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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/13/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-9 are pending in the application. Claims 1-9 are rejected.
All of the rejections have been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response. None of the cited references: Fujiwara, Takesada, and Guo disclose or suggest the polyester plasticizer comprising 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol.
Guo discloses a polyester plasticizer for a vinyl chloride resin composition, comprising a reaction product of an adipic acid and 2-methyl-1,2-propanediol with a mixing ratio of 1.12:1 to 1.20: 1 (abstract). Guo fails to disclose the polyester plasticizer comprising 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol.
New ground of rejection is made in view of newly discovered reference to Mizumoto et al. (JP 61-78827).
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0010659 to Fujiwara (hereinafter “Fujiwara”) in view of JP 61-078827 to Mizumoto et al. (hereinafter “Mizumoto”).
Fujiwara discloses a vinyl chloride resin composition for a surface skin of an automobile instrument panel, comprising a vinyl chloride resin, a plasticizer and a copper oxide (abstract, and paragraph 109). The vinyl chloride resin includes vinyl chloride resin particles having a particle diameter of 30 µm or more and vinyl chloride resin fine particles having a particle diameter of less than 30 µm ( paragraphs 40 and 49). The content of the plasticizer is 80 to 200 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the vinyl chloride resin (paragraph 84). This is within the claimed range. The plasticizer comprises a polyester plasticizer such as an adipic acid polyester (paragraph 79).
Fujiwara does not explicitly disclose the polyester plasticizer including adipic acid structural units and polyhydric alcohol structural units wherein the polyhydric alcohol structural units comprise 100 mol% of 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol (MPD).
Mizumoto, however, discloses a polyester plasticizer for a vinyl chloride resin composition, comprising a reaction product of an adipic acid and MPD wherein the MPD is present in an amount of 100 mol% of a polyhydric alcohol (example 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polyester plasticizer disclosed in Mizumoto for the polyester plasticizer disclosed in Fujiwara, motivated by the desire to provide a polyester plasticizer that is excellent in durability and low temperature flexibility.
As to claim 2, Fujiwara discloses that the content of the plasticizer is 80 to 200 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the vinyl chloride resin (paragraph 84).
As to claim 3, Fujiwara discloses that the plasticizer includes a primary plasticizer and a secondary plasticizer (paragraph 82). The primary plasticizer includes a polyester plasticizer (paragraph 79). The secondary plasticizer is an epoxidized soybean oil in an amount of 5 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the vinyl chloride resin (paragraph 82 and table 1). The combined content of the primary and secondary plasticizers is 80 to 200 parts by mass (paragraph 84) resulting in the primary polyester plasticizer being present in the range of 75 to 195 parts by mass. The polyester plasticizer thus constitutes 93.8 mass % to 97.5 mass% of the total plasticizers.
As to claims 4 and 5, Fujiwara discloses that the vinyl chloride resin composition is used in powder slush molding (paragraph 17).
As to claims 6 and 7, Fujiwara discloses that a vinyl chloride resin molded product obtained through molding of the vinyl chloride resin composition for a surface skin of an automobile instrument panel (paragraph 17).
As to claim 8, Fujiwara discloses that a laminate comprising a foamed polyurethane molded product and the vinyl chloride resin molded product (paragraphs 107-108).
As to claim 9, Fujiwara discloses that the laminate is used for an automotive instrument panel (paragraph 109).
Response to Arguments
The combined disclosures of Fujiwara and Guo do not suggest the polyester plasticizer comprising 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol. However, new combination of Fujiwara and Mizumoto suggests the claimed invention.
Applicant alleges that nowhere does Mizumoto disclose or suggest the vinyl chloride reasin composition that contains both vinyl chloride resin particles and vinyl chloride resin fine particles having the specific particle sizes as presently claimed.
Mizumoto does not need to address these issues because they were already disclosed by Fujiwara.
Applicant also states that while Fujiwara mentions polyester plasticizer as one of primary plasticizers, all of the examples contain 80 parts by mass of trimelliate, 80 parts by mass of pyromelliate, and 5 parts by mass of epoxidized soybean oil. There is no teaching or suggestion that polyester plasticizer should be used over trimellitate and pyromellitate. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Fujiwara and Mizumoto to arrive at the claimed invention.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967). A fair reading of the reference as a whole indicates that the polyester plasticizer, the trimelliate and the pyromellitate are equally applicable as the primary plasticizers for the vinyl chloride composition. The examples are merely used for the purpose of illustration and should not be regarded as limiting the scope of the reference or the manner in which it can be practiced. As there is a motivation to combine the teachings of Fujiwara and Mizumoto, a prima facie case of obviousness is said to exist.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0363343 to Takesada (hereinafter “Takesada”) in view of Mizumoto.
Takesada discloses a vinyl chloride resin composition for powder molding, comprising 100 parts by mass of a vinyl chloride resin, 120-200 parts by mass of a polyester-based plasticizer, and 4-23 parts by mass of an acrylic polymer (abstract). The vinyl chloride resin includes vinyl chloride resin particles having a particle diameter of 30 µm or more and vinyl chloride resin fine particles having a particle diameter of less than 30 µm (paragraphs 18 and 44). The content of the polyester-based plasticizer is within the claimed range.
Takesada does not explicitly disclose the polyester-based plasticizer including adipic acid structural units and polyhydric alcohol structural units wherein the polyhydric alcohol structural units comprise 100 mol% of 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol.
Mizumoto, however, discloses a polyester plasticizer for a vinyl chloride resin composition, comprising a reaction product of an adipic acid and MPD wherein the MPD is present in an amount of 100 mol% of a polyhydric alcohol (example 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polyester plasticizer disclosed in Mizumoto for the polyester plasticizer disclosed in Takesada, motivated by the desire to provide a polyester plasticizer that is excellent in durability and low temperature flexibility.
As to claim 2, Takesada discloses that the content of the polyester-based plasticizer is 120 to 200 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the vinyl chloride resin (abstract).
As to claim 3, Takesada discloses that the content of the polyester in the plasticizer is 100 mass% (table 1).
As to claims 4 and 5, Takesada discloses that the vinyl chloride resin composition is used in powder slush molding (paragraph 1).
As to claims 6 and 7, Takesada discloses that a vinyl chloride resin molded product obtained through molding of the vinyl chloride resin composition for the surface skin of an automobile instrument panel (paragraphs 75 and 78).
As to claim 8, Takesada discloses that a laminate comprising a foamed polyurethane molded product and the vinyl chloride resin molded product (paragraph 76).
As to claim 9, Takesada discloses that the laminate is used for an automotive instrument panel (paragraphs 75 and 78).
Response to Arguments
Applicant alleges that there are no teachings which would have suggested one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically select 2-methyl-1,3-propandiol out of many possible C2-C6 glycols discussed in Takesada.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Mizumoto discloses a polyester plasticizer for a vinyl chloride resin composition, comprising a reaction product of an adipic acid and MPD wherein the MPD is present in an amount of 100 mol% of a polyhydric alcohol (example 1). The polyester plasticizer is excellent in durability, and low temperature flexibility. That is a motivation to modify the references.
Applicant further asserts that the effect of 2-methyl-1,3-propandiol as the only polyhydric alcohol-derived structural unit in the polyester plasticizer in achieving improved meltability is an unexpected result (table of the specification of the claimed invention).
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The sample containing 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol (polyester B) has a lower melting point than the sample without 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol. However, the difference of approximately 0.5 to 1.35% is not significant enough to be considered as an unexpected result (comparative examples 1A, 1B and example 1).
Again, as there is a motivation to combine the teachings of Takesada and Mizumoto, a prima facie case of obviousness is said to exist.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights