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 .
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 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki et al. (JP 2002-127313) in view of Nakakita et al. (US 2018/0370286).
Regarding claim 1, Miki teaches a composite comprising a layer of rigid thermoplastic resins, including modified polyphenylene ether resin and a layer of a styrene-butadiene copolymer (“a multilayer sheet, comprising: a substrate layer (A) that comprises a polyphenylene ether” & “a tie layer (C) that comprises a styrene-diene block copolymer”) (Paragraph [0005]). The composites are used as molded articles for parts including interior and exterior vehicle parts (Paragraph [0025]).
Miki is silent with respect to the composites further including an adhesive layer comprising an acid-modified polyolefin.
Nakakita teaches a tire frame which includes an adhesive layer formed from an acid modified polyolefin which provides improved durability during normal and high temperature applications (Paragraphs [0007]-[0011]; [0083]-[0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the composites of Miki with the adhesive layers of Nakakita in order to adhere the composites to interior or exterior vehicle parts while having improved durability during normal and high temperature operations.
Regarding claim 2, Miki teaches the composite as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the layer of rigid thermoplastic resins is formed from polyphenylene ether, which is described in the instant specification as being a preferred material for the substrate which satisfies the property of having a softening point of 175°C or higher (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraphs [0030]; [0040]). MPEP 2112.01(II): "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).
Regarding claim 3, Miki teaches the composite as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the layer of rigid thermoplastic resins is formed from polyphenylene ether, which is described in the instant specification as being a preferred material for the substrate which satisfies the property of having a storage modulus at 160°C of 500 MPa or more. (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraphs [0030]; [0041]). MPEP 2112.01(II): "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).
Regarding claim 4, Miki teaches the composite as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the composites are provided with an adhesive which is an acid modified polyolefin which is preferably a maleic acid/anhydride modified polyolefin (Paragraphs [0091]-0097]; [0199]).
Regarding claim 10, Miki teaches the composite as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Miki further teaches the inclusion of optional compounding agents so long as they don’t significantly impair the effects of the invention, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as this teaching the styrene-butadiene copolymer being present in an amount greater than 50% of the layer B (Paragraph [0020]).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki et al. (JP 2002-127313) in view of Nakakita et al. (US 2018/0370286) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyamura et al. (US 2015/0200319).
Regarding claim 5, Miki teaches the composite as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the composites include a styrene-butadiene block copolymer.
Miki is silent with respect to the styrene-butadiene block copolymer having a functional group selected from the group consisting of a carboxylic acid, carboxylic anhydride, and epoxy, an amino, or a combination thereof.
Miyamura teaches a laminate which has satisfactory weather resistance, heat resistance, moisture resistance and other properties through the combination of a polyphenylene ether-based resin and a PVDF resin (Paragraph [0014]). The two resins are combined through an adhesive layer of SBS copolymers (Paragraphs [0071]-[0078]). The SBS resins are further provided with a maleic-acid modified product of a hydrogenation product of the styrene-butadiene block copolymers in order to improve the long term durability and adhesive strength of the adhesion layer (Paragraph [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the styrene-butadiene block copolymer layer of Miki to further be a maleic-acid modified product of a hydrogenation product of the SBS copolymers in order to improve the long term durability and adhesive strength of the layer as taught by Miyamura.
Regarding claim 7, Miki teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Nakakita further teaches the thickness of the adhesive layer being from 20 to 100 microns (Paragraph [0126]).
Miki is silent with respect to the thickness of the rigid thermoplastic resin layer being 50 to 300 microns and the styrene-butadiene copolymer having a thickness of 2 to 50 microns.
Miyamura teaches a laminate which has satisfactory weather resistance, heat resistance, moisture resistance and other properties through the combination of a polyphenylene ether-based resin and a PVDF resin (Paragraph [0014]). The two resins are combined through an adhesive layer of SBS copolymers (Paragraphs [0071]-[0078]). The polyphenylene ether resin layer and the adhesion layers have thicknesses of 50 to 500 microns and 5to 50 microns, respectively (Paragraph [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the polyphenylene ether layer of Miki to have a thickness of 50 to 500 microns and the styrene-butadiene block copolymer layer to have a thickness of 5 to 50 microns such that Miyamura teaches laminates which have sufficient weather resistance, heat resistance, moisture resistance and other properties.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki et al. (JP 2002-127313) in view of Nakakita et al. (US 2018/0370286) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hansen (US 4,104,323).
Regarding claim 6, Miki teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Miki is silent with respect to the styrene-butadiene block copolymer layer further comprising a polyphenylene ether.
Hansen teaches adhesive compositions which melt blend a polyphenylene resin alloy with a styrene-diene block copolymer in order to possess a higher service temperature and is stable against oxidative degradation over a long period of time (Col. 3, Lines 6-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the styrene-butadiene block copolymer to further include a polyphenylene resin alloy in order to possess a higher service temperature and is stable against oxidative degradation over a long period of time as taught by Hansen.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki et al. (JP 2002-127313) in view of Nakakita et al. (US 2018/0370286) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hansen (US 4,104,323) and Haaf (US 4,167,507).
Regarding claim 9, Miki teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Miki is silent with respect to the styrene-butadiene block copolymer layer further comprising a polyphenylene ether in an amount of 20% by mass or more.
Hansen teaches adhesive compositions which melt blend a polyphenylene resin alloy with a styrene-diene block copolymer in order to possess a higher service temperature and is stable against oxidative degradation over a long period of time (Col. 3, Lines 6-14).
Haaf teaches novel resin compositions which include a polyphenylene ether and a hydrogenated block copolymer (Col. 1, Lines 9-18). The compositions are taught to have high deflection temperatures, higher impact resistance and UV stability (Col. 3, Lines 1-5). These compositions preferably contain at least 20% by weight of polyphenylene ether based on the total weight of the resinous components (Col. 3, Lines 33-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the styrene-butadiene block copolymer to further include a polyphenylene resin alloy in order to possess a higher service temperature and is stable against oxidative degradation over a long period of time as taught by Hansen. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to include the polyphenylene ether in an amount greater than 20% by weight such that this amount provides high deflection temperatures, higher impact resistance and UV stability as taught by Haaf.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 4-8, applicant argues that the combination of Miki and Nakakita is improper and fails to teach each of the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, applicant argues that Miki focuses on the bonding of specific layers and teaches away from using an adhesive layer as required by the claims. Additionally, applicant argues that the translation provided provides consisting of language rather than comprising language and, as such, one of ordinary skill would interpret the invention to be a two-layer composite rather than including additional layers. Lastly, the combination is not combinable such that Nakakita teaches the application of the adhesion layer to a polyamide-based elastomer resulting in the structure of claim 1 not being taught.
The examiner is unpersuaded such that the combination does not aim to further include a layer between the polyphenylene ether layer and the styrene-butadiene copolymer layer. Instead, these layers correspond to the substrate layer and the tie layer and are merely silent with respect to the adhesive layer which is not located between the substrate and the tie layer. The claim requires, in sequence, a substrate layer/tie layer/adhesive layer. As such, the combination does not aim to provide a primer or adhesive layer between the polyphenylene ether layer and the styrene-butadiene layer.
Turning back to the combination, Miki teaches a substrate layer which comprises a polyphenylene ether and a tie layer which comprises a styrene-butadiene copolymer as required by the claim. Furthermore, the composites are designed to be applied to automobile interior and exterior parts (Paragraph [0027]). Nakakita teaches a useful adhesive for tire frames which are formed from acid modified polyolefins which have sufficient durability during times of normal and high temperature climates (Paragraphs [0083]-[0085]). Therefore, both the inventions of Miki and Nakakita are directed towards automotive fields and one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to apply the provide the composites of Miki with the adhesives of Nakakita in order to apply the composites to automobile components.
Ultimately, the examiner contends that the combination is proper and teaches each of the limitations of claim 1.
The current rejection is made FINAL.
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 DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights