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 Objections Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: ethylene-vinyl is mis-spelled as ethylene- vinil . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 4 recites “wherein the block copolymer (A) is a copolymer hydrogenated by a carbon-carbon double bond of the structural unit derived from a conjugated diene in the block copolymer (A).” It is clear from the instant specification that the block copolymer is hydrogenated. However, the language in the claim is awkward because carbon carbon double bonds are hydrogenated, not “hydrogenated by a carbon-carbon double bond.” This issue could be clarified by simply stating “wherein the block copolymer (A) is hydrogenated” or “wherein the polymer block (a2) having the structural unit derived from a conjugated diene is hydrogenated.” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1 -6 , 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Konishi ( WO 2017/073695 ). As the WO reference is not in English, citations are made to the attached translation. Konishi teaches the production of a hydrogenated block copolymer (II)-1 where styrene is polymerized followed by the polymerization of butadiene and isoprene and then styrene, to give a styrene-(butadiene/isoprene)-styrene block copolymer (pg. 47) where the content of the A block (styrene block) is 12 mass% (Table 1) and which means the butadiene/isoprene block is 88 mass % which meets claim 5. A styrene block content of 12 mass% meets the range of claim 1. Konishi teaches the peak top molecular weight is 175,000 (Table 1) which falls in the range of claim 6. Konishi teaches a hydrogenation rate of 93% (Table 1) which meets claims 4-5. Konishi teaches the block copolymer (II)-1 is blended with an olefin rubber, a polyolefin resin, a softener and other ingredients (Table 3) and molded (pg. 52-54). This meets claim 11. The softener of Konishi is a paraffin process oil (pg. 50) which is taught as a plasticizer in the instant specification. See instant specification, pg. 15, ¶ 55. The paraffin process oil of Konishi meets the plasticizer of claim 9. In example 1 of Konishi , 15 parts block copolymer (II)-1 is used with 11.4 parts softener (Table 3) which corresponds to about 76 parts plasticizer with respect to 100 parts block copolymer. This meets claim 10. Konishi does not explicitly recite the block copolymer has a rebound resilience rate of 60% or more at 25˚C (claim 1) or 42% or more at -5˚C (claim 2). However, Konishi teaches the same block copolymer as claimed, having the same monomeric units (styrene, isoprene, and butadiene) and the same styrene block content as claimed. The instant specification provides evidence in Table 1 that the rebound resilience is related to the styrene block content because examples outside the claimed range of rebound resilience have a styrene block content outside the claimed range. Thus, Konishi teaches the same polymers as claimed, which have the same physical properties, including rebound resilience rate. Case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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 (s) 7-8 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi (WO 2017/073695). As the WO reference is not in English, citations are made to the attached translation. The discussion with respect to Konishi above is hereby incorporated by reference. Konishi does not explicitly provide an example using an ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer. However, Konishi teaches using a polyolefin resin (III) (Table 3) and Konishi teaches examples of the polyolefin resin include ethylene vinyl acetate copolymers (pg. 26) . The examples of Konishi teach that the polyolefin resin (III) is used in an amount of 28.9 parts per 15 parts block copolymer (Table 3) which corresponds to about a ratio of 35/65 and meets the range of claim 8. Alternatively, Konishi teaches the amount of polyolefin resin is 15-100 pbm per 100 parts olefin rubber (I) and block copolymer (II) (pg. 27) and the ratio of olefin rubber (I) to block copolymer (II) is 90/10 to 10/90 (pg. 25). This means the ratio of polyolefin resin (II) to block copolymer is about 15/90 to 100/10, which meets the range of claim 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer because Konishi teaches examples of the polyolefin resin include ethylene vinyl acetate copolymers (pg. 26) and because “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art…” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories , 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP 2123. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ROBERT C BOYLE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7347 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday, 10am-4pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /ROBERT C BOYLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764