarding Claim 16, The recitation “A resin molding for microwave oven cookware” is intended use. Case law has held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since Aoyama in view of Yashushi have the same structural limitations as the resin molding material in the instant claim, the composition of Aoyama in view of Yasushi can be used for microwave oven cookware.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019107526 Aoyama et al. in view of JPH10120931 to Yasushi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US5683801 to Miura.
Regarding Claims 18-19, Aoyama in view of Yasushi teaches the styrene-based resin composition of claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Aoyama in view of Yasushi is silent regarding a resin molding material for table ware or a molding material for microwave oven cookware.
However, Miura teaches a composition comprising syndiotactic styrenic polymers, diene polymer such as ABS, and modified PPO [abstract] wherein the molding obtained from said composition is well suited for the purpose of containing the food to be cooked with a microwave range [Minura, Col 1, L 51-60] such as a plastic tray [Minura, Col 1, L23]. Minura and Yasushi are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely compositions of syndiotactic styrene polymer resin and modified PPO.
The motivation would have been that it has been held that it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); and MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, Minura shows that Syndiotactic styrene compostions are known in the art to be suitable for microwave oven cookware and tableware.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Devin Darling whose telephone number is (703) 756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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 Lanee Reuther can be reached on (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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764