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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/15/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-7, and 9-20 are pending in the application. Claim 8 has been cancelled. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected.
The 112 rejection has been withdrawn in view of the present response.
The rejections over Takesada in view of Bae; and further in view of Dai have been maintained.
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, 2, 7, and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0363343 to Takesada et al. (hereinafter “Takesada”) in view of US 2017/0121457 to Bae et al. (hereinafter “Bae”).
As to claims 1, 2 and 14, Takesada discloses a polyvinyl chloride composition for powder molding comprising 100 parts by mass of a polyvinyl chloride, 120-200 parts by mass of a polyester-based plasticizer and 4-23 parts by mass of an acrylic polymer (abstract). The polyvinyl chloride composition comprises a fatty acid ester-based plasticizer in amount of 80 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the polyvinyl chloride resin (paragraph 28).
Takesada does not explicitly disclose the plasticizer material further including a phenol represented by formula (I) and/or a modified product thereof.
PNG
media_image1.png
252
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bae, however, discloses a polymeric plasticizer composition comprising a polyester plasticizer and a hydrophobe (abstract, and paragraph 133). The polyester plasticizer is made from an aromatic acid, a glycol and a C4-C36 monocarboxylic acid or ester or anhydride thereof (abstract). The aromatic acid is an aromatic acid comprising an adipic acid (paragraph 46). The hydrophobe comprises a fatty acid ester, a modified cashew nut shell liquid (CNSL), cardanol, derivatives of cardanol or any combinations thereof (paragraphs 134 and 137). The hydrophobe reads on the claimed phenol represented by formula (I) and a modified product thereof.
As shown in paragraph 125 of Applicant’s published application, Cardanol’s R1 has a chain hydrocarbon group with a carbon number of 15 and so does R1 of Bae’s cardanol as like material has like property.
PNG
media_image2.png
347
495
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a modified CNSL, cardanol, derivatives of cardanol or any combinations thereof disclosed in Bae for the fatty acid ester in Takesada because the fatty acid ester, cardanol, and derivatives of cardanol have been shown in the art to be recognized equivalent hydrophobic materials for the polyester plasticizers and the selection of these known equivalents to be used as hydrophobic materials for the polyester plasticizers will be within the level of the ordinary skill in the art.
The combined disclosures of Takesada and Bae result in a polyvinyl chloride composition comprising 120-200 parts by mass of a polyester plasticizer and 80 parts by mass or less of cardanol and derivatives of cardanol, based on 100 parts by mass of a polyvinyl chloride resin. That is to say, the polyvinyl chloride composition comprises 100 parts by mass of the polyester plasticizer and 40 parts by mass or less of cardanol and derivatives of cardanol.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the content of cardanol and derivatives of cardanol will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the cardanol and derivatives of cardanol is critical or provides unexpected results.
As to claim 7, Takesada discloses the polyester-based plasticizer including an adipic acid polyester (paragraphs 23 and 24).
As to claims 9-12, Takesada discloses a polyvinyl chloride composition for powder molding comprising 100 parts by mass of a polyvinyl chloride, 120-200 parts by mass of a polyester-based plasticizer and 4-23 parts by mass of an acrylic polymer (abstract). The polyvinyl chloride would inherently have a glass transition temperature of not lower than 50oC and not higher than 100oC as like material has like property.
As to claim 13, Takesada discloses a polyvinyl chloride composition for powder molding comprising 100 parts by mass of a polyvinyl chloride, 120-200 parts by mass of a polyester-based plasticizer and 4-23 parts by mass of an acrylic polymer (abstract).
As to claims 15 and 16, Takesada discloses a polyvinyl chloride composition used in for powder slush molding (paragraph 70).
As to claim 17, Takesada discloses a resin molded product obtained through molding of the resin composition (paragraph 70).
As to claim 18, Takesada discloses a resin molded product useful as a surface skin of an automobile instrument panel (paragraph 75).
As to claim 19, Takesada discloses a laminate comprising a foamed polyurethane molded product and the resin molded product (paragraph 76).
As to claim 20, Takesada discloses the laminate useful as a surface skin of an automobile instrument panel (paragraph 78).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takesada in view of Bae as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 6,229,054 to Dai et al. (hereinafter “Dai”).
Bae discloses that the hydrophobe comprises a modified cashew nut shell liquid (CNSL), cardanol, derivatives of cardanol or any combinations thereof (paragraphs 134 and 137).
Neither Takesada nor Bae discloses the derivatives of cardanol including an alkylene oxide modified product of the phenol.
Dai, however, discloses that derivatives of cardanol includes monohydroxyalkylcardanyl ether (figure 3), which is a stable plasticizer with good leaching stability and great color stability while reducing the potential for producing contact dermatitis.
PNG
media_image3.png
173
325
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 monohydroxyalkylcardanyl ether disclosed in Dai as derivatives of cardanol disclosed in Takesada/Bae, motivated by the desire to provide a stable plasticizer with good leaching stability and great color stability while reducing the potential for producing contact dermatitis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant alleges that the claim is not rendered obvious in view of the combined disclosures of Takesada and Bae because the combination of the cited references fails to teach the plasticizer composition comprising 5-10 parts by mass of the phenol and the modified product thereof based on 100 parts by mass of the polyester plasticizer.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Takesada discloses a polyvinyl chloride composition for powder molding comprising 100 parts by mass of a polyvinyl chloride, 120-200 parts by mass of a polyester-based plasticizer and 4-23 parts by mass of an acrylic polymer (abstract). The polyvinyl chloride composition further comprises a fatty acid ester-based plasticizer in amount of 80 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the polyvinyl chloride resin (paragraph 28).
Takesada does not explicitly disclose the plasticizer material including a phenol represented by formula (I) and/or a modified product thereof.
Bae, however, discloses a polymeric plasticizer composition comprising a polyester plasticizer and a hydrophobe (abstract, and paragraph 133). The polyester plasticizer is made from an aromatic acid, a glycol and a C4-C36 monocarboxylic acid or ester or anhydride thereof (abstract). The aromatic acid is an aromatic acid comprising an adipic acid (paragraph 46). The hydrophobe comprises a fatty acid ester, a modified cashew nut shell liquid (CNSL), cardanol, derivatives of cardanol or any combinations thereof (paragraphs 134 and 137). The hydrophobe reads on the claimed phenol represented by formula (I) and a modified product thereof.
The combined disclosures of Takesada and Bae result in a polyvinyl chloride composition comprising 120-200 parts by mass of a polyester plasticizer and 80 parts by mass or less of cardanol and derivatives of cardanol, based on 100 parts by mass of a polyvinyl chloride resin. That is to say, the resulting polyvinyl chloride composition comprises 100 parts by mass of the polyester plasticizer and 40 parts by mass or less of cardanol and derivatives of cardanol.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the content of cardanol and derivatives of cardanol will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the cardanol and derivatives of cardanol is critical or provides unexpected results.
As there is a motivation to combine the teachings of Takesada and Bae, a prima facie case of obviousness is said to exist. Accordingly, the rejections over Takesada in view of Bae, and further in view of Dai have been maintained.
Conclusion
8. 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