Claims 1, and 3-8 are pending in the application. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
The 112 rejection has been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response.
The rejections over Nishimura and further in view of Takesada have been overcome in view of the present amendment and response. Nishimura discloses a vinyl chloride resin composition for powder molding having superior heat resistance, colorability, and processability without using a heavy metal stabilizer, comprising a vinyl chloride resin, an organic acid calcium salt, an organic acid zinc salt, an organic acid potassium salt, and an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 1,000 to 4,000 (abstract, and paragraph 51). Nishimura fails to teach the molecular weight in a range of 5,000 to 50,000.
The rejection over Takesada in view of Nishimura has been withdraw in view of the present amendment and response. Takesada discloses a surface skin of an automotive interior material obtained using powder molding of a vinyl chloride resin composition comprising a vinyl chloride resin, a plasticizer, and an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 50,000 to 2,500,000 in an amount of 4 to 23 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the vinyl chloride resin wherein the plasticizer comprises a polyester and a trimellitic acid ester (abstract, paragraphs 23, 28, 77 and 78). Takesada fails to teach the content of the acrylic polymer in a range of from 0.05 to 1 part by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the vinyl chloride resin.
New ground of rejection is made in view of newly discovered references to Sengoku et al. (US 2013/0317157), Yoshino et al. (US 2012/0123038), and Hsu et al. (US 2007/0117725).
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 3-7 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”).
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 a molecular weight of the acrylic lubricant.
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.
As to claim 3, the claim does not positively recite that the plasticizer includes a combination of a trimellitic acid ester and a polyester. Therefore, the examiner equates the total content of the trimellitic acid ester and the polyester to either the content of the trimellitic acid ester or the content of the polyester individually. Sengoku discloses 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 aging 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).
Claim 8 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengoku in view of Hsu as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2012/0123038 to Yoshino et al. (hereinafter “Yoshino”).
Neither Snegoku nor Hsu discloses or suggests a laminate comprising a foamed polyurethane layer adhered to the vinyl chloride resin molded product.
Yoshino, 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 perchlorate stabilizer (abstract, paragraphs 58 and 77, and example 2).
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 Yoshino to the vinyl chloride resin molded product of Sengoku/Hsu, motivated by the desire to form an automotive interior component.
Claims 1, and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino in view of Hsu.
As to claims 1 and 4, Yoshino 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 perchlorate stabilizer (abstract, paragraphs 58 and 77, and example 2). Yoshino teaches the vinyl chloride resin composition further comprising a lubricant (paragraph 57).
Sengoku does not explicitly disclose an acrylic lubricant and its molecular weight.
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 Hsu for the lubricant of Yoshino, motivated by the desire to promote processing and handling of the material.
As to claim 3, the claim does not positively recite that the plasticizer includes a combination of a trimellitic acid ester and a polyester. Therefore, the examiner equates the total content of the trimellitic acid ester and the polyester to either the content of the trimellitic acid ester or the content of the polyester individually. Yoshino discloses that the vinyl chloride resin composition contains 80 parts by mass of the trimellitate based on 100 parts by mass of the vinyl chloride resin (paragraph 76).
Alternatively, Yoshino discloses the plasticize including trimellitate and polyester (paragraph 58). In particular, the vinyl chloride resin composition contains 80 parts by mass of the trimellitate based on 100 parts by mass of the vinyl chloride resin (paragraph 76). That is to say, the total content of the trimellitate and polyester will be exceeding 80 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the vinyl chloride resin.
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 aging 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, Yoshino discloses that the vinyl chloride resin composition is used in powder molding (paragraphs 6, 19 and 74).
As to claim 7, Yoshino discloses that the vinyl chloride resin molded product is useful as an interior material for automobiles (paragraph 81).
As to claim 8, Yoshino discloses that a laminate comprises a polyurethane foam layer and the vinyl chloride resin molded product adhered to the polyurethane foam layer (paragraph 77).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino in view of Hsu, further in view of US 2021/0363343 or WO2020/179732 to Takesada et al. (hereinafter “Takesada”).
Neither Yoshino nor Hsu discloses or suggests the total content of the trimellitic acid ester and the polyester not less than 30 parts by mass and not more than 200 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the vinyl chloride resin.
Takesada, however, discloses a surface skin of an automotive interior material obtained using powder molding of a vinyl chloride resin composition comprising a vinyl chloride resin, a plasticizer, and an acrylic polymer with a molecular weight of 50,000 to 2,500,000 wherein the plasticizer comprises a polyester and a trimellitic acid ester (abstract, paragraphs 23, 28, 77 and 78). The acrylic polymer includes a structural unit derived from 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (paragraph 31).
Takesada discloses that the vinyl chloride resin composition comprises 120-200 parts by mass of a polyester plasticizer, and 80 parts by mass or less of a trimellitic acid ester, relative to 100 parts by mass of the vinyl chloride resin (paragraphs 22, 23, and 28). The total content of the polyester plasticizer and the trimellitic acid ester plasticizer 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 disclosed in Yoshino in the range disclosed in Takesada, motivated by the desire to improve heat aging 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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