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 1-18 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 2, 10-13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 102417718, of which reference is made to the English translation).
I. Regarding claims 1, 2 and 10, Wang teaches a polyphenylene ether resin composition (Embodiment 10, 0064-0066) comprising: 100 parts of a polyphenylene ether mixture with styrene-based resins (Embodiment 10 and note that Kraton G1701, CMG-T-02 and MPC1505 are styrene-based resins, see 0017-0018); 13 parts polypropylene (Embodiment 10); and 15.6 parts glass fiber (Embodiment 10) as the only inorganic filler (a ratio of 1.2 glass fibers to polypropylene resin). Wang further teaches the content of polyphenylene ether mixture is approximately 65% polyphenylene ether resin and 35% styrene-based resins (Embodiment 10). Wang fails to make clear in this example that the polypropylene is homopolymer polypropylene.
However, Wang specifically teaches that the polypropylene can be selected from any of copolymer polypropylene, homopolymer polypropylene or a mixture of the two (0015). 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 Wang’s example to substitute homopolymer polypropylene for the unspecified polypropylene of the example. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have made this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success (particularly given that Wang makes clear that homopolymer polypropylene may be used), and the predictable result of providing a polyphenylene ether resin composition.
II. Regarding claim 11, Wang makes obvious claim 1 (see above), and additionally teaches that the only styrene based resin can be the toughening agent (see Wang at claims 1, 5 and 6) which can be present in a range with respect to the polyphenylene ether resin overlapping the claimed range (see Wang at claim 1). Furthermore, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
III. Regarding claims 12 and 13, Wang makes obvious claim 11 (see above). Additionally, Wang teaches that the composition may include an antioxidant (which is a type of stabilizer) (0032), which may be a phosphite based compound (see Wang at claim 7) in an amount overlapping the claimed range (see Wang at claim 1). Furthermore, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
IV. Regarding claim 15, Wang makes obvious an identical resin composition to that claimed. Therefore, Wang’s composition will inherently have the claimed CTI value and tensile strength values. Note that “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. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. “The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty.”).
V. Regarding claims 16 and 17, Wang makes obvious the polyphenylene ether-based resin composition of claim 1 (see above). Additionally, Wang teaches a molded article prepared from the composition which can be a battery unit housing (abstract and 0004). Therefore, Wang also makes obvious claims 16 and 17.
2. Claim(s) 3-9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Inagaki (JP2020117669, of which reference is made to the previously provided English translation).
Regarding claims 3-9 and 14, Wang makes obvious claim 1, but fails to teach the inclusion of a flame retardant as claimed, an additional inorganic filler, selected from mica and talc, the polypropylene homopolymer having a melt flow rate as claimed and a black pigment in an amount as claimed.
However, Inagaki teaches a similar polyphenylene ether based resin composition which comprises: 100% of the polyphenylene ether based resin and no styrene-based resin (see Polyphenylene ether resin section and Resin composition section); a polypropylene homopolymer (see Polypropylene resin section and Resin composition section); a phosphoric acid ester based flame retardant (see Phosphate ester compound section and Resin composition section); an additional additive which can be calcium carbonate and/or carbon black pigment (see Other additives section and Resin composition section); and an inorganic filler, such as talc (see Resin composition section). Inagaki teaches the polypropylene resin present in 1-100 parts to 100 parts of the polyphenylene ether (abstract), wherein the melt flow rate is 0.1 g/10 min to 20 g/10 min (see Polypropylene section and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness). Inagaki also teaches the talc present in 5-40 parts to 100 parts the polyphenylene ether (page 51 and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness), which equates to a ratio with the polypropylene of 0.05-4, the amount of phosphoric acid ester flame retardant from 5-40 parts (page 51 and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness), and the calcium carbonate and/or black pigment present in 0-800 parts (page 51 and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness). 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 Wang’s composition by utilizing a polypropylene with a melt flow rate in the range as claimed, and the inclusion of a phosphoric acid ester based flame retardant, calcium carbonate, talc and carbon black in the amounts as claimed as disclosed by Inagaki. One would have been motivated to make these modifications to suppress drawdown (see Inagaki at Polypropylene section), provide additional reinforcement (Inagaki at page 50), provide color (Inagaki at Talc section, page 50) and provide flame retardancy (Inagaki at abstract) to Wang’s composition.
3. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Naidu et al. (“Fabrication of E-Glass Fibre Based Composite Material with Induced Particulate Additives”).
Regarding claim 18, Wang makes obvious claim 1, but fails to explicitly recite that the glass fiber is E glass fiber. However, Naidu teaches that it is conventional to utilize E glass fiber in fiber glass polymer composites (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 Wang’s composition by utilizing E glass fibers as the glass fiber as disclosed by Naidu. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Naidu teaches that E glass is widely used and has good properties, such as electrical resistivity, resistance to heat, chemicals and moisture when compared to other fibers (Section 3.1).
Conclusion
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1-18 are rejected.
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 ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 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/
October 7, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
