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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I., Species A, drawn to Claims 1-17, 19, 20, and 25-26 in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that (1) the claims to the different species are not mutually exclusive and (2) the alleged inventions would not give the examiner any substantial search burden. This is not found persuasive because (1) claims 20-24 recites limitations disclosed for a first species but not a second, while a second claim recites limitations disclosed only for the second species and not the first and are therefore mutually exclusive and (2) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classifications B29L 2011/00 and B29C 45/0001.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18, and 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/16/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14, 25, and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities: it is suggested the word “below” in Claims 1, 14, 25, and 26 be deleted.
Applicant is advised that should Claim 1 be found allowable, Claim 25 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17, 19, 20, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 25, and 26 do not set forth units for the molecular weight for components (A) and (C). The metes and bounds of the claims are therefore unclear. For the purposes of further examination, the molecular weights will be interpreted as having units of g/mol.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2016222744 to Ono et al. (as found on the IDS dated 5/23/2024). For the purposes of examination, citations for Ono are taken from a machine translation equivalent of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in January 2026.
Regarding Claim 1-7, 12-13, and 19, Ono teaches extrusion molding a resin composition [0135] comprising methacrylic resin (A) [0024] that is preferably 90-100 mass % methyl methacrylate [0024] having a molecular weight of preferably 55,000 to 200,000 [0026] (reading on component (A) of claims 1 and 5-7); a lubricant (X) [0032] including fatty alcohols [0033] having 12-18 carbon atoms such as stearyl alcohol [0036] in an amount of 0.01-0.3 mass% [0042] (reading on component (B) of claims 1-3, 12, and 13); wherein methacrylic resin (A) comprises 0.1-10% of a component having a molecular weight of 200,000 or more [0028] (reading on component (C)). No other ingredients are required to be present in the composition. Thus, in embodiments of Ono in which the compositions contain only methacrylic resin (A) and lubricant (X), the C/B ratio is reasonably calculated to be roughly 0.3 – 1000.
Though the prior art C/B ratio is not identical to the claimed range (0.01-50), it does overlap. It has been held that, where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Ono teaches the resin composition of claim 1, wherein component (C) is the high molecular weight component of methacrylic resin (A) [0028] that comprises 90-100 mass % methyl methacrylate [0024] reading on the limitations of claims 8 and 9.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Ono teaches the resin composition of claim 1, wherein component (C) is the high molecular weight component of methacrylic resin (A) [0028] that comprises 90-100 mass % methyl methacrylate [0024] wherein the monomer units other than those derived from methyl methacrylate include (meth)acrylic acid alkyl esters such as butyl (meth)acrylate [0025] (i.e., butyl acrylate) therefore reading on the limitations of claims 10 and 11.
Regarding Claims 14-16, Ono teaches the resin composition of claim 1. Ono does not teach or suggest a compound corresponding to component (D) is provided, reasonably reading on “component (D) is not contained” and “10 parts by mass or less” (i.e., 0 parts) of claims 14-16.
Regarding Claim 17, Ono teaches the resin composition of claim 14, that does not comprise component (D). Therefore the limitations of claim 17 are not required to be met as they are further limiting an optional embodiment as set forth in the rejection of claim 14.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2016222744 to Ono et al. (as found on the IDS dated 5/23/2024). For the purposes of examination, citations for Ono are taken from a machine translation equivalent of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in January 2026.
Regarding Claim 25, Ono teaches a resin composition [0135] comprising methacrylic resin (A) [0024] having a molecular weight of preferably 55,000 to 200,000 [0026] (reading on component (A)); a lubricant (X) [0032] including fatty alcohols [0033] in an amount of 0.01-0.3 mass% [0042] (reading on component (B)); wherein methacrylic resin (A) comprises 0.1-10% of a component having a molecular weight of 200,000 or more [0028] (reading on component (C)). No other ingredients are required to be present in the composition. Thus, in embodiments of Ono in which the compositions contain only methacrylic resin (A) and lubricant (X), the C/B ratio is reasonably calculated to be roughly 0.3 – 1000.
Though the prior art C/B ratio is not identical to the claimed range (0.01-50), it does overlap. It has been held that, where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05)
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2016222744 to Ono et al. (as found on the IDS dated 5/23/2024). For the purposes of examination, citations for Ono are taken from a machine translation equivalent of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in January 2026.
Regarding Claim 26, Ono teaches extrusion molding a resin composition [0135] (reading on a resin molded body) comprising methacrylic resin (A) [0024] having a molecular weight of preferably 55,000 to 200,000 [0026] (reading on component (A)); a lubricant (X) [0032] including fatty alcohols [0033] in an amount of 0.01-0.3 mass% [0042] (reading on component (B)); wherein methacrylic resin (A) comprises 0.1-10% of a component having a molecular weight of 200,000 or more [0028] (reading on component (C)). No other ingredients are required to be present in the composition. Thus, in embodiments of Ono in which the compositions contain only methacrylic resin (A) and lubricant (X), the C/B ratio is reasonably calculated to be roughly 0.3 – 1000.
Though the prior art C/B ratio is not identical to the claimed range (0.01-50), it does overlap. It has been held that, where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2016222744 to Ono et al. (as found on the IDS dated 5/23/2024) in view of JP2016008237 to Yamamori et al. (as found on the IDS dated 5/23/2024). For the purposes of examination, citations for Akihiro are taken from a machine translation equivalent of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in January 2026.
Regarding Claim 20, Ono teaches the resin composition of claim 1, as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Ono is silent regarding a vehicle member comprising the methacrylic resin composition.
However, Akihiro teaches a methacrylic resin composition comprising 98.5 wt% methyl methacrylate units and varying molecular weights [abstract] wherein the composition is preferably used as a molding material for vehicle components [0115]. Ono and Akihiro are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely methyl methacrylate compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to create the vehicle member taught by Akihiro using Ono’s composition thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation to modify Ono with Akihiro is that methacrylic resin compositions have excellent solvent resistance, heat resistance, mechanical strength, and thermal stability. Therefore the composition can preferably be used for molded products such as vehicle components [Akihiro, 0115]
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2016008237 to Yamamori et al. (as found on the IDS dated 5/23/2024) in view of JP2016222744 to Ono et al. (as found on the IDS dated 5/23/2024). For the purposes of examination, citations for Yamamori are taken from a machine translation equivalent of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in January 2026.
Regarding Claims 1 and 20, Yamamori teaches methacrylic resin compositions for vehicle applications [0002] (i.e., vehicle member) comprising a that is used for injection molding [0017] comprising methacrylic resin with a molecular weight of 24,000-35,000 [0017] (i.e., component (A)); release agents such as fatty alcohols [0056] in an amount of 0.01 to 1.0 parts by weight [0062] (i.e., component (B)) and methacrylic resin with a molecular weight of 180,000 – 220,000 [0017] (i.e., component (C)).
Yamamori does not particularly teach the amount of methacrylic polymer that has a mass average molecular weight above 200,000 g/mol, and therefore is silent regarding the (C) to (B) ratio in a range of 0.01-50
However, Ono teaches a methacrylic resin (A) [0024] wherein methacrylic resin (A) comprises 0.1-10% of a component having a molecular weight of 200,000 or more [0028]. Yamamori and Ono are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely methacrylic resin compositions and molded products thereof.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the portion of methacrylic polymer having a mass average molecular weight of 200,000 g/mol or more in the amount as taught by Ono. No other ingredients are required to be present in the composition. Thus, in embodiments of Yamamori in view of Ono in which the compositions contain only methacrylic resin (A) and lubricant (X), the C/B ratio is reasonably calculated to be roughly 0.1 – 1000. The motivation would have been that when the amount of high molecular weight component is within the ranges as suggested by Ono, the molding processability is improved, and uniform thickness is easily obtained [Ono, 0028].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Devin Darling whose telephone number is (703) 756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached on (571) 270-7026. 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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764