DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 6/18/2026.
Claim(s) 6 was cancelled.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-19 are now pending in the application.
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) 1-5and 7-177 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, 5, 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 0.4-1.7 wt% compatibilizer (C) and a modified polyphenylene ether of claims 1 and 5; 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)).
Though the compatibilizer (C) prior art range is not identical to the claimed range (0.4-1.7% by mass), 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)
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 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 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 compositions are known in the art to be suitable for microwave oven cookware and tableware.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states Aoyama’s teaching of 1.5 to 5.0 parts by mass of compatibilizer (C) corresponds to about 1.96 to 3.85% by mass of compatibilizer (C) based on the total amount of the styrene based resin (A), the styrene based elastomer (B), and the compatibilizer (C) as 100% by mass. Applicant further states this does not meet the newly amended limitation of 0.4 to 1.7% by mass of compatibilizer (C) and further states that Aoyama teaches away from the newly amended limitation as Aoyama teaches the amount of compound (SCc) (i.e., compound (C)) that is less than 1.5 parts by mass is not preferred since the compatibility between the thermoplastic resin and the glass filler is deteriorated to lower the mechanical strength of the resulting molded article.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that Aoyama’s range of 1.5 to 5.0 parts by mass does not overlap with the newly amended instantly claimed range of 0.4 to 1.7% by mass of the compatibilizer (C) based on components (A), (B), and (C) as 100% mass. Aoyama teaches 100 parts of the combination of styrene resin having a syndiotactic structure and a rubbery elastic material (corresponding to the combination of (A) and (B) is 100 parts) and further teaches 1.5 to 5.0 parts of polyphenylene ether or a modified polyphenylene ether (corresponding to (C)). As such it is reasonably calculated that the percent by mass of component (C) has a minimum value of (1.5/(1.5+100))*100 which equals 1.47% by mass and it is reasonably calculated that the percent by mass of component (C) has a maximum value of (5.0/(5.0+100))*100 which equals 4.76% by mass thereby 1.47 to 4.76% by mass reasonably reading on 0.4-1.7% by mass of newly amended claim 1.
Applicant states the instant specification has surprising and unexpected results wherein the reduced amount of compatibilizer contributes to lowering foreign matter and maintaining a good appearance of the molded article.
In response, MPEP716.02(d) states Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
MPEP716.02(d)II states To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
The correlation between an increasing amount of compatibilizer (C) and an increasing amount of Foreign matters of Table 1 of instant specification is noted. However, these results are not unexpected and or not commensurate in scope as there is no data with compatibilizer (C) in an amount below the instantly claimed range of 0.4% by mass, and there is only one species of compatibilizer (C) that was tested (fumaric acid-modified PPE). Therefore this does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that any amount in the claimed range of 0.4%-1.7% by mass of any species of compatibilizer (C) as instantly claimed, will necessarily achieve the alleged unexpected results.
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING whose telephone number is (703)756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights