DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, Examiner respectfully suggests amending the limitation “fusion-bopndability” in line 6 to “fusion-bondability”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasaki (CN1840567A- Machine translation provided herein).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki teaches a method for producing a molded article of thermoplastic resin expanded beads (“method for producing polypropylene-based expanded beads (hereinafter sometimes referred to as expanded particles), a polypropylene-based resin expanded particle molded body (hereinafter sometimes referred to as a molded body), and a molded body obtained by the method”- see pg. 1 line 18-21), the method comprising:
filling a molding cavity of a mold having a cracking gap with thermoplastic resin expanded beads having a foamed layer (“The adjustment of the compression ratio can be carried out by filling the amount of the expanded particles larger than the cavity volume when the expanded particles are filled into the cavity (cavity)… When the water vapor is introduced, the crack is finally closed, and as a result, the filled expanded particles are compressed, and the crack refers to the opening portion of the forming die which cannot 48 completely close the forming die”- see pg. 16 line 42-49);
completely closing the mold (“When the water vapor is introduced, the crack is finally closed, and as a result, the filled expanded particles are compressed, and the crack refers to the opening portion of the forming die which cannot completely close the forming die.”- see pg. 16 line 46-49); and
supplying steam into the molding cavity to thereby fusion-bond the thermoplastic resin expanded beads to each other (“after the foamed particles are filled in a mold which can be sealed but not sealed, water vapor is introduced into the mold to heat the foamed particles to be foamed and fused to each other, thereby obtaining a shape corresponding to the shape of the forming space”- see pg. 15 line 32-35 and “When the compression ratio is less than 4% by volume, if the particles to which the internal 34 pressure of the expanded particles is applied are not used, the fusion between the expanded 35 particles formed by the in-mold is insufficient, and the void ratio of 0 to 11% by volume 36 cannot be obtained”- see pg. 16 line 34-37),
wherein the thermoplastic resin expanded beads each have a columnar shape (“The so-called spheres in the present invention include a spherical shape, an elliptical shape, an oblong shape, a prism, a cylinder, a square, a rectangular parallelepiped, a cone, a pyramid, a truncated cone, a truncated cone, etc.”- see pg. 6 line 22-24) and have
in cut surface obtained by cutting the thermoplastic resin expanded bead at a center in an axial direction along a plane perpendicular to the axial direction (the cut surface is to be interpreted as a cross-section of the thermoplastic resin expanded bead; “As shown in Fig. 1, at the center of the straight line (length L) connecting the one end 2a and the other end 2b of the through hole 2, the respective expanded particles are cut on the vertical plane of the straight line to obtain an outer portion. An annular section of the rounded edge B1 and the inner rounded edge B2”- see pg. 7 line 4-7), a ratio Ca/A of an average cross-sectional area Ca per one defective portion to an average cross-sectional area A of the thermoplastic resin expanded bead is 0.0064 to 0.16 (“The expanded beads of the present invention have a maximum diameter D0 (mm) defined below, an average cell diameter LCV in the radial direction, a circumferential average cell diameter LCH, and a through hole diameter HD (mm), and… [t]he ratio of HD/D0 is 0.08 to 0.4”- see pg. 6 line 43-46; HD and D0 are diameters and when converting from a ratio of diameters to a ratio of cross-sectional areas the diameter is squared as shown below:
[(HD/2)2π]/[(D0/2)2π] = (HD/D0)2
And the ratio of cross-sectional areas would then range from 0.082 to 0.42 which equals to 0.0064 to 0.16), and a ratio Ct/A of a total cross-sectional area Ct of the defective portion to the average cross- sectional area A of the expanded bead (the total cross-sectional area Ct is interpreted as the summation of the cross-sectional areas of the defective portions and when there is only one defective portion that is present in the expanded bead then the total cross-sectional area Ct is equivalent to the average cross-sectional area Ca per one defective portion) is 0.0064 to 0.16 (see calculation for ratio Ca/A above), and
when the mold is completely closed, a filling rate F of the thermoplastic resin expanded beads represented by Formula (1) is 125%:
F= {a/(b x c)} x 100 (1)
where a represents a mass in kg of the thermoplastic resin expanded beads filled in the mold, b represents a bulk density in kg/m3 of the thermoplastic resin expanded beads, and c represents a capacity in m3 of the molding cavity (“the target molded body can be obtained by the following method, in which the foamed particles are filled into the forming mold at a compression ratio of 4 to 25% by volume”- see pg. 16 line 29-32 and “The compression ratio in the present specification can be obtained by the following formula 1 (11). In the formula, a is the weight (g) of the expanded beads filled in the forming mold, b is the bulk density (g/L) of the expanded particles, and c is the forming in-mold volume (L). Compression ratio (%) = [(a / (b × c)) - 1] × 100 (11)”; Compression ratio (%) = F- 100% and therefore F= Compression ratio (%) + 100%. A compression ratio of 4% converts to a filling rate of 104% and a compression ratio of 25% converts to a filling rate of 125%).
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a ratio of an apparent density of the thermoplastic resin expanded beads to the bulk density of the thermoplastic resin expanded beads is 1.6 to 2.1 (“In the method of the present invention, the ratio (Dt/Db) of the apparent density Dt (g/L) to the bulk density Db (g/L) is preferably 1.6 to 2.6, more preferably 1.6 to 2.1”- see pg. 15 line 47-48).
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the thermoplastic resin expanded beads each have a through hole as the defective portion (see through hole 2 in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Sasaki teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the foamed layer includes a thermoplastic resin which is a polyolefin-based resin (“Here, the propylene-based random copolymer and the propylene-based block copolymer refer to a copolymer of propylene and another comonomer having a propylene component of 60% by mole or more. Examples of the other comonomer copolymerizable with propylene include an α-olefin other than propylene such as ethylene, 1-butene, 1-pentene or 1-hexene”- see pg. 10 line 18-22).
Regarding claim 7, Sasaki teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the foamed laver includes a thermoplastic resin which is an ethylene-propylene random copolymer (“Further, the propylene random copolymer may be a 2-member copolymer such as a propylene-ethylene random copolymer, a propylene-butene random copolymer or a propylene-ethylene random copolymer, or may be a propylene-ethylene-butene”- see pg. 10 line 26-29) having an ethylene component amount of 0.5 mass% to 10 mass% (“The proportion of the comonomer component other than propylene in the copolymer is 0.05 to 15% by weight, particularly preferably 0.1 to 10% by weight”- see pg. 10 line 32-33).
Regarding claim 8, Sasaki teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the bulk density of the thermoplastic resin expanded beads is 18 kg/m3 to 150 kg/m3 (see Db- in examples 1-7 under Table 2).
Regarding claim 9, Sasaki teaches the method claim 1, wherein the molded article has a voidage of 0% to 11% (“According to the present invention, since the molded body is produced by the above-described method, a molded body having a void ratio of 0 to 11% by volume can be obtained”- see pg. 17 line 7-8).
Regarding claim 10, Sasaki teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the filling is performed using the thermoplastic resin expanded beads to which an internal pressure is not applied (“a molded body having a void ratio of 0 to 11% by volume can be obtained without subjecting the expanded particles to a pressure treatment”- see pg. 17 line 8-9).
Regarding claim 12, Sasaki teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the filling is performed using the thermoplastic resin expanded beads to which an internal pressure of less than 0.1 MPa (G) is applied (A pressure of zero is applied as noted in the rejection of claim 10 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (CN1840567A- Machine translation provided herein), and further in view of Tagaki et al. (US20210300005).
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki teaches the method of claim 1. While Sasaki teaches a mold with a cracking gap is filled with molding material before the crack is finally closed (see pg. 16 line 46-49), Sasaki fails to teach wherein an average length LA of the molding cavity in an opening/closing direction of the mold is 10 mm or more and 200 mm or less, the average length LA being represented by Formula (2):
LA= V/S (2) where V represents a capacity in mm3 of the molding cavity in a state where the mold is completely closed, and S represents a projected area in mm2 when the molding cavity is projected in the opening/closing direction of the mold.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a method for producing a molded article of thermoplastic resin expanded beads (Abstract: A laminated article includes a thermoplastic resin expanded beads molded layer), Takagi teaches an average length LA of the molding cavity in an opening/closing direction of the mold is 25 to 55 mm ([0102] The expanded beads A and the expanded beads B were subjected to integral molding using a mold having a mold cavity having a longitudinal length of 250 mm, a lateral length of 200 mm and a thickness of 50 mm. First, with the dimension of the mold cavity in the thickness direction being made 45 mm, the expanded beads A were filled thereinto. The mold was then closed such that the dimension in the thickness direction became 40 mm, [0105] The expanded beads A were subjected to in-mold molding using a mold having a mold cavity having a longitudinal length of 250 mm, a lateral length of 200 mm and a thickness of 50 mm. With the dimension of the mold cavity in the thickness direction being made 55 mm, the expanded beads A were filled thereinto, [0106] The expanded beads B were subjected to in-mold molding using a mold having a mold cavity having a longitudinal length of 250 mm, a lateral length of 200 mm and a thickness of 20 mm. With the dimension of the mold cavity in the thickness direction being made 25 mm; the capacity V is interpreted as the cross-sectional area S times the mold cavity thickness such that LA is equal to the length of the molding cavity. Takagi teaches lengths of 25, 40, 50, and 55 mm).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have an average length LA of the molding cavity in an opening/closing direction of the mold of Sasaki be from 25 mm to 55 mm, as taught by Takagi, to achieve the predictable result of forming a molded article comprising thermoplastic resin expanded beads by a crack filling method. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the molded article of Sasaki to be formed using the average length LA of Takagi, since both Sasaki and Takagi are directed to forming articles based on poly-olefin expanded beads by a crack filling method (see rejection of claim 1 above and Takagi teaches [0092] the mold being closed after completion of the filling to mechanically compress the expanded beads (cracking filling method), may be adopted to the extent that the secondary expansion force of the expanded beads is not excessively increased), which would lead one of ordinary skill to look to related art for average lengths of the molding cavity to form articles with poly-olefin expanded beads using the crack filling method.
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki teaches the method of claim 1. While Sasaki teaches a polypropylene resin or thermoplastic resin other than a polypropylene resin may be added to the thermoplastic resin expanded beads when the molded article is also required to have flexibility (“Further, when the molded article is also required to have flexibility, it is preferable to add a polypropylene-based artificial rubber such as ethylene-propylene rubber to the base resin in an amount of 5 to 40% by weight. In the present invention, a thermoplastic resin other than a polypropylene resin or a thermoplastic elastomer may be added to the polypropylene resin”- see pg. 11 line 4-7), Sasaki fails to teach the additional thermoplastic resin is a fusion-bondability improving layer covering the foamed layer and including a fusion-bondability improving layer base resin.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a method for producing a molded article of thermoplastic resin expanded beads, Takagi teaches a fusion-bondability improving layer covering the foamed layer ([0008] [1] A laminated article comprising an expanded beads molded layer A comprised of a base polymer including a thermoplastic resin, and an expanded beads molded layer B laminated and bonded to said expanded beads molded layer A and comprised of a base polymer including a thermoplastic elastomer and [0040] When the thermoplastic resin of the molded layer A is a polyolefin-based resin, TPO is preferably used as TPE of the molded layer B. Even when the thermoplastic resin of the molded layer A is a polypropylene-based resin, the molded layer B of TPO may be thermally fusion-bonded to the molded layer A). The top layer of Takagi allows for multiple layers to be simultaneously molded, laminated, and bonded such that productivity is improved ([0040] by performing the molding of the molded layer A and the molding of the molded layer B successively in one molding mold, it is possible to integrally laminate and bond the molded layer A and the molded layer B together, so that the productivity is improved).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the additional thermoplastic resin of Sasaki be a fusion-bondability improving layer covering the foamed layer, as taught by Takagi, for the benefit of forming laminated molds with improved productivity.
Regarding claim 11, Tagaki teaches the method of claim 1. While Tagaki teaches a compression ratio, Tagaki fails to teach the maximum value of the compression rate is represented by the formula Pmax = (δ/Lmin) x 100 (3) where δ represents a dimension in mm of the cracking gap of the mold, and Lmin represents a minimum value in mm of a length of the molding cavity in an opening/closing direction of the mold when the mold is completely closed, and that a maximum value of Pmax is 25% or more and 120% or less.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a method for producing a molded article of thermoplastic resin expanded beads, Takagi teaches δ = 45 mm and Lmin= 40 mm ([0102] The expanded beads A and the expanded beads B were subjected to integral molding using a mold having a mold cavity having a longitudinal length of 250 mm, a lateral length of 200 mm and a thickness of 50 mm. First, with the dimension of the mold cavity in the thickness direction being made 45 mm, the expanded beads A were filled thereinto. The mold was then closed such that the dimension in the thickness direction became 40 mm) to yield a compression rate Pmax of 113%.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the method of Tagaki to have a compression rate of 113%, as taught by Takagi, to achieve the predictable result of forming a molded article comprising thermoplastic resin expanded beads by a crack filling method. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the molded article of Sasaki to be formed using the average length LA of Takagi, since both Sasaki and Takagi are directed to forming articles based on poly-olefin expanded beads by a crack filling method (see rejection of claim 1 above and Takagi teaches [0092] the mold being closed after completion of the filling to mechanically compress the expanded beads (cracking filling method), may be adopted to the extent that the secondary expansion force of the expanded beads is not excessively increased), which would lead one of ordinary skill to look to related art for average lengths of the molding cavity to form articles with poly-olefin expanded beads using the crack filling method.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, and 11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/841,513 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of reference application teaches the limitations included in claims 1, 2, and 11 of instant application.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of reference application.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of reference application.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of reference application.
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of reference application.
Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of reference application.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of reference application.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of reference application.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743