DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a reply filed on June 15, 2026. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 13-23 are currently pending and under examination.
The texts of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code are not included in this section and can be found in a prior Office action.
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
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-18, 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/110037.
WO ‘037 teaches a glass-fiber reinforced composition with flame retardancy and low warpage, comprising the following:
60-80 wt% of a propylene composition comprising
50-75 wt% of a heterophasic propylene-ethylene copolymer (HECO) consisting of:
A crystalline propylene homopolymer matrix (M);
An elastomeric ethylene-propylene copolymer (EC);
wherein the HECO has a MFR of 70-150 g/10 min and a xylene cold solubles content of preferably 10-18 wt% (p. 4, ll. 33-35).;
20-45 wt% of a flame-retardant; and
0.1-5 wt% of at least one additive;
optionally 0.1-3 wt% of a polar-modified polypropylene, preferably a maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene, and
20-40 wt% glass fibers.
This suggests a composition comprising 30-60 wt% HECO, 12-36 wt% flame retardant, and 20-40 wt% glass fibers.
WO ‘037 teaches the flame retardant is preferably non-halogenated (p. 9, l. 26), and is most preferably selected from piperazine pyrophosphate, melamine polyphosphate, and mixtures thereof (p. 10, ll. 9-12), and exemplifies the inclusion of piperazine pyrophosphate and melamine polyphosphate in a weight ratio of 50:50 (p. 21, FR1).
Choosing one or both of piperazine pyrophosphate and melamine polyphosphate is prima facie obvious.
WO ‘037 does not teach or suggest the melt flow rate of the composition, as claimed; however, the melt flow rate of the composition would be expected to depend on the melt flow rate of the HECO, as this is the only required polymeric component, where the HECO as having a melt flow rate of 70-150 g/10 min. Inert solid fillers, like glass fibers and the flame retardants, would be expected to decrease the melt flow rate of the composition, therefore, a melt flow rate of less than that of the HECO would be expected. WO ‘037 teaches the composition as comprising the claimed components within the claimed amounts, as described above. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composition to posses the claimed melt flow rate.
See MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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. Id.
To further support this conclusion, applicants show that when the HECO has a melt flow rate of 100 g/10 min, the claimed melt flow of the composition can be met, but when it is much lower, for example 20 g/10 min, the melt flow rate of the composition cannot be met.
WO ‘037 is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 14 and 17.
As to claim 5, non-halogenated flame retardants are preferred and no fluoropolymers are required.
As to claim 11, WO’ 037 teaches that the ethylene content of the cold soluble fraction is from 37-41 wt% and has an intrinsic viscosity of 1.5-3.0 dl/g (p. 5, ll. 1-9).
As to claims 13, 20 and 21, WO ‘037 teaches the HECO as having a MFR of 70-150 g/10 min, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of 105-600 g/10 min in claim 13, 60-200 g/10 min in claim 20 and 80-120 g/10 min in claim 21, and it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
As to claim 15, WO ‘037 teaches the inclusion of a maleic anhydride modified polypropylene with a MFR of 30-150 g/10 min (p. 10, ll. 25-36).
As to claim 16, the composition described above comprises a maximum of 4 wt% additives, suggesting the remaining components being present in 96 wt%.
As to claim 18, WO ‘037 teaches that the HECO is believed to help reduce shrinkage and inhibit warpage of the final article. While WO ‘037 does not teach the specifically claimed shrinkage in flow and cross flow, the compositions of WO ‘037 contain the claimed components in the claimed amounts, and WO ‘037 teaches that the articles have low shrinkage. Applicants have not shown any features which are necessary or critical which are not taught in the prior art which are necessary to meet the claimed shrinkage; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compositions to meet the claimed shrinkage.
As to claim 22, WO ‘037 teaches the inclusion of 0.1-3 wt% of the polar-modified polypropylene, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.4-5 wt%, and it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
As to claim 23, the amount of each component taught by WO ‘037 overlaps with the claimed amounts, as described above, and it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/110037, as applied above to claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-18, 20-23, and further in view of CN 106589587 and WO 2020/064752. For convenience, the machine translation of CN ‘587 will be cited below.
WO ‘037 is prima facie obvious instant claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-18, 20-23, as described above and applied her glass-fiber reinforced composition with flame retardancy and low warpage, comprising 60-80 wt% of a propylene composition comprising 50-75 wt% of a heterophasic propylene-ethylene copolymer (HECO), 20-45 wt% of a flame-retardant; 0.1-3 wt% of a polar-modified polypropylene, preferably a maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene, and 20-40 wt% glass fibers, suggesting a composition comprising 30-60 wt% HECO, 12-36 wt% flame retardant, and 20-40 wt% glass fibers, where the flame retardant is exemplified as a combination of piperazine pyrophosphate and melamine polyphosphate in a weight ratio of 50:50.
WO ‘037 teaches the glass fibers as “preferably” provided in the form of continuous glass fibers, and teaches a special method used to process these compositions when using continuous glass fibers.
CN 111320811 teaches that using a chopped glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composition reduces blending extrusion damage to the glass fiber, while providing a product preparation method of reducing injection molding process damage to the glass fiber.
WO 2020/064752 teaches a similar composition comprising a heterophasic propylene copolymer, glass fiber and flame retardant, teaching that the glass fiber can be continuous, or short fibers, which have an average length of up to 1 mm after processing (p. 12).
Choosing to substitute the continuous fiber in WO ‘037 for short fibers having a length of up to 1 mm after processing is prima facie obvious, as WO ‘037 does not limit the glass fiber to continuous glass fiber, and short glass fibers can be used while still maintaining a desired fiber size without the complex processing method required when using continuous fiber.
WO ‘037 in view of CN ’811 and WO ‘752 is prima facie obvious over instant claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants arguments regarding WO ‘037 have been addressed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/Brieann R Johnston/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights