DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicants’ election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-15; “a thermoplastic resin composition”) in the reply filed on 03/03/2026 is acknowledged. The applicants at page 1 of their Remarks filed 03/03/2026 argue that the groups can be searched and examined together without undue burden. However, this argument is not convincing at this time because all the inventions are independent or distinct for the reasons provided in the previous Office action mailed 12/23/2025 which the applicants do not dispute on the record, and there would be a search and/or examination burden if restriction was not require since the inventions require a different field of search. For instance, as mentioned in the prior Office action, the elected Group I is classified in search area C08L 71/12 while the other unelected Group II is classified in B29B 7/007. Accordingly, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
3. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 03/03/2026.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to Claim 13: The applicants are advised to replace the claimed “flow index” with the new phrase “melt flow index” as the “ASTM D1238” is a known standard test method for measuring melt flow rate (MFR) of thermoplastic polymers1.
As to Claim 14: The applicants are advised to replace the claimed “SiO2” with “SiO2”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Specification-Objection
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At page 14, line 1, of the present specification, the applicants are advised to replace the disclosed “flow index” with the new phrase “melt flow index” as the “ASTM D1238” is a known standard test method for measuring melt flow rate (MFR) of thermoplastic polymers2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
6. Claims 1-2 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortuyn et al. (US 6,579,925) in view of Choi et al. (WO 2022/124513; utilized US 2023/0374302 as its English Equivalent).
It is noted that since Choi et al. (WO 2022/124513) is used for date purposes only, and all paragraph numbers cited below refer to its English Equivalent, namely US 2023/0374302 since WO 2022/124513 is in Korean.
The broadest claim is directed to a thermoplastic resin composition comprising particular amounts of a base resin comprising polyarylene ether resin and polystyrene resin in a particular ratio, glass fiber comprising a sizing agent, an adhesion promoter, and hydrophobic additive. The claim also recites 0-10 wt% of an impact modifier, which is interpreted to include zero amount of an impact modifier.
As to Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 11-12: Fortuyn et al. disclose a thermoplastic resin composition (Col. 1, line 40-42 and Col. 10, lines 44-45), comprising (1) poly(arylene ether) resin and polystyrene resin (Col. 1, lines 53-55). The thermoplastic resin composition taught by Fortuyn et al. also comprises (2) 0.1-50% by weight of additives including glass fibers that are treated with a silane coupling agent (corresponding to the claimed glass fibers comprising a sizing agent and overlaps with the claimed 20-40 wt.% of glass fibers comprising a sizing agent); (3) 0.1-50% by weight of an adhesion promoter (overlaps with the claimed 1-5 wt.% of an adhesion promoter) (Col. 5, lines 45-60 and Col. 6, lines 9-40); and (4) 0.1-3% by weight of antioxidant (which according to present claim 8 corresponds to the claimed hydrophobic additive and overlaps with the claimed 0.1-1.0 wt.% of hydrophobic additive) (Col. 4, lines 66-67 and Col. 5, lines 35-40). Fortuyn et al. also disclose that the poly(arylene ether) resin has an intrinsic viscosity of 0.10-0.60 dl/g (Col. 2, lines 41-45), which is inclusive of the claimed intrinsic viscosity of 0.2-0.8 dlg, and a number average molecular weight of about 3-40,000 g/mol (Col. 2, lines 37-40), which overlaps with the claimed number average molecular weight of 10,000-100,000 g/mol. Fortuyn et al. further disclose that the poly(arylene ether) resin is selected from, among other things, poly(2,6-dimethyl-1,4-phenylene ether) (Col. 1, line 61-Col. 2, line 25) and the antioxidant (hydrophobic additive) does not comprise a metal component (Col. 5, lines 1-35).
While Fortuyn et al. disclose using poly(arylene ether) and polystyrene in the thermoplastic resin composition (Col. 1, lines 40-45), they do not mention using them in the form of a base resin comprising a particular ratio of polyarylene ether resin and polystyrene resin as required by the claims of the present application. They also do not mention using the base resin in a particular amount as required by the claims.
Nevertheless, Choi et al. disclose using a base resin including 50-95% by weight of a polyarylene ether resin and 5-50% by weight of a polystyrene resin in a thermoplastic resin composition having advantageous mechanical properties and heat-resistant properties useful for molding applications (Paragraphs [0002], [0023] and [0024]). Choi et al. also disclose that the polyarylene ether when used in particular provides the thermoplastic resin composition with excellent mechanical properties and heat resistance (Paragraph [0027]). Choi et al. further disclose that the polystyrene resin in particular when used in the thermoplastic resin composition imparts excellent mechanical properties such as impact strength and tensile strength (Paragraph [0044]). In other words, the amounts of polyarylene ether and polystyrene resins used as base resin are known results-effective variable, i.e., affecting the properties of the final product. See MPEP section 2144.05, IIB.
Given the above teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ optimum or workable amounts of the poly(arylene ether) and polystyrene resins as a base resin, including the claimed ratio, suggested by Choi et al., in the thermoplastic resin composition of Fortuyn et al., with a reasonable expectation of successfully imparting excellent mechanical properties, such as impact strength and tensile strength, and heat resistant properties suitable for molding applications.
As to Claim 10: These claimed properties would have naturally followed from the suggestion of Fortuyn et al. and Choi et al. since they would have collectively suggested identical or substantially identical thermoplastic resin composition as that claimed for the reasons set forth above. See MPEP section 2145, II (“The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious”). See also MPEP section 2113.01 “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.”
As to Claim 13: Fortuyn et al. do not specify the melt flow rate of its polystyrene resin as required by claim 13. However, Choi et al. disclose the use of a polystyrene resin having a melt flow index of 2 g/10 min to 20 g/10 min as measured at 200 °C under 5 kg according to ASTM D1238 to impart excellent processability and physical property balance to thermoplastic resin composition (Paragraph [0054]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the polystyrene resin having the claimed melt flow index taught by Choi et al. as the polystyrene in the thermoplastic resin composition discussed in Fortuyn et al., with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing the same with excellent processability and physical property balance.
7. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortuyn et al. (US 6,579,925) in view of Choi et al. (WO 2022/124513; utilized US 2023/0374302 as its English Equivalent) as applied to claims 1-2 and 8-13 above, and further in view of Snodgrass et al. (US 3,665,058).
The disclosures with respect to Fortuyn et al. and Choi et al. in paragraph 6 are incorporated here by reference.
However, they do not specify the polystyrene resin as being a general-purpose polystyrene (GPPS)3 as recited in claim 3.
Nevertheless, Snodgrass et al. disclose the use of a polystyrene resin that is a general purpose grade (corresponding to the claimed general-purpose polystyrene or GPPS) for the purposes of preparing a thermoplastic resin composition exhibiting improved melt processing characteristics in addition to high strength properties (Col. 1, lines 5-10, Col. 7, lines 35-50, and see also abstract).
Given the above teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the general-purpose polystyrene (GPPS) resin taught by Snodgrass et al. as the polystyrene resin in the thermoplastic resin composition suggested by Fortuyn et al. and Choi et al., with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining improved melt processing characteristics in addition to high strength properties.
8. Claims 4-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortuyn et al. (US 6,579,925) in view of Choi et al. (WO 2022/124513; utilized US 2023/0374302 as its English Equivalent) as applied to claims 1-2 and 8-13 above, and further in view of Mawatari et al. (US 2002/0019497).
The disclosures with respect to Fortuyn et al. and Choi et al. in paragraph 6 are incorporated here by reference
However, they do not specify their glass fibers as having a particular diameter and length, and surface-treated with a sizing agent comprising amino silane-based compound for purposes of improving wetting properties and mechanical strength as required by claims 4-5 and 15.
Nevertheless, Mawatari et al. teach the use of glass fibers having a diameter of 10 µm (encompassed by the claimed diameter of 3-25 µm) and length of 3 mm (encompassed by the claimed length of 1-15 mm) subjected to a surface treatment containing aminosilane (sizing agent comprising amino silane-based compound) for the purposes of improving the wetting properties, and obtaining thermoplastic resin composition high in mechanical strength such as flexural strength and excellent in moldability (Paragraphs [0092] and [0131], and see also abstract).
Given the above teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the glass fibers having the claimed diameter and length that are surface treated with amino silane-based compound taught by Mawatari et al. in the thermoplastic resin composition suggested by Fortuyn et al. and Choi et al., with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving the wetting properties, and obtaining thermoplastic resin composition high in mechanical strength such as flexural strength and excellent in moldability.
9. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortuyn et al. (US 6,579,925) in view of Choi et al. (WO 2022/124513; utilized US 2023/0374302 as its English Equivalent) as applied to claims 1-2 and 8-13 above, and further in view of Okuyama (US 2004/0236004).
The disclosures with respect to Fortuyn et al. and Choi et al. in paragraph 6 are incorporated here by reference
However, they do not specify the adhesion promoter as including the claimed fumaric acid-modified polyarylene ether.
Nevertheless, Okuyama discloses the use of fumaric-acid modified polyphenylene ether as an adhesion promoter for improving the affinity between a polymer and an inorganic filler component to ultimately provide a thermoplastic resin composition with advantageous mechanical properties, thermal properties and moldability (Paragraphs [0035] and see also abstract).
Given the above teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the claimed adhesion promoter comprising fumaric-acid modified polyphenylene ether taught by Okuyama in the thermoplastic resin composition suggested by Fortuyn et al. and Choi et al., with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving the affinity between a polymer and an inorganic filler component to ultimately provide the thermoplastic resin composition with advantageous mechanical properties, thermal properties and moldability.
10. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortuyn et al. (US 6,579,925) in view of Choi et al. (WO 2022/124513; utilized US 2023/0374302 as its English Equivalent) as applied to claims 1-2 and 8-13 above, and further in view of Adedeji (US 2003/0171503).
The disclosures with respect to Fortuyn et al. and Choi et al. in paragraph 6 are incorporated here by reference
However, they do not specifically mention the addition of an impact modifier comprising a styrene-based copolymer as required by claim 7.
Nevertheless, Adedeji disclose the addition of an impact modifier comprising styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymer to provide polyarylene ether based thermoplastic resin composition with desired physical properties (Paragraph [0008] and see also claim 21 of Adedeji).
Given the above teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the impact modifier comprising styrene-based copolymer taught by Adedeji in the thermoplastic resin composition suggested by Fortuyn et al. and Choi et al., with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining desired physical properties.
11. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortuyn et al. (US 6,579,925) in view of Choi et al. (WO 2022/124513; utilized US 2023/0374302 as its English Equivalent) as applied to claims 1-2 and 8-13 above, and further in view of Robin et al. (US 6,468,932).
The disclosures with respect to Fortuyn et al. and Choi et al. in paragraph 6 are incorporated here by reference
However, they do not specify their glass fibers as including the claimed weight proportion of silica (SiO2).
Nevertheless, Robin et al. disclose the use of glass fibers made of, for example, 70% of SiO2 (encompassed by the claimed weight proportion of 50-70% of SiO2) to obtain excellent mechanical properties (Col. 4, lines 1-40 and Col. 14, lines 25-50).
Given the above teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the glass fibers comprising the claimed amount of SiO2 taught by Robin et al. in the thermoplastic resin composition suggested by Fortuyn et al. and Choi et al., with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining excellent mechanical properties.
Correspondence
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANNAH J PAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5456. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 PM; M-F.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther, can be reached at (571)-270-7026. 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.
/HANNAH J PAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
1 See attached NPL (“ASTM D1238-23: Melt Flow Rates of Thermoplastics,” American National Standards Institute, March 27, 2023).
2 See Footnote 1 above.
3 According to page 13, lines 15-20, of the present specification, the claimed “GPPS” is a styrene homopolymer and refers to the most common resin polymerized with styrene as a monomer.
Prosecution Insights