DETAILED ACTION
This communication responds to the Amendment filed May 11, 2026. Claims 2 and 7 were cancelled. Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-16 are currently pending.
The objection of claim 7 and rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC 112 are WITHDRAWN due to Applicant’s responsive amendments.
The rejections of the claims set forth in the Office Action dated 2/19/2026 are MAINTAINED for the reasons set forth below. To ensure Applicant’s amendments are fully addressed, the rejections are set forth in full.
This action is final.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner recognizes that Applicant is presenting an argument to demonstrate that the process matters, however these arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below. Thus, Claim 1 is still interpreted as a product made by the process limitations.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Yang et al. (CN 110655718 A1, full English Machine translation incorporated herewith).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Yang et al. teach a low density polypropylene composite material comprising composition comprising 42-61 parts of polypropylene, 12-20 parts of hollow glass beads, 8-12 parts of chopped glass fibers, 5-8 parts of a compatibilizer, 14-18 parts of a toughening agent, 0.2-0.5 part of an antioxidant and 0.2-0.5 part of other auxiliaries (claim 1), and example 1 discloses 61 parts of polypropylene, 12 parts of hollow glass microspheres, 8 parts of chopped glass fibers, 5 parts of compatibilizer, 14 parts of toughening agent, 0.2 parts of antioxidant 1010, and 0.2 parts of coupling agent [0042], wherein each weight percentage approximately correspond to the ratio of the parts of the respective component to the total of parts of all components in the composition (i.e. 61/100.4 =60.8 wt.%), as follows: 60.8 wt.% of polypropylene, 12 wt.% hollow glass beads, 8 wt.% of glass fibers, 5 wt.% of compatibilizer, as required by the instant claim.
Yang et al. further teach the hollow glass microspheres have a density of 0.4-0.6 g / cm3 ([0016], claim 5), wherein the density of water is 1 g/cm3, therefore the specific gravity is 0.4-0.6, as required by the instant claim. Furthermore, Yang et al. teach the glass fibers having a diameter D of 5.0-15.0 μm and a length of 4mm (4000 µm) ([0014], claim 3), therefore the aspect ratio L/D is from 267 to 800, as required by the instant claim. Additionally, Yang et al. teach the compatibilizer with high maleic anhydride content is added so that the bonding strength of the hollow glass beads, the glass fibers and the polypropylene is enhanced (abstract).
Yang et al. teach the melt flow rate of the composite composition of the preferred example 1 is 19.8 g/10 min measured by ISO1133 (Table 2 of original disclosure [0056]). Yang et al. teach a different standard for measuring the Melt Index of the composition. However, in view of the substantially identical composite of Yang et al., the composite composition of Yang et al. will possess the claimed melt index. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
The present claims are product by process claims reciting processes of producing the lightweight composite composition of claim 1. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." (MPEP § 2113 (quoting In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).). If the prior art teaches the same product as the product formed by the process recited in the claims at issue, the claims are unpatentable. However, if the process of the claims at issue results in a product that is different from the product taught by the prior art, then the prior art does not teach the invention recited in the claims at issue. Thus, because claim 1 is anticipated, so is claim 8.
Regarding claim 3, Yang et al. teach the composite composition comprises polypropylene (claims 1 and 2), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Yang et al. teach the composite composition comprises hollow glass microspheres (claim 1), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Yang et al. teach the composite composition comprises glass fibers (claim 1), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Yang et al. teach the composite composition comprises a compatibilizer, wherein the compatibilizer is one or a mixture of maleic anhydride-grafted polyolefin elastomer and maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene, wherein the maleic anhydride content is 1.5-3.5% (claim 7), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Yang et al. teach the composite composition comprises 35-75 wt.% of polypropylene (claim 1) and example 1 teaches 60.8 wt.% of polypropylene (see discussion of rejection of claim 1), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Yang et al. teach the composite composition comprises 5 wt.% of compatibilizer (claim 1, example 1) including maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene (claim 7) (see rejection of claim 1), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation of the inorganic additive that includes a hollow glass having a specific gravity was previously discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Yang et al. teach the composite composition comprises 12 wt.% hollow glass beads (claim 1, example 1) (see rejection of claim 1), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation of the aspect ratio of the glass fiber as reinforcement material was previously discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Yang et al. teach the composite composition comprises 8 wt.% of glass fibers (claim 1, example1) (see rejection of claim 1).
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 110655718 A1, full English Machine translation incorporated herewith).
Regarding claim 16, Yang et al. teach the composite composition of claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Yang et al. further teach the composite composition comprises 35-75 wt.% of polypropylene, 10-24.6 wt.% hollow glass beads, 6.7-14.7 wt.% of glass fibers, 4.2 -9.8 wt.% of compatibilizer (claim 1) and example 1 teaches 60.8 wt.% of polypropylene, 12 wt.% hollow glass beads, 8 wt.% of glass fibers, 5 wt.% of compatibilizer (see rejection of claim 1)
Yang et al. and the claims differ in that Yang et al. do not teach the exact claimed ranges as recited in the instant claims.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Yang et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11,2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that the differences between the recited manufacturing process of claim 1 and the manufacturing process of Yang et al. result in substantial differences in the physical properties of the final product (density) according to the different processes.
In response, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the relied-upon data do not support Applicant conclusions. Examiner acknowledges that the examples 1-3 lead to a lower density of the final product based on a narrower scope of claim1: 62 to 67 wt.% of polypropylene, 5 wt.% and 10 wt.% of maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene, 20 wt.% of hollow glass, and 8 wt.%, 10 wt.% of glass fiber. However, it is not clear from the data from comparative example 2 and comparative example 3 and inventive examples 1-3, the difference in density arises from the claimed method rather than from the difference in the compositions of the comparative examples 2 and 3 which do not include hollow glass, compatibilizer and glass fibers. Without more data, the examiner is unpersuaded that the claimed method of manufacturing the composite is critical. Applicant should compare the inventive example and the comparative example having the same composition with a different method, in order to isolate the effect of the claimed method. It is for these reasons that Applicant's arguments are not found to be 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 OLGA L. DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, JOSEPH DEL SOLE can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/OLGA LUCIA DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights