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
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2019-127530 (Zhang et al.), machine translation previously provided, as evidenced by Septon PDF.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses an airbag housing cover made of a thermoplastic elastomer composition comprising a propylene-based random copolymer and a styrene-based elastomer (see lines 79-84 and 130-134 machine translation). Zhang discloses that the styrene-based elastomer may be Septon (see lines 402-407). Paragraph 4 of page 1 of the attached Septon PDF document teaches that the glass transition temperature (Tg) of Septon is -50° C, which is within the claimed range of -60°C to -45° C. Zhang also discloses that a total content of the propylene-based random copolymer and the styrene-based elastomer is 63.1% with respect to 100% by mass of the thermoplastic elastomer composition (see Table 1, Examples 3 and 4 where propylene-based random copolymer (component A-1) and styrene-based elastomer (component B-2) amount to 130/206 parts by mass yielding 63.1% by mass), which is within the claimed range of 40-100% by mass of the thermoplastic elastomer composition.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang also discloses that the airbag housing cover is for being arranged on a steering or on an instrument panel in front of a passenger seat, which constitutes being at a visible position.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang as evidenced by Septon PDF also discloses that the styrene-based elastomer is linear (see page 1 Septon PDF).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang also discloses that the thermoplastic elastomer composition has a melt flow rate (MFR) of 3.8 g/10 min at a temperature of 230°C and a measurement load of 21.2 N (see Table 1, Example 3, lines 580-591 machine translation), which is within the claimed range of 1.0 g/10 min to 50 g/10 min.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang also discloses that the thermoplastic elastomer composition further comprises 70 parts by mass of an ethylene/α-olefin copolymer relative to 100 parts by mass of the propylene-based random copolymer (see Table 1, Example 3, component B-1, see also lines 227-245 machine translation), which is within the claimed range of 10-100 parts by mass.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang also discloses a method for manufacturing the airbag housing comprising a step of injection molding the thermoplastic elastomer composition (see lines 593-598 machine translation).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang discloses a composite molded article having a first layer made of a thermoplastic elastomer composition containing a propylene-based random copolymer and a styrene-based elastomer (see lines 79-84 and 100-105 machine translation). Zhang discloses that the styrene-based elastomer may be Septon (see lines 402-407). Paragraph 4 of page 1 of the attached Septon PDF document teaches that the glass transition temperature (Tg) of Septon is -50° C, which is within the claimed range of -60°C to -45° C. Zhang also discusses adhesion between the molded article, aramid fiber fabric and a resin (see lines 686-695 machine translation), therefore a second layer made of resin is disclosed.
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.
Claims 5, 7, 9, 10, 12-16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-127530 (Zhang et al.) as evidenced by Septon PDF.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses an airbag housing cover as discussed above. Zhang also discloses that the content of the styrene-based elastomer in the thermoplastic elastomer composition is 30-70 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the propylene-based random copolymer (see lines 503-510 machine translation), which overlaps the claimed range of 45-250 parts by mass. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses an airbag housing cover as discussed above. Zhang also discloses that the styrene unit content of the styrene-based elastomer is preferably 10-40% by mass (see lines 363-367 machine translation), which overlaps the claimed range of 20-25% by mass. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Zhang discloses an airbag housing cover as discussed above. Zhang does not state the total light transmittance or the haze value measured based on JIS K7136-1; however, the reference teaches all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang discloses a thermoplastic elastomer composition comprising a propylene-based random copolymer and a styrene-based elastomer having a styrene unit content is preferably 10-40% by mass (see lines 363-367 machine translation), which overlaps the claimed range of 20-35% by mass. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Zhang also discloses that the styrene-based elastomer may be Septon (see lines 402-407). Paragraph 4 of page 1 of the attached Septon PDF document teaches that the glass transition temperature (Tg) of Septon is -50° C, which is within the claimed range of -60°C to -45° C. Zhang also discloses that a total content of the propylene-based random copolymer and the styrene-based elastomer is 63.1% with respect to 100% by mass of the thermoplastic elastomer composition (see Table 1, Examples 3 and 4 where propylene-based random copolymer (component A-1) and styrene-based elastomer (component B-2) amount to 130/206 parts by mass yielding 63.1% by mass), which is within the claimed range of 40-100% by mass of the thermoplastic elastomer composition.
Zhang as evidenced by Septon PDF also discloses that the styrene-based elastomer is linear (see page 1 Septon PDF).
Zhang also discloses that the content of the styrene-based elastomer in the thermoplastic elastomer composition is 30-70 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the propylene-based random copolymer (see lines 503-510 machine translation), which overlaps the claimed range of 45-250 parts by mass. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Zhang also discloses that the thermoplastic elastomer composition has a melt flow rate (MFR) of 3.8 g/10 min at a temperature of 230°C and a measurement load of 21.2 N (see Table 1, Example 3, lines 580-591 machine translation), which is within the claimed range of 1.0 g/10 min to 50 g/10 min.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Zhang discloses a thermoplastic elastomer composition as discussed above. Zhang does not state the total light transmittance or the haze value measured based on JIS K7136-1; however, the reference teaches all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang also discloses that the thermoplastic elastomer composition further comprises 70 parts by mass of an ethylene/α-olefin copolymer relative to 100 parts by mass of the propylene-based random copolymer (see Table 1, Example 3, component B-1, see also lines 227-245 machine translation), which is within the claimed range of 10-100 parts by mass.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang also discloses that the styrene unit content of the styrene-based elastomer is preferably 10-40% by mass (see lines 363-367 machine translation), which overlaps the claimed range of 20-25% by mass. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang also discloses a molded article made of the thermoplastic elastomer composition of claim 12 (see lines 79-84 machine translation).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang also discloses a composite molded article having a first layer made of a thermoplastic elastomer composition containing a propylene-based random copolymer and a styrene-based elastomer (see lines 79-84 and 100-105 machine translation). Zhang discloses that the styrene-based elastomer may be Septon (see lines 402-407). Paragraph 4 of page 1 of the attached Septon PDF document teaches that the glass transition temperature (Tg) of Septon is -50° C, which is within the claimed range of -60°C to -45° C. Zhang also discusses adhesion between the molded article, aramid fiber fabric and a resin (see lines 686-695 machine translation), therefore a second layer made of resin is disclosed.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-127530 (Zhang et al.), as evidenced by Septon PDF as further evidenced by JP-T 2008-543978 (Hoenig, WO 2006/102154 is being used as an English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang in view of Septon PDF discloses an airbag housing cover made of a thermoplastic elastomer composition comprising a propylene-based random copolymer and a styrene-based elastomer as discussed above.
Zhang also discloses that the styrene-based elastomer comprises component (b1) which may consist of the olefin block copolymer disclosed in JP-T 2008-543978 (see lines 328-345 Zhang machine translation). Paragraph 117 of the Hoenig English equivalent teaches an embodiment where the copolymer may contain from 5-15% by weight of a styrene unit content, which overlaps the claimed range of 10-15% by mass. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Zhang also discloses that the styrene-based elastomer consists of a hydrogenated product of a styrene/conjugated diene block copolymer (b2) having a styrene unit content of preferably 10-40% by mass (see lines 354-367 machine translation), which overlaps the claimed range of 20-25% by mass. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang in view of Septon PDF discloses a thermoplastic elastomer composition as discussed above.
Zhang also discloses that the styrene-based elastomer comprises component (b1) which may consist of the olefin block copolymer disclosed in JP-T 2008-543978 (see lines 328-345 Zhang machine translation). Paragraph 117 of the Hoenig English equivalent teaches an embodiment where the copolymer may contain from 5-15% by weight of a styrene unit content, which overlaps the claimed range of 10-15% by mass. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Zhang also discloses that the styrene-based elastomer consists of a hydrogenated product of a styrene/conjugated diene block copolymer (b2) having a styrene unit content of preferably 10-40% by mass (see lines 354-367 machine translation), which overlaps the claimed range of 20-25% by mass. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Response to Declarations
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed December 26, 2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims based upon JP 2019-127530 (Zhang et al.) as set forth in the last Office action because: while the declaration suggests that some of the disclosed polymers would be unsuitable, the reference still teaches that the PE, PP, PMMA, PC, PET and PA materials can be used. Even if these materials are not preferred or have disadvantages, it does not dissuade from the fact that the Zhang reference anticipates the claimed limitations and thus is not persuasive.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed January 9, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims based upon JP 2019-127530 (Zhang et al.) as set forth in the last Office action because: while the declaration shows comparative results showing the outcome when a block polymer is used compared to when a random copolymer is used, the reference still teaches that either of a block polymer or a random copolymer may be used (see lines 130-134 machine translation provided October 2, 2024), thus is not persuasive. Further, evidence of unexpected results or criticality cannot overcome a 102 anticipation rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 26, 2025 and have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Zhang fails to disclose a thermoplastic elastomer composition comprising a propylene-based random copolymer as set forth in the claims. As discussed above, Zhang discloses an airbag housing cover made of a thermoplastic elastomer composition comprising a propylene-based random copolymer and a styrene-based elastomer. Further, at lines 130-134 of the machine translation provided October 2, 2024, it is stated that the propylene-based copolymer may be a block copolymer or a random copolymer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WENDY L BOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-7466. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:30.
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.
/WENDY L BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749