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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inamdar (U.S. 20140073731) in view of Gupta (U.S. 20150315465), Dong (CN103483680; reference made to included English machine translation) and Xu (CN103396607; reference made to included English machine translation) as evidenced by Bird (U.S. 5,637,718).
Inamdar teaches polypropylene composition with glass fiber reinforcement and elastomer (functionally impact modifiers) and coupling agents (maleic anhydride (MAH) modified polypropylene ¶[0037] – compatibilizers).
Inamdar exemplifies a stabilizer as Irganox B225 in the amount of 0.6 wt%. (And in ¶[0037]) As evidenced by Bird in Column 16 lines 1-5 Irganox B225 is an antioxidant.
Inamdar does not exemplify UV absorbers or light stabilizers but is open other additives in the compositions (¶[0037]).
Gupta, working in the field of stabilizing materials against degradation due to thermal and ultraviolet light exposure similar to Applicant, teaches stabilizer compositions which include a tris-aryl-s-triazine compound (hydroxyphenyl triazine (Cyasorb UV1164 exemplified), hindered amine light stabilizer (HALS) and antioxidant. (See Abstract) Gupta teaches in ¶[00131] the stabilizer composition (polypropylene exemplified) display a synergistic effect and provide enhanced thermal performance in terms of retaining tensile strength under extreme conditions as compared to samples containing formulations known to those skilled in the art, and the compositions according to the invention as described herein also do not have any antagonistic effect against the good weathering performance
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Inamdar such that the stabilizer package is the stabilizer composition of Gupta for the above described advantages taught by Gupta in ¶[00131].
This would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to composition of Inamdar with:
The tris-aryl-s-triazine compound (hydroxyphenyl triazine (Cyasorb UV1164 exemplified). In ¶[0027] of the as-filed specification Applicant considers hydroxyphenyl triazine to be a UV absorber. The amount of this component is taught in ¶[0045] as 0.002 wt% to 0.50 wt% which overlaps the range of Claim 1 and Claim 2.
The hindered amine light stabilizer (HALS) reads over the light stabilizer of Claim 1 and Gupta teaches the amount that can be used is 0.01 to 1.20 wt% in ¶[0046] which overlaps the ranges of Claim 1 and Claim 3.
With respect to the amounts of polypropylene and glass fiber, Inamdar exemplifies multiple amounts of polypropylene and also 30 wt% or 50 wt% of glass fiber including 47.28 wt% of polypropylene, 30 wt% of glass fiber and 20 wt% of elastomer.
The 47.28 wt % polypropylene reads over the polypropylene and amount of (a) of Claim 1.
The 30 wt% glass fiber reads over the glass fiber and amount of Claim 1.
The ratio of these two 47:30 also meets the range ratio range of Claim 1.
Note that the exemplified glass fiber is “long glass fiber” in Inamdar and, as it is not specifically defined in Claim 1, it reads over the long glass fiber of Claim 1.
However, Inamdar teaches in a variety of glass fiber teachings in ¶[0036] in including long glass fibers have a length of 5 mm to 15 mm (5,000 microns to 15,000 microns) and short glass fibers have lengths of less than or equal to about 5 mm (or 5,000 microns or less). Both short and long glass fibers are exemplified by Inamdar (See Table 2A for short glass fibers with nearly same compositional amounts of polypropylene, glass fibers, and elastomer.
Therefore, Claim 6’s long fiber term is interpreted to be reflective of the actual length of taught in the art rather than the use of the term short or long fiber in the art. As Inamdar teaches exemplifies short fiber reinforcement and also teaches this is meant to encompass fiber lengths of less than or equal to 5 mm (or 5,000 microns) this short fiber teaching of Inanmada overlaps the long fiber reinforcement length of 5 microns to 15 microns of Claim 6.
The preamble language of “for a solar module” is considered future intended use and there is no evidence to suggest Inamdar and Gupta’s compositions cannot be used to make a solar module. This reads over the preamble of Claim 1.
In the examples, Inamdar adjusts the amount of elastomer (exemplified as 20 wt%) by adjusting the amount of polypropylene down rather than the amount of glass fiber. (See Table 1A)
The examples of Inamdar exemplified densities of the composite materials of 1.19 to 1.23 and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to practice the invention of Inamdar and Gupta such that the resulting densities of the composites were in the range of 1.19 to 1.23 g/cm3 which overlaps the range recited by Claim 4.
The MFI of the polypropylenes are taught as 4 to 20 g/10 minutes in ¶[0032] which meets the MFI of Claim 5.
Inamdar teaches in ¶[0033] the amount of polypropylene is 10 to 90 wt% and the amount of glass fiber is 20 to 70 wt%. In ¶[0035], Inamdar teaches the elastomer is used an amount of greater than 0 to 30 wt% and individually teaches 1, 5 and 10 wt% of the elastomer. The exemplified amount of elastomer does not meet the range of Claim 7.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Inamdar such that the amount of elastomer was 1, 5, or 10 in, in for instance, the 50 wt % glass fiber because Inamdar specifically teaches these amount of elastomer in ¶[0035]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add back in polypropylene when reducing the amount of elastomer because Inamdar reasonably suggests via the examples as discussed above. This would have lead on of ordinary skill in the art to 50 wt% glass fiber, 1, 5, 10 wt% elastomer and ~36 - ~45 wt% of polypropylene in the compositions which also meets the ranges of Claim 1 and 36-45:50 also meets the weight ratio Claim 1.
While not specifically taught as a toughening agent, the elastomer is considered a toughening agent no matter how good or poor it might be. Further, Applicant teaches in ¶[0031] of the as-filed specification the toughening agents include ethylene copolymerized with an olefin like butylene. Such a copolymer is exemplified by Inamdar and, as such, reads over the toughening agent of Claim 7.
The MAH-grafted-polypropylene (PP-g-MAH) coupling agents exemplified in amounts of 1.93 and 3 wt% read over the amounts of compatibilizer of Claim 1 but MAH-grafted-polypropylene is not in the list of compatibilizers of Claim 1.
Inamdar does not teach or suggest any of the specific compatibilizers of Claim 1. Inamdar does not limit the compatibilizers (or coupling agents in terms used by Inamdar) to only those taught by Inamdar either.
Dong, working in the field of polypropylene compositions similar to Applicant and Inamdar, teaches PP-g-MAH and POE-g-MAH in list of reactive compatibilizers for polypropylene compositions. (¶[0019]).
Xu, working in the field of polypropylene compositions similar to Applicant and Inamdar, teaches PP-g-MAH and POE-g-MAH in list of compatibilizers for polypropylene compositions. (¶[0041]).
Inamdar, Dong and Xu establish the use of compatiblizers of PP-g-MAH and POE-g-MAH for similar purposes in different type of polypropylene compositions.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Inamdar as discussed above by using POE-g-MAH instead of the exemplified PP-g-MAH of Inamdar because Dong and Xu teach and suggest POE-g-MAH and PP-g-MAH are functionally equivalent, as in serving the same function in polypropylene inventions. This represents the simple substitution of known prior art elements, compatibilizers used in polypropylene compositions, to yield the predictable result of a compatibilized polypropylene composition.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)
MAH modified polyolefins are reasonably suggested to be compatibilizers according to the claims based on the MAH polyolefins taught for this purpose in the as-filed specification in ¶[0034].
The POE-g-MAH used in the same amount as the exemplified PP-g-MAH reads over the compatibilizer of Claim 1.
The antioxidant (hindered phenol antioxidant) from Gupta is taught to be used in an amount of 0.001 to 0.50 wt% ¶[0049] which overlaps the range of Claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inamdar (U.S. 20140073731) in view of Gupta (U.S. 20150315465) Dong (CN103483680; reference made to included English machine translation) and Xu (CN103396607; reference made to included English machine translation)as evidenced by Bird (U.S. 5,637,718) and in further view of Stockreiter (U.S. 20100317791).
Inamdar is applied as above.
Inamdar is open to other additives in the polypropylene compositions but does not teach or suggest a slip agent.
Stockreiter, working in the field of glass filled polypropylene compositions similar to Applicant and Inamdar, teaches slip / mold release agents are conventional additives in glass filled polypropylene and are used in an amount of less than 2 wt% of the composition. ¶[0064]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Inamdar as discussed above by adding a slip agent because Stockreiter teaches slip agents are common additives used in glass filled polypropylene compositions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add up to 2 wt% of the slip agent because Stockreiter teaches this amount.
This reads over the range of Claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant has taken the limitations of Claim 8, amended out the compatibilizer used in the previous rejection of record and placed the new list of compatibilizers into Claim 1. This change has necessitated the modification of the grounds of rejection over Inamdar
Applicant argues Inamdar does not teach or suggest compatibilizers as recited by Claim 1. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection of record has been updated to reflect the new compatibilizer list of Claim 1. Applicant is reminded there is no evidence of record demonstrating a difference between compatibilizers in the claimed invention nor is the compatibilizer used in the examples even disclosed by Applicant.
Applicant argues they have definitions differentiating coupling agents (terminology used by Inamadar for PP-g-MAH exemplified) and compatibilizers used by claimed invention (which the as-filed specification also discloses PP-g-MAH as a compatibilizers). Arguments to terminology differences in the prior art with respect to the rejection of record and the claim terms are not persuasive.
MAH-grafted-polyolefins are reasonably suggested to be compatibilizers according to the claims based on the MAH polyolefins taught for this purpose in the as-filed specification in ¶[0034].
Dong, working in the field of polypropylene compositions similar to Applicant and Inamdar, teaches PP-g-MAH and POE-g-MAH in list of reactive compatibilizers for polypropylene compositions. (¶[0019]).
Xu, working in the field of polypropylene compositions similar to Applicant and Inamdar, teaches PP-g-MAH and POE-g-MAH in list of compatibilizers for polypropylene compositions. (¶[0041]).
Inamdar, Dong and Xu establish the use of compatibilizers of PP-g-MAH and POE-g-MAH for similar purposes in different type of polypropylene compositions.
Note that Applicant argues coupling agents are limited to polymer – glass fiber compositions and compatibilizers are used in polyolefin blends in their remarks. However, Applicant uses the term compatibilizers throughout the as-filed specification and the claims and the composition is polymer – glass fibers. No blend is recited. If Applicant wishes the interpretation of the as-filed specification and claims with respect to the prior art be limited to their argued terminology difference, the argued terminology does not align with the as-filed specification nor the claims nor the prior art of record.
The remaining remarks all reference back to the above remarks made against Inamdar and the lack of specifically recited coupling agent and, therefore, are not persuasive for the same reasons above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M RODD whose telephone number is (571)270-1299. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 3:30 pm (Pacific).
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571) 272-1302. 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.
/Christopher M Rodd/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
