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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1460621 (of record) and further in view of Huang (CN 108587033, of record) and/or Fang (CN 102888067, of record) and/or Uehara (US 2009/0124717, of record).
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 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.
With further respect to claim 1 (and claim 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%).
Lastly, regarding claim 1, 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).
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.
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.
With respect to claim 20, the foamed body of GB ‘621 can be broadly viewed as an “automobile component” (the claim language fails to require the actually manufacture of an automobile having a component comprising a specific foamed body).
4. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB ‘652, Huang, Fang, and Uehara as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Beckmann (US 2005/0035499, of record).
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.
5. Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB ‘621 Huang, Fang, and Uehara as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Miura (US 2018/0030175, of record).
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 temperatures, 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.
6. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB ‘621, Huang, Fang, and Uehara as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Delevati (US 2019/0315949, of record).
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.
7. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB ‘621 Huang, Fang, and Uehara as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Coyne (US 4,143,106, of record).
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.
8. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB ‘621, Huang, Fang, and Uehara as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Kobayashi (US 5,552,448, of record).
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.
9. Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB ‘621, Huang, Fang, and Uehara as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Books (US 5,717,001, newly cited).
As detailed above, GB ‘621 is directed to a styrene-based, foamable composition designed for building applications. GB ‘621 further states that said composition can include “conventional additives” (Column 2, Lines 102+). While GB ‘621 fails to expressly teach the inclusion of a flame retardant, such is well recognized as being a conventional additive in styrene-based, foamable compositions designed for building applications, as shown for example by Books (Abstract, Column 1, Lines 30-40, and Column 2, Lines 54-65). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a flame retardant (e.g. halogen based retardant) in the foamable composition of GB ‘621 in order to provide flame retardant characteristics or properties.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 1, 3-14, and 16-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the foam molded body of the claim is prepared using bead foam molding, which is a completely different foam molding method except for the use of resin as a raw material. It is emphasized that the relevant claims are directed to a foam molded body and limitations pertaining to the method of manufacture fail to further define the structure of the claimed foam molded body. As set forth in MPEP 2113, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. More particularly, there is no evidence that the claimed process steps would impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. Again, the manner in which the foam molded body is formed (bead foam molding vs heating and kneading resin pellets and foaming a homogenized resin) does not further define the structure of the claimed foam molded body.
Applicant further argues that since styrene has high permeability, the proportion of polystyrene is higher inside seed polymerization composite particles than in the surface layer, resulting in a nonhomogeneous distribution of resin. It is emphasized, though, that the claims as currently drafted fail to require such a nonhomogeneous distribution (lack of structural requirement that polystyrene has a greater proportion within the particle) and it does not appear that such a distribution is inherent to a seed polymerization particle (seed polymerization particle can be produced with a homogenous distribution as a function of, for example, the specific polymers, the polymer loadings, and the processing conditions). Again, while Applicant contends that (a) a high proportion of polystyrene within the resin particles is required and (b) it is desirable that the proportion of polyolefin is higher in the surface layer than in the interior of the particles, these structurally characteristics are not required by the claims as currently drafted.
In summary, the fact that seed polymerization composite resin particles and foam particles are used in bead foam molding, as opposed to extrusion foam molding, fails to render the claims non-obvious (the manner in which the particles are further processed or the intended use of said particles in a further processing step fail to further define the structural characteristics of the particle or the foam molded body).
Conclusion
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 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 August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights