DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 5/8/2026.
Claim(s) 5-8, and 25 were cancelled.
Claim(s) 28-30 have been added. (see misnumbering objection below)
Claim(s) 18, 21-24, and 27 are withdrawn due to a previous restriction requirement.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-24, and 26-30 are now pending in the application.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 29 has been renumbered 28.
Misnumbered claim 30 has been renumbered 29.
Misnumbered claim 31 has been renumbered 30.
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 28-30 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.
Claim 28 and 29 recites the limitation "homo polymer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, homo polymer will be interpreted as component (A).
Claim 30 recites the limitation "methyl methacrylate copolymer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, methyl methacrylate copolymer will be interpreted as component (C).
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 1-4, 9-17, 19, and 28-30 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 Claims 1-4, 9, 12-13, 19, and 28-30 Ono teaches extrusion molding a resin composition [0135] comprising methacrylic resin (A) [0024] that is preferably 90-100 mass % methyl methacrylate [0024] that has a degree of polymerization [0026] (i.e., a polymer) having a molecular weight of preferably 55,000 to 200,000 [0026] (reading on component (A)); 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] wherein this molecular weight range of methyl methacrylate is required to be a polymer (reading on component (C) polymer). 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 and component (C) molecular weight range is not identical to the claimed range (0.01-50 ratio of claim 1), (50,000-200,000 g/mol of claim 1, and 1,000,000-6,000,000 g/mol of claim 30) 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 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 and 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 15, the amount of component (D) of claim 15 is considered an optional embodiment because claim 15 depends from claim 14, and claim 14 recites “component (D) is not contained or when the component (D) is contained” and therefore the limitation of more than 0 parts by mass and 10 parts by mass or less is only required when component (D) is present. Ono teaches resin composition (C) wherein acrylic rubber (B) is only added if necessary [0137] and reasonably reads on component (D) is not contained of claim 14. As such, the limitation of claim 15 is considered to be met because claim 15 is further narrowing an optional embodiment (component (D) is more than 0 parts and 15 parts by mass or less) wherein claim 14 is rejected by component (D) not being contained.
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 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] that is preferably 90-100 mass % methyl methacrylate [0024] that has a degree of polymerization [0026] (i.e., polymer) having a molecular weight of preferably 55,000 to 200,000 [0026] (reading on component (A)); 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] wherein this molecular weight range of methyl methacrylate is required to be a polymer (reading on component (C) polymer). 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 and component (C) molecular weight range 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 Akihiro 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]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states Neither Ono nor Yamamori discloses, teaches, or suggests the two methyl methacrylate polymers as Ono’s teachings are directed to a methacrylate resin (A) having a high molecular weight fraction or a broad molecular weight distribution.
In response, attention is drawn to the rejection of claim 1 wherein Ono teaches that component (A) has a degree of polymerization [0026] (i.e., polymer) and further has molecular weights of 55,000 to 200,000 [0026] and 200,000 or more [0028] and wherein methacrylic resin (A) comprises 0.1-10% of a component having a molecular weight of 200,000 or more [0028] wherein this molecular weight range of methyl methacrylate is required to be a polymer.
Applicant states Ono mentions a methacrylate resin but fails to disclose two distinct methacrylate polymers each independently characterized by the claimed molecular weight ranges and combined as separate components to form a composition.
In response, it is noted that the instant claims are drawn to a methacrylate resin composition that comprises components (A) and (C) (i.e., components (A) and (C) are combined within the composition). As such, whether or not the components were prepared separately and combined as separate components does not affect the composition itself and would constitute a product by process limitation that does not furth limit the composition itself.
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING whose telephone number is (703)756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 at (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
Prosecution Insights