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
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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima (JP 2020158554A, hereinafter referring to the attached ESPACENET translation) in view of DOW Chemical (Engage 11547 Polyolefin Elastomer Technical Datasheet).
Regarding claim 1, Takashima teaches a polypropylene resin composition that can produce molded articles ([0001]), wherein the inventive composition is defined by:
5 to 47 parts by mass of a propylene polymer (A) having a melt flow rate (230°C, 2.16 kg load) of 50 to 150 g/10 min and a decane-soluble portion of 6% by mass or more ([0011])
0 to 30 parts by mass of a propylene homopolymer (B) having a melt flow rate (230°C, 2.16 kg load) of 10 to 500 g/10 min ([0011])
23 to 30 parts by mass of an ethylene-α-olefin copolymer (C) which is a random copolymer of ethylene and α-olefin having 4 to 8 carbon atoms, with a density of 0.850 to 0.890 g/cm3 and a melt flow rate (230°C, 2.16 kg load) of 0.5 to 30 g/10 min ([0011])
30 to 40 parts by mass of an inorganic filler (D) having an average particle diameter exceeding 8 µm and an aspect ratio exceeding 9.0 ([0011])
Takashima specifically states that the total amount of components (A) through (D) is 100 parts by mass ([0011]). In each case, the ranges above encompass/overlap/are identical to the claimed ranges, establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Takashima differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the ethylene/α-olefin copolymer having a melting point peak of 110°C or more.
In the same field of endeavor, DOW Chemical teaches a particular polyolefin elastomer, ENGAGE 11547, which offers high flow and excellent rubber loading efficiency as a superior impact modifier in thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) compounds (Dow, p. 1, Overview section).
It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its art-recognized suitability for its intended use (see MPEP 2144.07). Furthermore, DOW Chemical specifically states that ENGAGE 11547 is suitable for automotive parts (Dow, p. 1, Overview section), Takashima contemplates the formation of both interior and exterior automotive parts (c.f. Takashima [0119]), and Takashima contemplates the importance of the ethylene-α-olefin component in improving the impact strength of the inventive composition (e.g., [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the ENGAGE 11547 polyolefin elastomer within the composition of Takashima, as taught by DOW Chemical. The instant Specification teaches that ENGAGE 11547 has a peak melting point of 120°C, an MFR at 230°C and 2.16 kg of 9 g/10 min, and a density of 0.866 g/cm3 (c.f. instant Specification at [0135]), which falls within the claimed ranges. Therefore, the composition of Takashima as modified by DOW Chemical meets all of the claimed compositional limitations, in each case establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 2, Takashima teaches that the propylene polymer (A) is preferably a propylene-based block copolymer obtained from propylene and ethylene. Takashima further indicates that the same has a decane-soluble fraction having an intrinsic viscosity preferably ranging from 2 to 9 dl/g ([0021]), which is identical to the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 3, Takashima teaches that talc is the preferred filler (D) ([0095]), and that the aspect ratio of the filler is preferably 9.0 or more and 20.0 or less ([0097]), which overlaps the claimed range of “3 or more and less than 15,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 4, Takashima as modified by DOW Chemical is silent with regard to the claimed hot shear test strength characteristic. Nevertheless, Takashima as modified teaches a polypropylene-based composition which is structurally identical to the claimed polypropylene-based composition, which contains all of the same components in all of the claimed amounts. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed hot shear test strength characteristic will therefore necessarily be present in Takashima as modified by DOW Chemical, as applied to claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 5, Takashima teaches that the inventive composition may be used for automobile exterior members ([0121]).
Regarding claim 6, Takashima teaches a molded product of the inventive composition (e.g., [0090] and [0098]).
Regarding claim 7, Takashima teaches both injection molding and press molding of the inventive composition ([0120]).
Regarding claim 8, Takashima teaches that the inventive composition may be used for automobile exterior members ([0121]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights