Claims 1, and 3-8 are pending in the application. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 1, and 3-8 are rejected.
All of the rejections have been withdrawn in view of the present amendment filed on 04/06/2026. Neither Sengoku nor Yoshino discloses a vinyl chloride composition where a mass ratio of a trimellitic acid ester to a polyester is 1/9 or more and 2/1 or less.
New ground of rejection is made in view of newly discovered reference to Masuda et al. (JPH07268159A).
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.
Claims 1, and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0317157 to Sengoku et al. (hereinafter “Sengoku”) in view of US 2007/0117725 to Hsu et al. (hereinafter “Hsu”), and JPH07268159 to Masuda et al. (hereinafter “Masuda”).
As to claims 1 and 4, Sengoku discloses a vinyl chloride resin composition for powder molding comprising a vinyl chloride resin (paragraph 25), a plasticizer including trimellitic acid ester and a polyester (paragraph 63), and an acrylic lubricant in an amount of 0.05 to 5 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the vinyl chloride resin (paragraphs 59 and 60).
Sengoku does not explicitly disclose (i) a molecular weight of the acrylic lubricant, (ii) vinyl chloride resin particles having a particle diameter of 30 µm or more and vinyl chloride resin fine particles having a particle diameter of 30 µm or less, and (iii) a mass ratio of the trimellitic acid ester to the polyester in a range of 1/9 to 2/1.
Hsu, however, discloses an acrylic lubricant comprising a structural unit derived from 2-ethylhexyl acrylate and having a molecular weight of 2,000 to 10,000 (paragraphs 7, and 13). This overlaps the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the acrylic lubricant disclosed in Sengoku having a molecular weight disclosed in Hsu, motivated by the desire to promote processing and handling of the material.
Masuda, however, discloses a vinyl chloride resin composition for powder molding comprising:
100 parts by weight of a vinyl chloride resin,
20-200 parts by weight of a trimellitic acid ester, and 1-50 parts by weight of a polyester plasticizer (paragraph 6). Hence, a mass ratio of the trimellitic acid ester to the polyester plasticizer overlaps the claimed range.
wherein the vinyl chloride resin includes vinyl chloride resin particles having a particle diameter of 110 µm (paragraph 26) and vinyl chloride resin fine particles as a dusting agent having a particle diameter of 0.1 to 10 µm (paragraph 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the vinyl chloride resin particles of Sengoku comprising vinyl chloride resin particles having an average particle size of 110 µm; and vinyl chloride resin fine particles having an average particle size of 0.1 to 10 µm, disclosed in Masuda, motivated by the desire to obtain improved smoothness, flexibility and heat aging resistance.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the trimellitic acid ester plasticizer and the polyester plasticizer of Sengoku with a mass ratio disclosed in Masuda, motivated by the desire to obtain a good balance of fluidity and lightfastness. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 3, Sengoku discloses that the plasticizer is present in an amount of 50 parts by mass or less, relative to 100 parts by mass of the vinyl chloride resin (paragraph 64). This overlaps the claimed range.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the total content of the polyester plasticizer and the trimellitic acid ester plasticizer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such the total content of the polyester plasticizer and the trimellitic acid ester plasticizer is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the total content of the polyester plasticizer and the trimellitic acid ester plasticizer in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to improve heat resistance and surface quality. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claims 5 and 6, Sengoku discloses that the vinyl chloride resin composition is used in powder molding (paragraph 85).
As to claim 7, Sengoku discloses that the vinyl chloride resin molded product is useful as an interior material for automobiles (paragraph 86).
As to claim 8, Sengoku in view of Hsu does not explicitly disclose a laminate comprising a foamed polyurethane layer adhered to the vinyl chloride resin molded product.
Masuda, however, discloses a laminate comprising a foamed polyurethane layer adhered to a vinyl chloride resin molded product wherein the vinyl chloride resin molded product is obtained from a vinyl chloride resin composition comprising a vinyl chloride resin, a trimellitate plasticizer, and a polyester plasticizer (abstract, paragraphs 6 and 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a laminate by adhering a polyurethane foam layer disclosed in Masuda to the vinyl chloride resin molded product of Sengoku/Hsu, motivated by the desire to form an automotive interior component.
Response to Arguments
The rejection over Sengoku in view of Hsu and Iwahori has been withdrawn in view of the present amendment filed on 04/06/2026. None of the cited references discloses a vinyl chloride composition comprising a mass ratio of the trimellitic acid ester to the polyester in a range of 1:9 to 2:1.
The rejection over Yoshino in view of Hsu and Iwahori has been overcome for the same reasons discussed above.
However, new combination of Sengoku, Hsu and Masuda suggests the claimed invention.
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 Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights