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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al (JP 2015 145484, please see machine translation for mapping) in view of Wang et al (CN 111635695, please see machine translation for mapping).
Regarding claims 1-3, Sano teaches a resin composition for impact absorption (Abstract) comprising:
An A composition comprising a block copolymer each comprising a first polymer component having a glass transition temperature of 30 C or more and a second polymer component having a glass transition temperature of 0 C or less (Abstract)
a B component comprising a polymer having compatibility with component A (Abstract)
a C component comprising a filler compatible or dispersible in component B (Abstract)
Sano teaches that other additives such as flame retardants can be added to the composition (page 9, top paragraph), however fails to teach the recited component D.
Wang teaches a polymeric composition which has a damping effect (Abstract) and incorporates a liquid composition such as Exolit OP550 which is a phosphorus containing polyol (page 11, 2nd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Exolit OP550 of Wang as the flame retardant of Sano. One would have been motivated to do so in order to add flame retardancy to a damping polymeric composition (Wang, page 11, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Sano teaches that the block copolymer A is present in the amount of 1 to 99% by weight (page 8).
Regarding claim 5, Sano teaches that the first polymer component can styrene-based, a poly (meth)acrylate resin, a polyamide resin or polyester resin (pate 3).
Regarding claim 6, Sano teaches that the first polymer component is a styrene-based resin (page 3) and component B can be an aromatic hydrocarbon resin or an alicyclic hydrocarbon resin (page 4).
Regarding claim 7, Sano teaches that the first polymer component can be a poly (meth)acrylate resin and component B is an aliphatic hydrocarbon resin (page 5).
Regarding claim 9, Sano teaches that the first polymer component can be a poly (meth)acrylate resin and component B is an aromatic hydrocarbon resin (page 4).
Regarding claim 10, Sano teaches that component C is a compound having two or more cyclic structures selected from the group consisting of aromatic hydrocarbons, aliphatic cyclic hydrocarbons, and heteroaromatic hydrocarbons or a metal salt of the compound (page 6).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al (JP 2015 145484, please see machine translation for mapping) in view of Wang et al (CN 111635695, please see machine translation for mapping) with evidence provided by Miyazaki (US 2017/0210881).
The discussion regarding Sano and Wang in paragraph 3 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 8, Sano teaches that Alfon UC-3000 can be used as the (meth)acrylate resin (page 6). As evidenced by Miyazaki, this has a molecular weight of 10,000 (page 10, 2nd column, acrylic resin (4)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights