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 Status Claims 1-10 are pending. 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(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata (JP 2018090656 A ; cited on the IDS filed 09/25/2023; all citations are directed toward the English machine translation ) . Sakata is directed toward a moldable polyphenylene ether-based resin having excellent impact resistance and vibrational fatigue characteristics [p. 0001-0002]. Sakata teaches a resin composition comprising [p. 007-0013] : 40-99 pts. mass of a polyphenylene ether and a polystyrene-based resin , wherein the mass ratio of the polyphenylene ether to the polystyrene-based resin (polyphenylene ether/ polystyrene-based resin) is 99/1 to 5/95 ; 1-60 pts. mass of an inorganic filler, wherein Sakata teaches examples of the fibrous inorganic filler include whiskers such as wollastonite [p. 0033] ; 0 . 1-5 pts. mass of titanium oxide , relative to 100 parts by mass in the total of (A) and (B) ; 0.3-10 pts. mass of calcium carbonate , relative to 100 parts by mass in the total of (A) and (B) ; 2 to 20 pts. mass of a condensed phosphoric acid ester-based flame retardant , relative to 100 parts by mass in the total of (A) and (B) ; and 1 to 20 pts. mass of a block copolymer and / or a hydrogenated block copolymer, relative to 100 parts by mass in the total of (A) and (B). Sakata further teaches t he total amount of the component ( A ) and the component ( B ) in the resin composition is preferably 64.5 to 99.6% by mass from the viewpoint of whiteness, processability, impact resistance, and vibration fatigue characteristics [p. 0038 ; applicants example 2 comprises 76% by of the corresponding components relative to the entire composition ]. T he ranges of instant claims 1, 5, 6, and 8 fall within or overlap with the ranges for each component taught by Sakura . Although Sakura teaches the amount hydrogenated block copolymer (F) relative to 100 parts of (A) and (B), one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would appreciate the general teachings of Sakura obviously embrace embodiments satisfying the range of instant claim 7. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claim(s) 1- 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayano ( JP 2005097477 A1 ; cited on the IDS filed 09/25/2023; all citations are directed toward the English machine translation ) . Hayano discloses a thermoplastic resin and molded article of an automotive outer panel [p. 0001]. The composition of Hayano comprises the following (A) to (D) [p. 0008 , 0035 ]: 100 parts by weight (A) and (B) where the weight ratio of (A)/(B) is 70/30-10/90 [p. 0008], (A) is a polyphenylene ether resin; (B) is a polystyrene resin, wherein examples includes rubber-modified high impact polystyrene (HIPS) [p. 0017], 10 to 250 parts by weight (C) per 100 parts by weight of the total of (A) and (B) [p. 0028]; wherein (C) is an inorganic filler having a relative dielectric constant of 50 or more, wherein examples include titanium oxide and metal titanates [p. 0019], 1 to 100 parts by weight (D) per 100 parts by weight of the total of (A) and (B) [p. 0029]. (D) is a plate-shaped and/or needle shaped inorganic filler, wherein examples include wollastonite [p. 0024; instant claims 2-4 ]. The ranges of instant claims 1 , 5, and 6 fall within or overlap with the ranges for each component taught by Hayano . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to prepare the composition of Hayano with the components, and amounts thereof, taught by Hayano . In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayano ( JP 2005097477 A1 ; cited on the IDS filed 09/25/2023; all citations are directed toward the English machine translation ) in further view of Sakata (JP 2018090656 A ; cited on the IDS filed 09/25/2023; all citations are directed toward the English machine translation ) . The disclosure of Hayano and Sakata is above and is applied here as such. Regarding claim 7; Hayano teaches that other additional components may be added to the composition, such as a weather resistance improver [p. 0033]. Hayano further teaches the resin of the composition is molded into an automobile outer panel [p. 0034]. However, Hayano is silent with respect to the use of a hydrogenated block copolymer in the resin composition. Sakata teaches the use of a hydrogenated block copolymer at 1 to 20 parts by mass, more preferably 1 to 15 parts by mass, and even more preferably 2 to 15 parts by mass, when the total amount of the aromatic resin and inorganic filler components of the composition is 100 parts by mass [p. 0061, 0065]. Sakata teaches when the hydrogenated block copolymer is in this range, the balance of heat resistance, impact resistance, and vibration fatigue characteristics of the composition can be sufficiently improved [p. 0065]. In light of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to prepare the composition of Hayano with a hydrogenated block copolymer component in an amount of 1 to 20 parts by mass as Sakata teaches this additional component improves a composition’s heat resistance, impact resistance, and resistance to vibrational fatigue – all of which are characteristics relevant to the intended use of the composition of Hayano as an automobile outer panel. Regarding claim s 8 and 9 ; Hayano teaches the composition may optionally further comprise a flame retardant [p. 0033]. However, Hayano is silent with respect to c ondensed phosphoric acid ester-based flame retardant s and the amounts thereof. Sakata teaches the use of a condensed phosphoric acid ester-based flame retardant in a similar resin composition, wherein the condensed phosphoric acid ester-based flame retardant is preferably 2 to 20 parts by mass , when the total amount of the aromatic resin and inorganic filler components of the composition is 100 parts by mass [p. 0055] Sakata teaches that when the content of the condensed phosphoric acid ester-based flame retardant is in the range of 2 to 20 parts by mass, the balance among fluidity, heat resistance, and flame retardancy of the composition can be made more sufficiently favorable [p. 0055]. As Sakata teaches a similar composition to Hayano and teaches the use of the condensed phosphoric acid ester-based flame retardant has favorable effects on the composition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select the condensed phosphoric acid ester-based flame retardant taught by Sakata, at the amounts thereof, as the flame retardant in the composition of Hayano . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HOLLEY GRACE HESTER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5435 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:00AM -5:00PM . 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 Randy Gulakowski can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /HOLLEY GRACE HESTER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1766 /RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766