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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kock et al. (US 2014/0031480). Xie et al. (J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2005, vol. 96, p. 1414-1420) and Squire et al. (US 2009/0318597) are cited as evidentiary references.
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 9, Kock teaches a polypropylene composition (Abstract) comprising a glass or carbon fiber filler (p. 6, [0124]). Inventive Examples 8 and 9 (p. 9-10, Table 4) include a polypropylene resin, glass fibers, and calcium stearate (equivalent to the claimed surface modifier).
Regarding claim 3, Kock’s polypropylene preferably has a Mw of 150,000 or lower (p. 2, [0046]) and a molecular weight distribution Mw/Mn of 5.0 to 10.0 (p. 2, [0045]), indicative of a Mn of 30,000 or lower. This overlaps with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, the polypropylene resin is most preferably a homopolymer (p. 3, [0049]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, glass fibers preferably have a length of 3-15 mm and diameter of 10-20 microns (p. 6, [0125]-[0126]).
Regarding claim 10, Kock includes a maleic anhydride functionalized polypropylene when glass fibers are used (p. 6, [0128]). This reads on the claimed compatibilizer.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Kock teaches the use of Exxelor PO1020 as a maleic anhydride functionalized polypropylene (p. 6, [0128]). Squire demonstrates that this product is a homopolymer of polypropylene grafted with 0.5-1.0 wt% maleic anhydride (p. 12, [0135]).
Regarding claim 13, the maleic anhydride functionalized polypropylene is preferably included in amounts of 1.2-4.0 wt% with respect to the total material (p. 6, [0128]). IE8 and IE9 (p. 9, Table 4) includes 0.8 wt% and 2.0 wt% of Exxelor PO1020, respectively, per 77.65 wt% and 56.45 wt%, respectively, of polypropylene. This is indicative of 1.03 and 3.45 parts by weight of maleic anhydride functionalized polypropylene (equivalent to the claimed compatibilizer) per 100 parts polypropylene resin.
Regarding claim 14, the composition includes up to 2 wt% of an alpha-nucleating agent (p. 3, [0061]). Nucleating agents are recognized in the art as resulting in improved impact resistance (see, e.g., Xie, p. 1415, first full paragraph).
Regarding claim 16, Kock’s base resin comprises at least 98.0 wt% polypropylene and up to 2.0 wt% of an additive such as an antioxidant (i.e. heat-resistant agent). This is equivalent to up to approximately 2.04 parts by weight or less of heat-resistant agent per 100 parts polypropylene resin. This overlaps with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, Kock’s composition is employed in injection molding applications (p. 2, [0035]).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, Kock does not expressly disclose the claimed physical properties. Nevertheless, Kock as applied to claims 1 and 18 above is compositionally identical to the claimed molded article and will necessarily possess the claimed properties. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xie et al. (J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2005, vol. 96, p. 1414-1420).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 9, 10, and 15, Xie teaches a mixture of polypropylene (PP), maleated polypropylene (MPP; a compatibilizer), glass fibers, a phenolic antioxidant (a phenol-based heat-resistant agent), and calcium stearate (a surface modifier) (p. 1415, Blending of PP, MPP, and glass fibers; see also Materials and Maleation of PP). This anticipates claims 1, 6, 9, 10, and 15.
Regarding claim 4, the polypropylene resin is not described as containing any comonomers (p. 1415, Materials), and is therefore understood to be a homopolymer.
Regarding claim 11, Xie’s compatibilizer is obtained by treating a polypropylene homopolymer with MAH (p. 1415, Maleation of PP). Thus, Xie’s compatibilizer is understood to “comprise” a polypropylene homopolymer.
Regarding claim 13, the third composition listed in Table 1 at page 1416 includes 30 wt% glass fibers, 5 wt% MPP compatibilizer, 1 wt% calcium stearate, and a total of 0.5 wt% of antioxidants (see also p. 1415, Blending of PP, MPP, and glass fibers), indicating that polypropylene is present in the amount of 63.5 wt%. 5 wt% MPP compatibilizer per 63.5 wt% polypropylene is equivalent to 7.87 parts by weight of compatibilizer per 100 parts by weight of polypropylene. This falls within the claimed range of 1-10 parts by weight.
Regarding claim 14, Xie teaches that physical properties including impact strength are improved by addition of nucleating agents (p. 1415, first full paragraph). Table V (p. 1418) illustrates two examples which include 1.0 wt% of a nucleating agent in compositions which also include 99 wt% of a composite comprising polypropylene and 30 wt% of glass fibers. This is equivalent to a composition including 1.0 wt% nucleating agent, 29.7 wt% glass fibers, and 69.3 wt% polypropylene, or approximately 1.44 parts by weight of nucleating agent per 100 parts polypropylene.
Regarding claim 18, Xie’s composition is molded into test pieces on a hot press (p. 1415, Blending of PP, MPP, and glass fibers).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, Xie does not expressly disclose the claimed physical properties. Nevertheless, Xie as applied to claims 1 and 18 above is compositionally identical to the claimed molded article and will necessarily possess the claimed properties. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (WO 2024/139876 A1; machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Hu teaches a composition comprising polypropylene; resin and glass fibers (Abstract); and calcium stearate as a lubricant (p. 3, line 20; see also p. 4, line 14 – p. 5, line 8 and Examples 1-12).
The instant specification defines the claimed surface modifier as including stearate-based compounds (spec., p. 14, lines 14-16). Although not expressly described as such by Hu, calcium stearate therefore reads on the claimed surface modifier.
Regarding claim 3, Hu teaches that additives including lubricants are present in amounts of 0-1 parts by weight (Abstract; p. 3, lines 14-16 and 20).
Regarding claim 6, Hu’s composition includes glass and polyamide (i.e. nylon) fibers (Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, the composition also includes a compatibilizer (Abstract) and an antioxidant (i.e. a heat-resistant agent) (p. 3, lines 14-15).
Regarding claim 13, the compatibilizer is present in amounts of 2-5 parts by weight (Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, suitable antioxidants include hindered phenol compounds (p. 3, line 17).
Regarding claim 18, the composition is used to form a variety of molded products (p. 3, lines 28-31).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, Hu does not expressly disclose the claimed physical properties. Nevertheless, Hu as applied to claims 1 and 18 above is compositionally identical to the claimed molded article and will necessarily possess the claimed properties. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 1, 4, 6-11, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saito et al. (US 2002/0091191).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 9, Saito teaches long fiber-reinforced polypropylene resin containing long glass fibers (Abstract). The glass fibers are preferably surface treated with a silane coupling agent (p. 2, [0024]). This reads on the surface modifier of claim 1 and the silicone surface modifier of claim 9.
Regarding claim 4, the polypropylene resin may be a propylene homopolymer or a propylene-ethylene copolymer (Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, the glass fibers have a length of 2-50 mm (Abstract). This overlaps with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed range of 6-25 mm, which represents approximately 40% of Saito’s range.
Regarding claim 8, the glass fibers preferably have a mean fiber diameter of 9-23 microns (p. 2, [0024]).
Regarding claim 10, the composition may include an additive such as an antioxidant (i.e. a heat-resistant agent) (p. 3, [0028]).
Regarding claim 11, the polypropylene resin may be a propylene homopolymer or a propylene-ethylene copolymer (Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Saito teaches moldings (i.e. molded articles) (Abstract).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, Saito does not expressly disclose the claimed physical properties. Nevertheless, Saito as applied to claims 1 and 18 above is compositionally identical to the claimed molded article and will necessarily possess the claimed properties. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kabeya et al. (US 2017/0218189).
Regarding claim 1, Kabeya teaches a composition comprising a polypropylene resin and a fiber (Abstract). The fiber may be a glass fiber (p. 16, [0253]) that has been surface-treated with a silicone compound or a higher fatty acid or fatty acid metal salt (p. 16, [0261]) such as stearic acid and salts thereof (p. 16, [0263]).
Regarding claim 5, the composition includes a polypropylene resin (Y) with a melt flow rate (equivalent to the claimed melt index) of 10-100 g/10 min at a temperature of 230°C under a load of 2.16 kg (p. 3, [0049]). Kabeya’s inventive examples include a polypropylene resin (Y-1) having a melt flow rate of 40 (p. 29, [0474]; p. 26, [0435]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito.
Regarding claim 2, Saito remains as applied to claim 1 above. Saito’s Example 1 illustrates a composition comprising 100 parts of a polypropylene resin and 0.1 parts by weight calcium stearate (equivalent to the claimed surface modifier).
The composition is used to impregnate glass fibers and cut into pellets having a glass fiber content of 40% by weight (p. 4, [0048]). This indicates a glass fiber content below the claimed minimum amount of 100 parts by weight per 100 parts polypropylene resin.
However, Saito’s broader disclosure suggests glass fiber content of 35-65 wt% (p. 3, [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to reformulate Saito’s Example 1 with any glass fiber content encompassed by this range, as these amounts are expressly recognized as being suitable.
When combined with a matrix of 100 parts polypropylene resin and 0.1 parts calcium stearate, this is equivalent to approximately 53-144 parts by weight of glass fiber per 100 parts polypropylene resin. This overlaps the claimed range of 100-120 parts by weight. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kock as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Takemoto (JP 2005-085482 A; machine translation referred to herein) and Park et al. (US 2019/0165398).
Regarding claim 18, Kock remains as applied above. Kock’s composition is suggested for use in automotive applications (p. 1, [0002]). The composition has a high degree of dimensional stability (p. 6, [0131]) and increased temperature resistance relative to conventional polypropylene resins (p. 6, [0132]). Kock does not teach a molded product comprising an ion filter.
Takemoto teaches a fuel cell system including an ion exchange filter used to remove ions in coolant circulated within the fuel cell stack (Abstract). The fuel cell system is mounted to a vehicle (p. 1, [0001]). The filter main body is made of polypropylene mixed with glass fiber having a desired degree of heat resistance (p. 2, [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to employ Kock’s composition in a fuel cell system including an ion exchange filter, as this represents an automotive application recognized by Takemoto as being suitable for glass fiber reinforced polypropylene resins having good heat resistance. Additionally, Kock’s composition will provide improved dimensional stability to the fuel cell system.
Regarding claim 19, Kock and Takemoto do not teach a COD heater. In the same field of endeavor, Park teaches that a COD heater may be connected to both terminals of a fuel cell stack to prevent degradation of durability when the vehicle is started up or shut down (p. 1, [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kock in view of Takemoto as applied above, and further in view of Park to include a COD heater in order to prevent degradation of durability when the vehicle is started up or shut down.
Modification in this way reads on claims 19 and 20.
Regarding claim 20, Kock, Takemoto, and Park are silent with respect to ion elution ability. Nevertheless, the prior art as applied above results in an identical molded product formed from an identical composition. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01.
In the alternative, Takemoto prefers a resin material that does not elute (p. 2, [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to minimize or eliminate the ion elution ability of Kock’s composition when forming a fuel cell system according to Takemoto in order to meet this requirement, thereby arriving at the claimed range. Note that elimination of ion elution (consistent with a “resin material that does not elute”) would result in ion elution ability of 0.0 ppm, which falls within the claimed range of 0.8 ppm or less.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S JONES JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7733. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/ROBERT S JONES JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights