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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (CN111205554, herein Feng, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regarding Claim 1, Feng teaches polypropylene composite material, comprising: filler material, homopolymer polypropylene, copolymer polypropylene [0009], wherein the copolymer polypropylene is a block copolymer polypropylene [0012], and filler material is calcium carbonate [0019], collectively read on the inorganic substance powder-filled resin composition, and the thermoplastic resin comprises a propylene homopolymer and a propylene block copolymer.
Feng further teaches example 3: 50 wt.% of homopolymerized polypropylene, 7.9 wt.% of copolymerized polypropylene [0078], hence, the ratio between propylene block copolymer and propylene homopolymer is 7.9/50=15.8% lies in the claimed range;
Feng teaches filler material 15-40 wt%, homopolymer polypropylene 10-50 wt%, copolymer polypropylene 5-45wt% [0009], wherein, filler material is calcium carbonate [0019], hence, the ratio between thermoplastic resin and inorganic substance powder is (10+5)/40=0.375 to (50+45)/5=19, overlaps the claimed ratio range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the ratio range between thermoplastic resin and inorganic substance powder into 0.375 to 19, and further apply this range ratio into the polypropylene composition formation. Doing so would obtain a product with good strength, toughness, high dimensional stability and high gloss, upon the adjustment of the appropriate proportion of homopolymer polypropylene and block copolymer polypropylene as the matrix, and further adjustment of the proportion of filler material [0008] as taught by Feng.
In the case 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 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 2, Feng teaches inorganic substance powder-filled resin composition as set forth in claim 1. Feng further teaches 2 wt.% of maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene [example 1; 0066] lies in the claimed range.
Regarding Claims 6-7, 12, 20, Feng teaches inorganic substance powder-filled resin composition as set forth in claims 1 and 2. Feng further teaches the gloss test plate was prepared by injection molding [0177] indicates the composition been injected molded into plate shaped test sample, hence, collectively read on the molded product.
Claims 3, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (CN111205554, herein Feng, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) as applied in claim 2 set forth above, in the view of Yang (CN107501715, herein Yang, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regarding Claim 3, Feng teaches inorganic substance powder-filled resin composition as set forth in claim 2. Feng teaches maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene [0015], but does not explicitly teach the wherein the maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene has a mass average molecular weight of 25,000 or more and 35,000 or less, and a graft amount of 3.0% by mass or more and 4.9% by mass or less. However, Yang teaches polypropylene grafted maleic anhydride [0018], wherein, the grafting rate of the polypropylene grafted with maleic anhydride is ≥1%, and the weight average molecular weight is ≥30,000 [0013], overlap the claimed ranges. Feng and Yang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of using maleic anhydride grafted into polypropylene/ calcium carbonate composites to improve the compatibility of polypropylene and calcium carbonate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the polypropylene grafted maleic anhydride [0018], wherein, the grafting rate of the polypropylene grafted with maleic anhydride is ≥1%, and the weight average molecular weight is ≥30,000. [0013] into polypropylene composition formation. Doing so would achieve adding maleic anhydride grafted onto polypropylene, which gives the material high polarity and reactivity, and greatly improves the compatibility between polypropylene and mineral fillers. [0022] as taught by Yang.
In the case 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 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 13, Feng and Yang teach the inorganic substance powder-filled resin composition as set forth in claim 3. Feng further teaches the gloss test plate was prepared by injection molding [0177] indicates the composition been injected molded into plate shaped test sample, hence, collectively read on the molded product.
Claims 4-5, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (CN111205554, herein Feng, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) as applied in claim 1, in the view of Masashi (JP2011046758, herein Masashi, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regarding Claims 4-5, Feng teaches inorganic substance powder-filled resin composition as set forth in claim 1 above. Feng teaches filler material is calcium carbonate [0019], but does not teach wherein the inorganic substance powder is heavy calcium carbonate and its dimension; however, Masashi teaches Heavy calcium carbonate average particle size 2.2 μm [0052], lies in the claimed range. Feng and Masashi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the polypropylene and calcium carbonate based molded composite formation and application in engineering plastic parts manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the heavy calcium carbonate average particle size 2.2 μm [0052] into polypropylene composition formation. Doing so would achieve the rigidity, heat resistance and dimensional stability of the thermoplastic resin composition of the present invention tend to be improved [0045] as taught by Masashi.
Regarding Claims 14, 15, Feng and Masashi teach the inorganic substance powder-filled resin composition as set forth in claim 4. Feng further teaches the gloss test plate was prepared by injection molding [0177] indicates the composition been injected molded into plate shaped test sample, hence, collectively read on the molded product.
Claims 9, 11, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (CN111205554, herein Feng, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) and Yang (CN107501715, herein Yang, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) as applied in claim 3, in the view of Masashi (JP2011046758, herein Masashi, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regarding Claims 9, 11, Feng and Yang teach inorganic substance powder-filled resin composition as set forth in claim 3. Feng teaches filler material is calcium carbonate [0019], but does not teach wherein the inorganic substance powder is heavy calcium carbonate and its dimension; however, Masashi teaches Heavy calcium carbonate average particle size 2.2 μm [0052], lies in the claimed range, wherein, the particle size does not depend on its method of measurement, hence, the measurement by an air permeation method in accordance with JIS M-8511 has no patentable weight.
Feng and Masashi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the polypropylene and calcium carbonate based molded composite formation and application in engineering plastic parts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the heavy calcium carbonate average particle size 2.2 μm [0052] into polypropylene composition formation. Doing so would achieve the rigidity, heat resistance and dimensional stability of the thermoplastic resin composition of the present invention tend to be improved. [0045] as taught by Masashi.
Regarding Claims 17, 19, Feng, Yang and Masashi teach the inorganic substance powder-filled resin composition as set forth in claims 9 and 11 above. Feng further teaches the gloss test plate was prepared by injection molding [0177] indicates the composition been injected molded into plate shaped test sample, hence, collectively read on the molded product.
Claims 8, 10, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (CN111205554, herein Feng, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) as applied in claim 2, in the view of Masashi (JP2011046758, herein Masashi, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regarding Claims 8, 10, Feng teaches inorganic substance powder-filled resin composition as set forth in claim 2. Feng teaches filler material is calcium carbonate [0019], but does not teach wherein the inorganic substance powder is heavy calcium carbonate and its dimension; however, Masashi teaches Heavy calcium carbonate average particle size 2.2 μm [0052], lies in the claimed range. Feng and Masashi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the polypropylene and calcium carbonate based molded composite formation and application in engineering plastic parts manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the heavy calcium carbonate average particle size 2.2 μm [0052] into polypropylene composition formation. Doing so would achieve the rigidity, heat resistance and dimensional stability of the thermoplastic resin composition of the present invention tend to be improved [0045] as taught by Masashi.
Regarding Claims 16, 18, Feng and Masashi teach the inorganic substance powder-filled resin composition as set forth in claims 8 and 10 above. Feng further teaches the gloss test plate was prepared by injection molding [0177] indicates the composition been injected molded into plate shaped test sample, hence, collectively read on the molded product.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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.
/Z. L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767