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 § 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) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (CN 108587033) . Huang teaches a foaming material comprising styrene, polypropylene, ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer, and a foaming agent (Abstract). It is emphasized that the claims are directed to a “foam molded body” (final article) and the foamed article of Huang, which has applicability in the automobile industry and includes each of the claimed materials, is seen to satisfy the claimed article. Claim(s) 1, 3, and 15- 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fang (CN 102888067) . Fang is directed to a foamed body having a density up to 0.04 g/cm 3 (40 kg/m 3 ), wherein said body includes a styrene copolymer (polystyrene based resin), polypropylene, and ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer. The method of Fang involves combining these materials into a composition, granulating said composition, placing said granules in a foaming mold, and foaming said granules to form a foamed body or article. The granules of Fang are seen to correspond with the claimed resin particles (and ultimately the foamed resin particles) . Regarding claim 3, Fang teaches a loading as large as 15 parts for the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer and such is necessarily greater than a loading for the polypropylene (given that such a loading can only be as high as 10 parts by weight). In terms of the claimed relationship, an ethylene vinyl acetate loading of 15 parts results in a claimed ratio between 150 and 750 (15/10-15/2). With respect to claim 15, the claims are directed to a method of manufacture and fail to further define the structure of the claimed resin particle (no evidence that seed polymerization results in a materially different resin particle). It is well known, though, to form foams comprising a plurality of polymeric materials by seed polymerization. As to claims 17 and 19, the above noted density would be applicable to the foam particles and the foam molded body. Claim(s) 1 , 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uehara (US 2009/0124717) . Uehara is directed to a foamable composition comprising styrene, polypropylene, and EVA (Paragraph 18).b The method taught in Paragraphs 21 and 44 is seen to result in a composite resin particle (and ultimately a foamed resin particle) including the aforementioned materials. 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) 1 -3 , 5, and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1460621 and further in view of Huang and/or Fang and/or Uehara . GB ‘621 is directed to a foamable or expandable composition including a styrene polymer and a mixture of olefin polymers (Page 1, Lines 50-65 and Page 2, Lines 15-35) . GB ‘621 further states that exemplary olefin materials are polypropylene and EVA (ethylene vinyl acetate). While GB ‘621 fails to expressly disclose a composition having styrene, polypropylene, and EVA, such a combination of materials is consistent with the disclosure of GB ‘621 and such a combination of materials is known in foam applications, as shown for example by Huang , Fang , and/or Uehara . One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use said combination in the foamable or expandable composition since the inclusion of three materials is expressly taught by GB ‘621 and more particularly, the claimed combination of materials is consistent with that which is used in foam applications (composite resin particles, and subsequently foamed resin particles, would be present when carrying out the manufacture of a foam). It is further noted that Table 3 fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed combination of materials since GB ‘621 specifically teaches a mixture including a styrene resin, a polypropylene, an additional olefin resin , and an inorganic component (e.g. talc) . More particularly, Comparative Example 4 is the lone comparative example that includes such a combination of materials (styrene, polypropylene, an additional component, and an inorganic material) and in this instance, the inclusion of ethylene ethyl acrylate is inconsistent with the specific disclosure by GB ‘621 to that EVA represents an exemplary olefin material. Also, Comparative Example 4 includes a multitude of properties that are superior to those of the inventive examples (e.g. Comparative Example 4 as compared with Inventive Example 3). Thus, Table 3 fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a foamable or expandable composition comprising polypropylene, EVA, and styrene. Regarding claim s 2 and 5 , GB ‘621 teaches a styrene loading between 10 and 95% and an olefin loading between 5% and 90% (Page 1, Lines 55+). GB ‘621 further states that large styrene loadings correspond with high rigidity (Page 1, Lines 85+). These teachings suggest compositions in which the styrene loading is between 40% and 95% as required by the claims (such a range is fully encompassed by the disclosure of GB ‘621). Also, given that polypropylene and EVA would not constitute a large loading when highly rigid foams are produced (given a high styrene loading), it reasons that respective loadings would fall within the broad ranges of the claimed invention (a styrene loading of greater than 50%, for example, would result in individual polypropylene loadings and EVA loadings greater than 0% and less than 50%) . As to claim 3, the general disclosure of GB ‘621 would have suggested, at a minimum, the equal use of polypropylene and EVA and such is encompassed by the broad range of the claimed invention. With respect to claims 13 and 14, the composition of GB ‘621 can include talc (Page 2, Lines 105+) and the claimed loadings are consistent with those that are conventionally used in foamable compositions, there being no conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed loadings. As to claim 15, the claims are directed to a method of manufacture and fail to further define the structure of the claimed resin particle (no evidence that seed polymerization results in a materially different resin particle). It is well known, though, to form foams comprising a plurality of polymeric materials by seed polymerization. Regarding claims 17 and 19, GB ‘621 teaches densities between 10 kg/m3 and 200 kg/m3 (Page 3, Lines 6+). Also, such a density would be applicable to the foam particles and the foam molded body. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara and further in view of Arch (US 2002/117769) and Morita (US 6,310,148) . As detailed above, Uehara is directed to a foamable composition including styrene, polypropylene, and EVA. In such an instance, though, Uehara fails to describe the specific styrene based copolymer. In any event, the general disclosure of polystyrene disclosed by Uehara would have been well recognized as encompassing a wide variety of materials, including a copolymer of styrene and methacrylic acid ester, as shown for example by Arch (Paragraphs 42 and 43). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the claimed copolymer as the styrene based resin taught by Uehara absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. It is emphasized that the claimed copolymer is well recognized as being a conventional species under the genus of styrene based resins and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the specific type of styrene based resin. Furthermore, Morita evidences the common makeup of such a copolymer having applicability in foam applications (Column 2, Lines 50+ and Column 11, Lines 35+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a styrene based resin in accordance to the claimed invention as a known resin used in foam applications and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results. Lastly, regarding claim 4, Uehara teaches EVA loadings that are smaller than polypropylene loadings (Paragraph 34) and such is seen to be consistent with the claimed range (when 20 parts of PP are included, for example, an EVA loading varies between 0 and 75 parts in relation to 100 parts of PP and such fully encompasses the claimed range). Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang . As detailed above, Fang teaches granules or composite resin particle comprising a styrene based resin (15-35 parts), a polypropylene based resin (2-10 parts), and an ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) (5-15 parts). In terms of the claimed quantitative relationship, Fang teaches a combined loading of polypropylene and EVA between 7 parts and 25 parts and thus a ratio between said combined loading and a styrene loading falls between 7/35 (corresponds with 19/95) and 25/15 (corresponds with 5/3). As such, there is a substantial overlap between the disclosed ratios and that required by the claimed invention. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select ratios that satisfy the claimed invention. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (a) Fang or (b) GB ‘652 in view of Huang, Fang, and Uehara and further in view of Beckmann (US 2005/0035499) . As detailed above, Fang and GB ‘621 are directed to a foamed body including EVA. While Fang and GB ‘621 is silent with respect to an EVA melting temperature, the claimed range is consistent with that which is commonly associated with EVA used in foamed bodies, as shown for example by Beckmann (Paragraph 21). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use melting temperatures in accordance to the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (a) Fang or (b) GB ‘621 in view of Huang, Fang, and Uehara and further in view of Miura (US 2018/0030175) . As detailed above, Fang and GB ‘621 are directed to a foamed body including EVA and polypropylene . While Fang and GB ‘621 are silent with respect to EVA and polypropylene melting temperature s , the claimed range is consistent with that which is commonly associated with EVA and polypropylene used in foamed bodies, as shown for example by Miura (Paragraph 178 ). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use melting temperatures in accordance to the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (a) Fang or (b) GB ‘621 in view of Huang, Fang, and Uehara and further in view of Delevati (US 2019/0315949) . As detailed above, Fang and GB ‘621 are directed to foamable resin particles including a styrene-based resin, polypropylene, and EVA. While Fang and GB ‘621 are silent with respect to an EVA polydispersity index (ratio between Mw and Mn) , the claimed range is consistent with that which is commonly associated with EVA used in foamed bodies, as shown for example by Delevati ( Paragraphs 34 and 69) . One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a polydispersity index in accordance to the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (a) Fang or (b) GB ‘621 in view of Huang, Fang, and Uehara and further in view of Coyne (US 4,143,106) . As detailed above, Fang and GB ‘621 are directed to foamable resin particles including a styrene-based resin, polypropylene, and EVA. While Fang and GB ‘621 are silent with respect to an EVA melt flow rate , the claimed range is consistent with that which is commonly associated with EVA used in foamed bodies, as shown for example by Coyne ( Column 7, Lines 1-10) . One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use melt flow rates in accordance to the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (a) Fang or (b) GB ‘621 in view of Huang, Fang, and Uehara and further in view of Kobayashi (US 5,552,448) . As detailed above, Fang and GB ‘621are directed to a foamed body including polypropylene . While Fang and GB ‘621 are silent with respect to the structure of said polypropylene , the claimed structure is consistent with that which is commonly associated with polypropylene used in foamed bodies, as shown for example by Kobayashi ( Column 1, Lines 5-15 and Column 24, Lines 1-8) . One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use polypropylene structures in accordance to the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. Claim(s) 1 , 11-14 , 16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (WO 2017/179754) in view of Huang, Fang, and/or Uehara . Kwak is directed to a foamable resin composition designed for vehicle parts (automobile component) and comprising at least one polyolefin resin, a polystyrene resin, 1-40 weight percent of an inorganic filler (e.g. silica or talc), and a flame retardant. More particularly, Kwak teaches (as the polyolefin resin) a homo polypropylene, a random copolymer including polypropylene, polyethylene, copolymers of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), and alpha olefin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the claimed combination of olefin resins given the limited number of disclosed polyolefin resins and the express teaching to use a mixture of polyolefin resins. It is emphasized that the combination of styrene, EVA, and polypropylene is consistent with the disclosure of GB ‘621 and such a combination of materials is known in foam applications, as shown for example by Huang, Fang, and/or Uehara. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use said combination in the foamable or expandable composition since the inclusion of three materials is expressly taught by Kwak and more particularly, the claimed combination of materials is consistent with that which is used in foam applications (composite resin particles, and subsequently foamed resin particles, would be present when carrying out the manufacture of a foam). It is further noted that Table 3 fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed combination of materials since GB ‘621 specifically teaches a mixture including a styrene resin, a polypropylene, an additional olefin resin, and an inorganic component (e.g. talc). More particularly, Comparative Example 4 is the lone comparative example that includes such a combination of materials (styrene, polypropylene, an additional component, and an inorganic material) and in this instance, the inclusion of ethylene ethyl acrylate is inconsistent with the specific disclosure by GB ‘621 to that EVA represents an exemplary olefin material. Also, Comparative Example 4 includes a multitude of properties that are superior to those of the inventive examples (e.g. Comparative Example 4 as compared with Inventive Example 3). Thus, Table 3 fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a foamable or expandable composition comprising polypropylene, EVA, and styrene. Lastly, the general disclosure of a foamed body created by the aforementioned resin is seen to teach the presence of composite resin particles comprising polystyrene, polypropylene, and EVA. Regarding claims 11 and 12, the claimed loading and type of flame retardant is consistent with that which is conventionally used in foamable resin compositions. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1215 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 5:30-2:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Katelyn Smith can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5545 . 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. Justin Fischer /JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 March 13, 2026