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 .
This communication responds to the application and amended claim set filed July 26/2023. Claims 1-16 are currently pending.
Priority
This application is the national stage entry of PCT/KR2022/001121, filed January 21, 2022, which claims priority to KR10-2021-0012864, filed January 29, 2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
In Claim 7, the preamble is drawn to a product, while the body of the claim appears to be a process (method) language, which causes the preamble and the body of the claim to be inconsistent. It is noted that the preamble and the body are drawn to two different classes of subject matter, product and process and there is nothing to indicate that this inconsistency can be reconciled by any means. Examiner is interpreting claim 7 as a “product by process” claim, because the preamble is setting forth the subject matter that is being claimed as a product, and the product is defined in term of the process steps that are used to manufactured it.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 11 recites “method of claim 7”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the recitation “method of claim 7” is interpreted as “lightweight composite composition”.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A lightweight composite composition comprising:
50 to 80% by weight of a polyolefin-based resin;
10 to 30% by weight of an inorganic additive having a specific gravity of 0.1 to 0.6 g/cm3;
5 to 10% by weight of a reinforcing material having an aspect ratio of 200 to 1000; and
3 to 10% by weight of a compatibilizer for combining the polyolefin-based resin, inorganic additive, and reinforcing material.
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 1-15 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 claim 1, 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 the weight percentages approximately correspond to the ratio of the parts of each component to the total of parts of 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).
Regarding claim 2, Yang et al. teach the composite composition of the preferred example 1 is 19.8 g/10 min measured by ISO1133 (Table 2 of original disclosure [0065]). 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).)
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 claims 7-8, Yang et al. teach the polypropylene, compatibilizer are added to a high speed mixer and mix for 5 minutes [0041],[0041]. Then, the mixed blend is fed into a twin-screw extruder. Simultaneously, hollow glass microspheres and chopped glass fibers are also fed through the side feeder of the extruder [0042] to reduce the breakage rate of the hollow glass microspheres [0071]. Yang et al. further teach that the temperatures of each zone of the extruder form the deeding section to the die head are from 150°C to 185°C, the length-to-diameter ratio of the extrusion screw was 40, and the screw speed was 350 rpm. Thus, composite material is obtained through extrusion and granulation though a twin-screw extruder [0042].
Yang et al. are silent on the lightweight composite composition wherein the inorganic additive is supplied to a first side feeder and the reinforcing material is supplied to a second side feeder as recited by the instant claim. Yang et al. are further silent on the extruder loading as recited in the instant claim.
Claims 7 and 8 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)).) Thus, because claim 1 is anticipated (see rejection of claim 1), so are claims 7 and claim 8.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Yalcin et al. KR-10-2016-0104652 (listed on the IDS dated 07/26/2023)
Xu et al. CN 106496765 B
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