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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimke et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0332226.
Klimke discloses a composition. The composition can comprise an elastomeric ethylene propylene copolymer. The composition has a MFR of 5-40 g/10 min. The composition has a xylene soluble fraction in the range of 5-30 wt%. See paragraph 0015. Further, the xylene soluble fraction of the composition has an ethylene content in the range of 25-60 mol%. See paragraph 0015-0017. The elastomeric ethylene propylene copolymer can be formed by sequential polymerization of a propylene with the elastomer in a series of reactors, see paragraph 0034, and the composition is present in amounts of 80-95 wt% of the composition. The xylene solubles of the ethylene/propylene copolymer is preferably in the 5-30 wt%. See paragraph 0070. The ethylene content of the xylene soluble is in the range of 25-60 mol% which would encompass the claimed range of wt%. See paragraph 0072. The composition can further comprise polyethylene in an amount of up to 15 wt%. See paragraphs 0206-0207. The composition can further comprise additive such as antioxidants, pigments, lubricants, etc. See paragraph 0203. The composition is useful to form molded articles, especially those molded by injection molding. The composition can be used to make various items including toy, car seats, pails, packaging materials, etc. See paragraph 0208 and 0209.
While Klimke does not disclose the particular Izod impact strength when measured at the particular claimed temperatures claimed or the flexural modulus as claimed, since the composition is the same composition made by the same process, there is a reasonable basis to expect that either the composition would necessarily have the claimed properties or else it would have been obvious to have selected the amounts from within the ranges taught by Klimke to provide a composition having the desired properties of Izod impact strength and flexural modulus.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimke et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0332226 in view of Lee et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0130601.
Klimke discloses a composition as claimed.
Klimke discloses incorporating various additives but does not disclose the claimed neutralizer or antioxidant in the amounts claimed.
However, Lee discloses a polypropylene composition which is useful for forming molded articles. See abstract. The composition comprises (A) 50-95T by weight of an ethylene propylene block copolymer obtained by polymerization of a propylene homopolymer and (B) 4.8-40% by weight of an ethylene alpha olefin rubber, (which corresponds to the claimed ethylene propylene rubber). See paragraph 0017. When the ethylene-propylene block copolymer (A) is extracted at room temperature with a xylene solvent, the content of the rubber component extracted is 1 to 50% by weight. See paragraph 0020. The content of ethylene in the ethylene alpha olefin block copolymer is 5-90% by weight. See paragraph 0023. The ethylene propylene block copolymer has a melt index off 0.5-20 g/10 minutes under a load of 2.16 kg. See paragraph 0019. The composition may further comprise an additive such as an antioxidant, a neutralizer, a UV stabilizer, a long-term heat stabilizer, a slip agent, a filler, a reinforcing agent, an antistatic agent, a nucleating agent, a pigment and a dye. See paragraph 0028. The antioxidant can include those claimed. See paragraph 0074. They are present in amount of 0.5% by weight or less. See paragraph 0076. The composition can further comprise a neutralizer selected from the group of hydrotalcite, calcium stearate. See paragraph 0075. These can also be present in amounts of 0.5% by weight or less. The polypropylene resin composition can be formed into a molded article. The structure can be formed by injection molding. See paragraph 0079. The article can have an elongation at break of 400% or more. See paragraph 0081.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the particular neutralizers and antioxidants as taught by Lee in the composition of Klimke in view of their art recognized suitability for this intended purpose.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Klimke has a relatively low content of a xylene soluble compared to the claimed invention because the examples of Klimke only use 14.4 % by weight. However, the disclosure of Klimke is not limited to the examples and is prior art for all that it discloses. The range of Klimke overlaps with the claimed range.
Applicant argues that the polypropylene composition as claimed does not require alpha nucleating agents. However, the instant claims employ the transitional phrase “comprising” and therefore do not preclude other components being present.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to have increased the amount of xylene solubles because Klimke relies on the alpha nucleating agents for stiffness. However, as set forth above, Klimke already teaches a value which overlaps with the claimed range, therefore, there is no need to increase the amount of xylene solubles.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine Klimke and Lee because Lee is directed to an insulating material. However, both Lee and Klimke are directed to polypropylene compositions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the particular neutralizers and antioxidants as taught by Lee in the composition of Klimke in view of their art recognized suitability for use in polypropylene compositions.
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 ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights