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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0121457 to Bae et al. (hereinafter “Bae”).
Bae 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 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 to claim 2, 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_image1.png
347
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7, Bae discloses that the polyester plasticizer is made from an aromatic acid, a glycol and a C4-C36 monocarboxylic acid or ester or anhydride thereof (abstract) wherein the aromatic acid is an adipic acid (paragraph 46).
As to claims 9, 10 and 12, Bae discloses that a resin composition comprising a polyvinyl chloride resin and the polymeric plasticizer composition (paragraphs 235-236).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,229,054 to Dai et al. (hereinafter “Dai”).
Bae discloses a hydrophobe comprising a modified CNSL, cardanol, derivatives of cardanol or any combinations thereof (paragraphs 134 and 137). Bae does not explicitly disclose 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_image2.png
173
325
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 use monohydroxyalkylcardanyl ether disclosed in Dai as derivatives of cardanol disclosed in 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bae.
It appears that Bae uses the same polyvinyl chloride resin set forth in the claimed invention, therefore, the examiner takes the position that the polyvinyl chloride resin would inherently have a glass transition temperature of not lower than 50oC and not higher than 100oC as like material has like property. This is in line with In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) which holds that if the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the claimed properties or functions will be presumed to be inherent. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,277,387 to Jordan, Jr. et al. (hereinafter “Jordan”).
As to claims 1-6, Jordan discloses a plasticizing composition for an elastomeric resin comprising a combination of (1) a water insoluble adduct of ethylene oxide and an alkyl phenol and (2) an ester plasticizer (abstract, and column 4, lines 60-65).
The adduct has formula I:
PNG
media_image3.png
237
467
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The adduct reads on the claimed alkylene oxide modified product of the phenol.
As to claim 7, Jordan teaches that the ester plasticizer includes an adipic acid polyester (formula V, and column 3, lines 45-50).
As to claims 9, 10 and 12, Jordan teaches that a caulking composition comprising an elastomeric binder and a plasticizing composition with a weight ratio of the plasticizing composition: the elastomeric binder from 0.01:1 to 5:1 (column 4, lines 5-10). The elastomeric binder is a vinyl chloride resin (column 4, lines 65-67).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan.
The combination of the phenol and the modified product thereof is not required by the claim; therefore, the content of the phenol and the modified product thereof is referred to either the content of the phenol or the content of the modified product thereof individually.
Jordan discloses a plasticizing composition for an elastomeric resin comprising a combination of (1) a water insoluble adduct of ethylene oxide and an alkyl phenol and (2) an ester plasticizer (abstract, and column 4, lines 60-65) with a weight ratio of (1) to (2) in a range of 10:90 to 90:10 (column 4, lines 10-15). The plasticizing composition thus contains 11-900 parts by mass of the adduct relative to 100 parts by mass of the ester plasticizer. This overlaps the claimed range.
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 the adduct will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the content of the adduct is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the content of the adduct in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to obtain cost effectiveness while providing low temperature flexibility and great tensile/elongation properties. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0363343 to Takesada et al. (hereinafter “Takesada”) in view of Bae.
As to claims 1 and 2, 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).
Takesada does not explicitly disclose the plasticizer material further including a phenol represented by formula (I) and/or a modified product thereof.
PNG
media_image4.png
252
453
media_image4.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 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_image1.png
347
495
media_image1.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 include a hydrophobe comprising a modified CNSL, cardanol, derivatives of cardanol or any combinations thereof disclosed in Bae in the plasticizer disclosed in Takesada, motivated by the desire to enhance hydrophobic properties of the plasticizer.
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 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_image2.png
173
325
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takesada in view of Jordan.
As to claims 1-6, 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).
Takesada does not explicitly disclose the plasticizer material further including a phenol represented by formula (I) and/or a modified product thereof.
PNG
media_image4.png
252
453
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Jordan, however, discloses a plasticizing composition for a vinyl chloride resin comprising a combination of (1) a water insoluble adduct of ethylene oxide and an alkyl phenol and (2) an ester plasticizer (abstract, and column 4, lines 60-65) with a weight ratio of (1) to (2) in a range of 10:90 to 90:10 (column 4, lines 10-15). The plasticizing composition thus contains 11-900 parts by mass of the adduct relative to 100 parts by mass of the ester plasticizer. Jordan also teaches that the weight ratio of the plasticizing composition: elastomeric binder solids in a caulking composition is from 0.01:1 to 5:1 (column 4, lines 5-10).
The adduct has formula I:
PNG
media_image3.png
237
467
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The adduct reads on the claimed alkylene oxide modified product of the phenol.
Jordan teaches that the ester plasticizer includes an adipic acid polyester (formula V, column 3, 45-50).
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 an adduct disclosed in Jordan in combination with the polyester-based plasticizer disclosed in Takesada, motivated by the desire to obtain cost effectiveness while providing low temperature flexibility and great tensile/elongation properties.
As to claim 7, Takesada discloses the polyester-based plasticizer including an adipic acid polyester (paragraphs 23 and 24).
As to claim 8, the combined disclosures of Takesada and Jordan result in a plasticizing composition containing 11-900 parts by mass of the adduct relative to 100 parts by mass of the ester plasticizer. This overlaps the claimed range.
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 the adduct will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the content of the adduct is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the content of the adduct in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to obtain cost effectiveness while providing low temperature flexibility and great tensile/elongation properties. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
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 claim 14, the combined disclosures of Takesada and Jordan result in a polyvinyl chloride composition comprising 120-200 parts by mass of a polyester-based plasticizer, and 11-900 parts by mass of an adduct per 100 parts by mass of the polyester-based plasticizer. The content of the adduct relative to 100 parts by mass of the polyvinyl chloride resin overlaps the claimed range.
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 the adduct will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the content of the adduct is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the content of the adduct in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to obtain cost effectiveness while providing low temperature flexibility and great tensile/elongation properties. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
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).
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