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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed 9/25/2023.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A molding material comprising a resin and cellulose fiber
Content of cellulose fiber is 50% by mass or more on total mass of molding material
The rein has a Hansen solubility parameter (HSP) of 20.0 or more and 32.0 or less in total
A hydrogen bonding term δH of 4.0 or more and 15.0 or less in total
A polarity term of δP of 8.5 or more and 17.0 or less in total
When a molded body obtained by using the molded material is fractured, the resin present on the cellulose fibers account for 30% or more of a 1 mm square of a fractured surface on the molded body.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Aine, et al. (JP2007084713A; English Machine Translation incorporated herewith).
With respect to claim 1, Aine teaches a molding material (claim 7), wherein the molding material comprises a thermoplastic resin and cellulose fibers, wherein the content of the cellulose fibers is over 50 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of resin [0029-0030] thereby reading on the claimed range of 50% mass or more based on the total mass of the molding material.
Aine does not particularly teach the Hansen solubility parameter, the hydrogen bonding, or the polarity of the resin. Aine is further silent on the resin present on the cellulose fibers on a fractured surface of the molded body.
However, the properties of Hansen solubility, hydrogen bonding and polarity are functions of the thermoplastic resin. Aine teaches the same thermoplastic resins as required by the instant claim 4 such as PBS, PBSA, PLA [0027]. Further, the resin present on the cellulose fibers on a fractured surface is a function of the combability of the thermoplastic resin with the cellulose fiber (see Instant specification paragraph [0039]). Aine teaches the same thermoplastic resin, the same cellulose fibers in the same amounts as set forth in the rejection above. Therefore, the properties of Hansen solubility, hydrogen bonding, polarity and the amount of resin present on the cellulose fibers on a fractured surface in the molding material of Aine will be the same as required by the instant claims. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that 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. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed molding material, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients (thermoplastic resin with cellulose fibers) within the claimed proportions for the same utility (molding material).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK ROY THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0205. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/PATRICK ROY THOMAS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights