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. Status of Application Claims 1-14 are pending and presented for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 1. Claim(s) 1, 2 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5137960) . I. Regarding claims 1, 2 and 8-10 , Matsumoto teaches a vinyl chloride resin composition comprising: vinyl chloride based paste resin (Table, Example 6); a plasticizer (Table, Example 6); and crosslinked vinyl chloride resin GR-1300 which includes 25% tetrahydrofuran-insoluble content (Table, Example 6 and column 5, lines 56-60). Matsumoto teaches the composition includes at least 12.5% tetrahydrofuran-insoluble content (Table, Example 6), the plasticizer present in an amount in the range as claimed in claim 8 (Table, Example 6) and the composition to be used in powder/powder-slush molding (abstract). Matsumoto teaches all the critical limitations of claims 1, 2 and 8-10; therefore , Matsumoto anticipates claims 1, 2 and 8-10. II. Regarding claims 11-14, Matsumoto teaches a molded product obtained from molding the composition (abstract) for use in an automobile instrument panel (column 2, lines 23-25) , and a laminate having a foamed polyurethane molded product and the vinyl chloride resin molded product (column 8, lines 27-30) for use in automobile instrument panels (column 2, lines 23-25) . Matsumoto teaches all the limitations of claims 11-14; therefore, Matsumoto anticipates the claims. 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. 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. 2. Claim (s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto. Regarding claims 3 and 4, Matsumoto teaches all the limitations of claim 2, but fails to teach an exemplary embodiment with the crosslinked resin present in an amount as claimed. However, Matsumoto does teach that the crosslinked resin may be present in a range overlapping the ranges as claimed in claims 3 and 4 ( see Matsumoto at claims 1 and 2). Furthermore, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. 3. Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Fujiwara (U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0288463). Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto anticipates claim 2 (see above), but fails to teach the inclusion of vinyl chloride resin fine particles and the claimed ratio of the fine particles to the crosslinked resin. However, Fujiwara teaches a similar vinyl chloride resin composition (abstract) comprising: a base vinyl chloride resin (Table 2, Example 5); a plasticizer comprising a trimellitic acid ester and a polyester in a ratio of 9:4, and contained in an amount between 30-200 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts of the total of the vinyl chloride resin (Table 2, Example 5); and vinyl chloride resin fine particles (Table 2, Example 5). Fujiwara teaches the composition to be used for powder molding, more specifically powder-slush molding (0125). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumoto’s composition by including vinyl chloride resin fine particles as disclosed by Fujiwara. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Fujiwara teaches that the inclusion of the fine particles improves powder fluidity of the vinyl chloride resin composition (0040). Furthermore, adjusting the ratio of the crosslinked vinyl chloride to the vinyl chloride resin fine particles will alter the fluidity of the composition, the finishing characteristics, and the heat resistance (see Fujiwara at 0040 and Matsumoto at column 3, lines 24-34). Therefore, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range for ratio of crosslinked vinyl chloride to vinyl chloride resin fine particles through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). 4. Claim (s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Sugita et al. (JPH08337700) . Regarding claims 6 and 7, Matsumoto teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach the composition including a plasticizer including a trimellitic acid ester and a polyester in a mass ratio as claimed. However, Sugita teaches a plasticizer for vinyl chloride resins (abstract) which is a mixture of a trimellitic acid ester and a polyester (abstract) in a ratio of 1/9 to 9/1 (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumoto’s composition by utilizing Sugita’s plasticizer for Matsumoto’s plasticizer. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Sugita teaches that this plasticizer imparts high flexibility, heat resistance, oil resistance, cold resistance and migration resistance (abstract). 5. Claim (s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara in view of Ichikawa (JPH11130926) . I. Regarding claims 1-10, Fujiwara teaches a vinyl chloride resin composition (abstract) comprising: a base vinyl chloride resin (Table 2, Example 5); a plasticizer comprising a trimellitic acid ester and a polyester in a ratio of 9:4, and contained in an amount between 30-200 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts of the total of the vinyl chloride resin (Table 2, Example 5); and vinyl chloride resin fine particles (Table 2, Example 5). Fujiwara teaches the composition to be used for powder molding, more specifically powder-slush molding (0125). Fujiwara fails to teach the vinyl chloride resin including a crosslinked vinyl chloride resin in an amount as claimed and provid ing a n insoluble content ratio as claimed, the crosslinked vinyl chloride resin in amounts as claimed with respect to the vinyl chloride resin and the vinyl chloride resin fine particles . However, Ichikawa teaches the inclusion of a partially crosslinked vinyl chloride resin having a tetrahydrofuran-insoluble portion in combination with a vinyl chloride resin and a plasticizer selected from a group including a trimellitic acid ester and a polyester (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujiwara’s resin composition by including a crosslinked vinyl chloride resin that has a tetrahydrofuran insoluble portion as disclosed by Ichikawa. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Ichikawa teaches the inclusion of this type of resin can achieve a matte finish without reducing physical strength of molded parts for vehicle interior parts (0006). Furthermore, adjusting the amount of the crosslinked vinyl chloride in the composition and in relation to the vinyl chloride resin and the resin fine particles is a result-effective variable that will alter the total tetrahydrofuran-insoluble content and will alter the matte properties and the cohesion properties (0006). Therefore, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges for the total tetrahydrofuran-insoluble content and the amount of the crosslinked vinyl resin through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). II. Regarding claims 11-14, Fujiwara in view of Ichikawa make obvious the composition (see above). Furthermore, Fujiwara teaches a molded product obtained from the composition (claim 11) for use in an automobile instrument panel as a surface skin (claim 12), and a laminate having a foamed polyurethane molded product and the vinyl chloride resin molded product (claim 13) for use in automobile instrument panels (claim 12). Therefore, Fujiwara in view of Ichikawa also make obvious claims 11-14. Conclusion Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-14 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5351 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1295 . 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 WALTERS JR/ February 23, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717