Examiner Zimmer has assumed responsibility for the prosecution of this case from Examiner Gugliotta.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 6, 2026.
The Examiner is removing the restriction requirement that separates claims 2, 3, and 17 from claims 7 and 18-20 for reasons that will become clear below. Claims 9-16 remain restricted because the composition used in the methods of those claims is not identically constrained.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 7, and 17-20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Applicant employs as a transitional phrase linking the preamble and body of the claims the word “comprising”. From MPEP 2111.03, “[T]he transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps….The word ‘comprising’ transitioning from the preamble to the body signals that the entire claim is presumptively open-ended." Hence, it initially is construed that Applicant meant the claims to be encompassing of not only components (a) to (d), but also other materials. At the same time, though, claim 17 stipulates that the quantities of (a) to (d) constitute 100 wt.% of the total suggesting that the claims are, in fact, closed-ended and not inclusive of anything beyond what is encompassed within the description of these four components. Accordingly, the language of the claims contradicts itself.
It will, for the purpose of evaluating the instant invention against the prior art, be presumed that the instant invention is to be confined only to components (a) to (d), and in the amounts specified.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 7, and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
As an initial matter, Examiner Gugliotta had asserted a lack of a special technical feature thus validating her restriction of the claims. The basis for restriction was predicated on the instant invention allegedly having been rendered obvious in view of the combined teachings of Herschke et al. and Arbter et al. Herschke teaches a composition having application in additive manufacturing comprising a polypropylene polymer and an elastomer component. Encompassed within the breadth of the polypropylene are ones that may simultaneously satisfy the density and melt flow index but this component is hardly so confined. Likewise, styrene block copolymers are among a variety of dissimilar elastomer candidates. Assuming that it would be still be obvious to select those propylene polymers compliant with the density and MFI limitations, and also a styrene copolymer, there is still the matter of Herschke not having addressed the Shore A and flex modulus of the polypropylene correlated with claimed component (A). To compensate for these deficiencies, Examiner Gugliotta notes teachings from Arbter that indicate that fibers used in additive manufacturing should have Shore A hardness exceeding 80 and a stiffness of an unspecified level. (At best, this establishes the flex modulus as result-effective.) There is a tacit suggestion that one of ordinary skill would further choose from the propylene polymers those having comparable degrees of Shore A hardness and flex modulus but this position is reliant on a improper hindsight in the current Examiner’s estimation given the necessity of first choosing the conforming propylene and elastomer components from respective lists in Herschke and then asserting that Arbter motivates the selection of propylene polymers particularly also with comparable hardness and flex modulus when Arbter attaches those limitations to the composition as a whole, not a polypropylene component alone.
WO 2022/182851 describes in Table 1 and the corresponding definitions of the components a composition comprising SEBS and Vistamaxx 6502 but the latter only constitutes 25% of the total. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0171748 teaches compositions comprising polyolefin elastomers, of which Vistamaxx 6502 is exemplary, and styrene-ethylene/butylene-styrene copolymers. There are, however, other polyolefin elastomer compounds not embraced by the present claims, which are regarded as being closed-ended.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0252228 discloses in Table 1, Example 10 and [0101] a composition that contains a 65:30:5 ratio of Vistamaxx 6202, Kraton 1730 (a SBS block polymer), and TiO2 known to be a UV barrier/blocker. This composition is used to make layer B of a three layer A-B-A sandwich structure. Paragraph [0051] allows that the elastomer content of layer B (labeled as the layer except the outer layer(s)) can be present in an amount of 50-100% and thus alternative compositions of similar makeup, but where Vistamaxx 6202 makes up 70% or more of the total would be obvious. Such a composition would be anticipatory of every limitation of claim 17 except that Vistamaxx 6202 has a Shore A hardness slightly lower than that stipulated according to an attached product data brochure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC S ZIMMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1096. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
May 20, 2026
/MARC S ZIMMER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights