Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/713,660

VINYL CHLORIDE RESIN COMPOSITION, VINYL CHLORIDE RESIN MOLDED PRODUCT, AND LAMINATE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
May 27, 2024
Priority
Dec 27, 2021 — JP 2021-213393 +1 more
Examiner
VO, HAI
Art Unit
1788
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Zeon Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 2m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allowance Rate
692 granted / 1214 resolved
-8.0% vs TC avg
Strong +72% interview lift
Without
With
+72.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
1270
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
71.2%
+31.2% vs TC avg
§102
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
§112
3.6%
-36.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1214 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 All of the rejections have been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response. New ground of rejection is made in view of newly discovered reference to Guo et al. (CN 113004506). 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 CN 113004506 to Guo et al. (hereinafter “Guo”). 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). A 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). Guo, however, discloses a polyester plasticizer for a vinyl chloride resin composition, comprising a reaction product of an adipic acid and MPD with a mixing ratio of 1.12:1 to 1.20: 1 (abstract). MPD is present in an amount of 100 mol% of a polyhydric alcohol. As an environmentally friendly plasticizer, the polyester plasticizer is excellent in heat resistance, and migration resistance. 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 Guo for the polyester plasticizer disclosed in Fujiwara, motivated by the desire to provide an environmentally friendly plasticizer excellent in heat resistance and migration resistance. As to claim 2, Fujiwara discloses that a 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 including 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 rejections over Koube; and Fujiwara in view of Koube have been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response. Koube discloses a polyester plasticizer obtained by reacting a diol component (a) consisting of 100 parts by mole of 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol, and 10 to 1000 parts by mole of 3-methyl-1,5-pentanetiol; with a dicarboxylic acid component (b) consisting of 100 parts by mole of an adipic acid, and 0 to 100 parts by mole of other dicarboxylic acid; and a chain terminator (c) consisting of a monovalent aliphatic alcohol or a monovalent aliphatic organic acid (abstract). Koube fails to disclose the polyester plasticizer wherein the polyester only includes 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol as the polyhydric alcohol. However, new combination of Fujiwara and Guo suggests the claimed invention. 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 Guo. 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 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. Guo, however, discloses a polyester plasticizer for a vinyl chloride resin composition, comprising a reaction product of an adipic acid and MPD with a mixing ratio of 1.12:1 to 1.20: 1 (abstract). MPD is present in an amount of 100 mol% of a polyhydric alcohol. As an environmentally friendly plasticizer, the polyester plasticizer is excellent in heat resistance, and migration resistance. 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 Guo for the polyester plasticizer disclosed in Takesada, motivated by the desire to provide an environmentally friendly plasticizer excellent in heat resistance and migration resistance. As to claim 2, Takesada discloses that a 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 a 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 The rejection over Takesada in view of Koube has been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response. Koube discloses a polyester plasticizer obtained by reacting a diol component (a) consisting of 100 parts by mole of 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol, and 10 to 1000 parts by mole of 3-methyl-1,5-pentanetiol; with a dicarboxylic acid component (b) consisting of 100 parts by mole of an adipic acid, and 0 to 100 parts by mole of other dicarboxylic acid; and a chain terminator (c) consisting of a monovalent aliphatic alcohol or a monovalent aliphatic organic acid (abstract). Koube fails to disclose the polyester plasticizer wherein the polyester only includes 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol as the polyhydric alcohol. However, new combination of Takesada and Guo suggests the claimed invention. 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. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 27, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Mar 31, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 21, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103
May 21, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
May 21, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12623444
LAMINATE
3y 7m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12617132
FOAM-MOLDED PRODUCT, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING FOAM-MOLDED PRODUCT, AND METHOD FOR SUPPRESSING APPEARANCE DEFECT OF FOAM-MOLDED PRODUCT
4y 1m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12605917
MULTILAYER SHEET COMPRISING A FOAMED LAYER SUITABLE FOR FOOD PACKAGING
3y 0m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12600863
MOLDED BODY, METHOD OF PRODUCING THE SAME, AND RECYCLING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594748
FLOOR ELEMENT
3y 9m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
57%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+72.2%)
3y 2m (~1y 2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1214 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month