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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 20170218158 A1) in view of Aida et al. (JP 2008255286 A, see machine translation for citations).
Regarding Claims 1-6: Yoshida teaches an expanded polypropylene resin particle/bead (abstract) comprising a core layer comprising a polypropylene resin B (corresponding to claimed polypropylene (a)) and a covering layer comprising polypropylene resin A (corresponding to claimed polypropylene (b))(para 46). Yoshida further teaches a polypropylene resin B having a melting point of 145°C to 165°C (para 36) and the polypropylene resin A consisting of a propylene-ethylene-1-butene random copolymer with an amount if 1-butene of 4%wt to 9%wt and an amount of ethylene of 2.5%wt to 6%wt (para 84) and a melting point of 130 °C to 140°C wherein polypropylene resin B has a melting point less than 25°C greater than the melting point of polypropylene resin A (para 157). However, Yoshida is silent on the covering layer containing a higher fatty acid amide in an amount of 0.01-2% by weight.
Aida teaches polypropylene resin foam pre-foam particles (para 5) comprising a fatty acid amide, preferably erucic acid amide, present in an amount of 0.1 to 2 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of a polyolefin resin (para 18). Yoshida and Aida are analogous art as they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely expanded foam particles made from polypropylene resin. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the covering layer polypropylene-based resin of Yoshida with the erucic acid of Aida. Aida discloses that if the amount of fatty acid amide added is less than 0.1 parts by weight, the effect of suppressing friction noise will not be fully achieved. Furthermore, when the amount of fatty acid amide added exceeds 2 parts by weight, the dispersion of the resin particles in the pressure vessel tends to become unstable when manufacturing polypropylene resin pre-foamed particles. In addition, a large amount of dispersant tends to remain on the surface of the polypropylene resin pre-foamed particles, which tends to cause poor fusion during in-mold molding (para 18). Aida further discloses that erucic acid amide is particularly preferred in terms of ability to knead with polypropylene resins and cost (para 18). One of ordinary skill would be motivated to modify the covering layer polypropylene resin with erucic acid in an amount of 0.1-2 parts by weight so that the foam product does not have an unpleasant friction noise when the pre-foam particles rub against each other eliminating a property that would make the product unattractive to consumers.
The references do not expressly teach the crystallization temperatures of polypropylene resin B (TcB) and polypropylene resin A (TcA) wherein TcB is between 95°C-110°C, TcB is 40°C or less than the melting point of polypropylene resin B, and the difference between TcB and TcA is -10°C to 3°C. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the references. However, the references teach a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the core layer resin can comprise of polypropylene copolymers including propylene-ethylene, propylene-butene, or propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer wherein the amount of the resin composition derived from ethylene or butene is 1-15% by mass preferably 2-12% by mass (para 13). The covering layer resin has ethylene present in an amount of 2-5% by mass and butene present in an amount of 3-10% by mass, preferable 4-6% by mass (para 23). Table 1 of the specification further discloses polypropylene-based resins PP1 (3.8% by mass of Ethylene, 4.55% by mass of Butene with a crystallization temperature of 101°C and melting point to crystallization temperature difference of 21°C), PP2 (3.0% by mass of ethylene, 9.4% by mass of butene with a crystallization temperature of 97°C and melting point to crystallization temperature difference of 37°C), and PP5 (2.4% by weight of ethylene with a crystallization temperature of 100°C). Examples 1 and 2 from Table 2 of the specification disclose PP1 as the covering layer resin and PP5 as the core layer resin with a crystallization temperature difference of -1°C and PP2 as the covering layer resin and PP5 as the core layer resin with a crystallization temperature of 3°C, respectively. Prior art Yoshida further teaches the core layer polypropylene be resin as a propylene-ethylene copolymer with an amount of 2.5% by mass of ethylene (Table 1 US 20170218158 A1). Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the crystallization temperatures of the core and covering layer polypropylene resins, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakatomi et al. (US 20210403655 A1) teaches a molded polyolefin resin article wherein the polyolefin resin may be a propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer comprising of erucic acid amide in an amount of 0.01-2 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of a polyolefin resin (para 50).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J BELUNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571) 272-1197. 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.
/T.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights