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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed June 10, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10-12 remain pending in the application.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidehiro (JP2006307177, English translation provided), further in view of Stuart et al. (US 6,822,023).
Regarding claim 1, Hidehiro discloses that, as illustrated in figs. 1, 2, 3, a method for manufacturing a molded article of polypropylene-based resin expanded beads (page 1, lines 15-17), the method comprising filling a mold with polypropylene-based resin expanded beads in a state of being compressed by pressurized gas, and then supplying a heating medium into the mold to perform in-mold molding on the polypropylene-based resin expanded beads in the mold (page 1, lines 25-29 and page 9, lines 514-518), wherein
the polypropylene-based resin expanded beads each have a tubular shape with a through-hole (e.g., items 1 (i.e., expanded (cylindrical) particle) and 2 (i.e., a through-hole) in Fig. 1 (page 3, lines 146-147)),
an average hole diameter of the through-holes of the polypropylene-based resin expanded beads is 0.1 mm or more and less than 1 mm (e.g., 0.05 to 0.24 mm (overlapping the claimed range of 0.1-1.0 mm) (page 9, lines 524-528)), a ratio d/D of the average hole diameter d of the through-holes to an average outer diameter D of the polypropylene-based resin expanded beads is 0.4 or less (e.g., ratio HD/D0 is 0.08 to 0.4 (overlapping the claimed range of 0.4 or less) (page 3, lines 171-173)), and
a compression ratio P of the polypropylene-based resin expanded beads in a state of being filled in the mold, which is represented by the following formula (1), is 20% or more and 80% or less (e.g., the compression rate is 4 to 25 % by volume (page 10, lines 595-597); page 11, lines 613-616 (for equation (1))):
P = [{a/(b×c)}-1]×100 ... (1)
(in the formula (1), a represents a mass (unit: kg) of the polypropylene-based resin expanded beads filled in the mold, b represents a bulk density (unit: kg/m3) of the polypropylene-based resin expanded beads, and c represents an internal volume (unit: m3) of the mold) (see page 11, lines 613-616).
However, Hidehiro does not explicitly disclose the compression ratio of the polypropylene-based resin expanded beads in a state of being filled in the mold is from 30% to 80%.
In the same field of endeavor, in mold foamed articles, Stuart discloses that, in Example 1-3, the pre-expanded particles were placed in a pressure vessel and compressed by air pressure, and the compressed particles were filled in a mold having a size of 450X300X60 mm at a compression rate of at least 10% (col. 14, lines 25-29) (overlapping the claimed range of 30-80%).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Stuart overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Hidehiro to have the molded articles of the polypropylene-based resin expanded beads as Stuart teaches that it is known to have the compression ratio of the polypropylene-based resin expanded beads in a state of being filled in the mold is from 30% to 80%. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claims 2, 7, Hidehiro discloses that, the ratio of the apparent density to the bulk density of 1.6 to 2.1 is more preferable (page 10, lines 574-575) (overlapping the claimed range of 1.6 to 2.0). Hidehiro discloses that, the apparent density is more preferably 20 to 35 g/l (page 5, lines 273-274). Thus, the corresponding bulk density is more preferably in the range of 9.5 to 21.8 g/l (overlapping the claimed range of 10 to 50 kg/m3) (related to claim 7).
Regarding claim 3, Hidehiro discloses that, the cylindrical resin particle which has a through-hole inside can be manufactured by using the extruder die which has the (circular) slit similar to the cross-sectional shape of a desired resin particle in molten resin exit (page 9, lines 510-512). Thus, at least Hidehiro discloses that the shape of the through hole is circular (i.e., its circularity is 1.0) when the expanded particles exit the die then may change later.
Regarding claim 4, Hidehiro discloses that, a polypropylene-based resin which is a base resin of the polypropylene-based resin expanded beads is an ethylene-propylene random copolymer, and an amount of an ethylene component in the ethylene-propylene random copolymer is 0.5% by mass or more and 3.5% by mass or less (page 6, lines 350-356 (overlapping)).
Regarding claim 9, Hidehiro discloses that, the compression rate is 4 to 25 % by volume (page 10, lines 595-597; page 11, lines 613-616 (for equation (1)) for the molded body produced by the polypropylene resin expanded/foamed beads (page 11, lines 618-630).
However, Hidehiro does not disclose that, the compression ratio P of the polypropylene resin expanded/foamed beads is from 30% to 80%.
Hidehiro discloses the claimed invention except for the compression ratio P of the polypropylene resin expanded/foamed beads being from 30% to 80%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Hidehiro since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges (e.g., 4 to 25 %) are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties and further being motivated to expand the application of the polypropylene resin expanded/foamed beads.
Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Regarding claim 10, Hidehiro discloses that, the cylindrical resin particle which has a through-hole inside can be manufactured by using the extruder die which has the (circular) slit similar to the cross-sectional shape of a desired resin particle in molten resin exit (page 9, lines 510-512). Thus, at least Hidehiro discloses that the shape of the through hole is circular (i.e., its circularity is 1.0) when the expanded particles exit the die then may change later.
Regarding claim 11, Hidehiro discloses that, a molded body is produced having a porosity of 0 to 11% by volume (overlapping the claimed rang of 12% or less) without pressing the foamed particle (page 11, lines 618-620).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Hidehiro overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Hidehiro discloses that, furthermore, in order to obtain a molded article excellent in high foaming, the apparent density is more preferably 20 to 35 g/L (page 5, lines 273-274). It is noticed that, the ratio (Dt/Db) of the apparent density Dt to the bulk density Db is preferably 1.6 to 1.9 (page 10, lines 574-575). Thus, Hidehiro discloses that, approximately, the bulk density of the molded article of polypropylene-based resin expanded beads is 32 to 66.5 g/L (overlapping the claimed range of 20 kg/m3 to 50 kg/m3).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Hidehiro overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hidehiro (JP2006307177, English translation provided) and Stuart et al. (US 6,822,023) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Nohara et al. (US 9,079,360).
Regarding claims 5, 6, Hidehiro in the combination does not explicitly disclose a flexural modulus of the polypropylene based resin and the difference of the melting points between the core layer and the cover layer of the expanded beads. In the same field of endeavor, molded articles based on expanded beads, Nohara discloses that, the bending modulus of the polypropylene based resin is preferably 1,300 MPa or less (overlapping the claimed range of 800 to 1600 MPa) (col. 12, lines 35-38). Nohara discloses that, the outer layer (cover) is formed of a polyolefin-based resin having a lower melting point than that of a polyolefin-based resin forming the core layer (col. 17, lines 65-67) (related to claim 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Nohara to provide a flexural modulus of the polypropylene based resin is in the range of 800 to 1600 MPa and the melting points of the cover layer of the expanded beads is lower than the melting point of its core layer. Doing so would be possible to make the polypropylene based resin expanded beads molded articles having excellent bending deflection characteristics, a high porosity and a low bulk density, as recognized by Nohara (col. 2, lines 7-14).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination if Hidehiro (JP2006307177, English translation provided) and Stuart et al. (US 6,822,023) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hattori et al. (US 5,366,674)
Regarding claim 8, Hidehiro in the combination does not explicitly disclose the detailed structural components for making the molded articles based on filling the expanded beads. In the same field of endeavor, producing expanded plastics, Hattori discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1-4, inlet 12 is led to hopper 15 through flexible pipe 16, and the hopper 15 is equipped with pressurized means 17 for effective feed of exploded beads 3 (col. 3, lines 53-56). To further improve filling efficiency, it is effective to apply pressure of from 0.5 to 3 kg/cm2G (i.e., 0.15MPa to 0.3 MPa (overlapping the claimed range of 0.15 MPa to 3.0 MPa)), to the hopper 15 by means of pressurizing means 17 (col. 4, lines 62-65). It is noticed that, due to the pressure loss in the pipe 16, the pressure in the mold 5 is slightly lower than the pressure of from 0.5 to 3 kg/cm2G. It is noticed that, during the filling process, the expanded beads are in the compressed state under the approximate pressure of 0.5 to 3 kg/cm2G.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Hattori to provide the detailed structural components for making the molded articles based on filling the expanded beads. Doing so would be possible to improve productivity, as recognized by Hattori (ABSTRACT).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that, one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect methods using a compression ratio of 4 to 25% as taught by the base reference Hidehiro to have similar results as a method using a compression ratio of 30 to 80% as recited in the present claims and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be specifically taught not to use a compression ratio within the claimed range, it is not persuasive.
Hidehiro discloses that, when the compression ratio exceeds 25% by volume, the density of the obtained modeled body is remarkably increased with respect to the bulk density of the expanded particles (page 11, lines 602-603).
Further, since the amount of resin increases as the density of the obtained molded body increases, the cooling time requires a longer time. Therefore, the cooling efficiency was evaluated in consideration of the density of the molded body (page 12, lines 663-665).
However, it is noticed that, for example in Table 3, the cooling time in Example 3 with the respect to the compression ratio of 5% is 87 seconds and the cooling time in Comparative example 7 with the respect to the compression ratio of 35% is 36 seconds.
Thus, the compression ratio should not be the single factor/reason to determine the cooling time.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 about the compression ratio of 30 to 80% 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 571 270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights