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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 28 recites carbon black as an inorganic pigment in a composition in which a zinc fatty acid salt is used and any other absorbent is excluded. Komai (U.S. 5,093,407) teaches carbon black as pigments, fillers, and reinforcing agents (Column 1 lines 20-26) in which carbon black is characterized as have a dibutyl phthalate (DBP) absorption number. (Column 1 lines 25-40 and Column 2 lines 30-45). As this number is necessarily the result of absorbing a chemical, dibutyl phthalate, which is related to styrene, both are aromatic chemicals, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested that carbon black must be capable of functioning as an absorbent in the compositions claimed. Either strongly or poorly but still capable of functioning to some degree as an absorbent. Therefore, the carbon black of Claim 28 does not further limit Claim 27 and ultimately Claim 21 from which it depends because it is capable of being an absorbent which is excluded by these claims.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3-4, 6, 8-9, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krabbenborg (WO2017089547 reference made to national stage U.S. 20180346715).
Krabbenborg in Table 1 Example V1 teaches a composition comprising styrene via ASA copolymer (¶[0197]) which has 2 wt % of pigments containing carbon black and a demolding agent in it. The TVOC is 27 (Table 7) (ppm = μg/g). The demolding agent is taught in ¶[0158] and may include stearates of zinc.
ABS is suggested as functionally equivalent styrenic polymer in ¶[0138] but does not exemplify it.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Krabbenborg by using ABS instead of ASA because Krabbenborg suggests them as discussed above.
The claims recite a composition comprising a polymer selected from the group consisting of and such language does not exclude other polymers in a composition (such as the polycarbonate in Krabbenborg’s composition) from reading over the claimed styrenic composition.
The amount of pigments, carbon black as a pigment and the ABS suggested by Krabbenborg as above read of Claim 3, Claim 6 and Claim 8.
The compositions are styrenic because they contain a styrene polymer (ABS) in them. Applicant has no definition in their as-filed specification defining the amount of styrene in the styrenic composition and does not recite an amount either.
The V1 composition does not specifically state what the demolding or mold release agent is.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Krabbenborg by using the zinc stearate demolding agent in V1 because Krabbenborg teaches such a compound for this purpose in ¶[0158]. This reads over the zinc stearate (zinc fatty acid salt) of Claim 1 and Claim 4.
Krabbenborg teaches TVOC of 27 μg/g of the composition as above which reads over the amount of TVOC of Claim 1.
Krabbenborg is silent on the residual styrene in the claimed range of Claim 1 and Claim 9.
However, Applicant only states this range in their as-filed specification and there is no indication of how this range is arrived at nor what the residual styrene content is in the as-filed specification examples. Based on this evidence, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested the residual amount of styrene in the above modified zinc stearate containing composition of Krabbenborg must be in the range recited by Claim 1 and Claim 9 because the V1 composition is a styrene containing composition which comprises pigments, zinc stearate and has a TVOC in the claimed range of Claim 1. Further, this composition is made by compounding in the zinc stearate and pigments into the styrene containing polymer which is similar to how Applicant makes the composition of the claimed common technical feature.
This reads over Claim 1 and Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 31, Krabbenborg only teaches ABS (acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene) generically as above and does not specify the amount of styrene in the ABS copolymer.
However, Krabbenborg in ¶[0060] 60 to 95 wt% of styrene as the amount of styrene to make the respective ASA rubbers (¶[0066]) in Component B as the 20-60 wt% graft (therefore, 95% of 60 is ~57 wt% styrene). Additionally, Krabbenborg also teaches this component my have butadiene in it also (¶[0069]). Finally, Krabbenborg also teaches another component of styrene and acrylonitrile which is related to ABS using 60 to 85 wt% of styrene (¶[0097]). Whle this component is taught as rubber free, the above sections of Krabbenborg reasonably suggest styrene levels useful in the invention for ABS which has to have an amount of styrene in it.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to choose and ABS with ~57 to 85 wt% of styrene for the functionally equivalent, as in serving the same function in the invention, as ASA discussed above, because one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested styrene in the above amounts in ASA / ABS related resins of Krabbenborg as discussed above.
This reads over the recited about 60 wt% styrene in the ABS and Claim 31 especially in light of 57 being with the range of about 60 as Applicant has no definition in the as-field specification defining limits on what is considered to be included in the range of the term “about”.
Claim 5 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krabbenborg (WO2017089547 reference made to national stage U.S. 20180346715) in view of Seo (U.S. 20170275452).
Krabbenborg is applied as above.
Krabbenborg does not generally teach the level of VOC and the exemplified amount is outside the claimed range of Claim 5 and Claim 26. Krabbenborg is drawn to automotive applications.
Seo, working in the field of reducing volatile organic compounds in ABS resins similar to Krabbenborg and Applicant, teaches modified ABS resins with TVOC of 30 μg C/ g or less (C for carbon or organic). ¶[0073] In ¶[0009] Seo teaches ABS has a high content of volatile organic compounds making it difficult to adopt as an environmentally friendly material. Therefore, the teaching of high VOC along with the teaching of desirable TVOC content in the ABS resin along with Seo being directed to materials used in automobile interiors reasonably suggests the TVOC of 30 μg C/ g or less of ¶[0073] is also a relevant level of TVOC for ABS compositions as the ABS composition itself must also have a 30 μg C/ g or less in order to be environmentally friendly as suggested in ¶[0009].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Krabbenborg such that the TVOC level as 30 μg C/ g or less, even if this requires using the modified ABS of Seo as the ABS of Krabbenborg because Seo suggests as above the 30 μg C/ g or less TVOC levels makes the compositions more environmentally friendly for automotive applications. (See at least ¶[0204])
A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in the above modification to reach TVOC of 30 μg C/ g or less because Krabbenborg is already drawn to having TVOC in the range and Krabbenborg does not exclude the ABS of Seo from being used as the ABS of Krabbenborg if the PC/ABS composition of Krabbenborg are found to have more TVOC than the above limits.
This reads over the VOC limit of Claim 5 and Claim 26.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krabbenborg (WO2017089547 reference made to national stage U.S. 20180346715) in view of Yuan (CN101314462; reference made to included English machine translation), Schoerken (U.S. 20080242879) and Collier (U.S. 20080057019).
Krabbenborg is applied as above but is silent on the use of an additional material as recited by Claim 7. Krabbenborg is drawn to automotive parts which do not exhibit increased emissions (TVOC). ¶[0226].
Yuan, working in the field of ABS compositions with reduced VOCs similar to Krabbenborg and Applicant, teaches sodium aluminosilicates are absorbent (¶[0016]) for reducing VOC in ABS resins.
Schoerken, working on the problem of reducing odors similar to Krabbenborg and Yuan and Applicant, teaches zeolites are absorbent. (¶[0072]).
Collier, working on the problem of reducing odors similar to Krabbenborg, Yuan and Applicant, teaches zeolites are a form of sodium aluminosilicate. ¶[0021-0025]/sodium aluminosilicate ¶[0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Krabbenborg as discussed above by adding a sodium aluminosilicate to the compositions because Yuan teaches this compound reduces VOC in polymers such as ABS. One of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to choose the sodium aluminosilicate as a zeolite because Schoerken teaches zeolites are absorbent and Collier teaches zeolites are a form of sodium aluminosilicate and Yuan teaches the sodium aluminosilicate is absorbent as discussed above.
This reads over the additional material of zeolite of Claim 7.
Claims 21-25, and 27-30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krabbenborg (WO2017089547 reference made to national stage U.S. 20180346715) in view of Ishidai (U.S. 20130260306).
Krabbenborg is applied as above.
Krabbenborg does not teach a lubricant / mold release / fatty acid ester that is zinc ricinoleate (a C18 hydroxy unsaturated fatty acid zinc salt in Claim 21).
Krabbenborg in ¶[0158] teaches a variety of zinc compounds including zinc stearate for use a mold release / lubricant.
Ishidai, working in the field of compositions of polycarbonate and styrene (binder) ¶[0064] similar to Krabbenborg and compositions of styrene similar to Applicant, teaches the use of zinc ricinoleate and zinc stearate as functionally equivalent, as serving the same function it the invention, lubricants in binder (compositions) of polycarbonate and / or polystyrene compositions ¶[0208]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Krabbenborg, in particular those of the examples including Example V1 or the compositions of Table 2 which use fatty acid ester (i.e. mold release/lubricants), such that the demolding agent / lubricant Loixol was substituted by zinc ricinoleate because Krabbenborg teaches zinc stearate for this purpose as a mold release / lubricant and Ishidai teaches zinc stearate and zinc ricinoleate are functionally equivalent, as in serving the same function in the invention, lubricants.
This reads over Claim 21, Claim 25 and Claim 32.
The remaining portions of Claim 21, Claim 22, Claim 23, Claim 24, Claim 27, Claim 28, Claim 29 (fatty acid ester and Loxiol G70S are the lubricants/mold release agents (¶[0158]) exemplified in amount of 0.4 to 0.5 wt%) and Claim 30 are read over for the same reasons above. The compositions of Krabbenborg do not have an apparent additional absorbent present in them as the exemplified lubricants/mold release agents are motivated to be substituted as above. There is no require that Krabbenborg explicitly teach an exclusion of additional absorbents to read over the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 3-9 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (CN101314462; reference made to the included English machine translation) in view of Guerrieri (U.S. 20080188607), Schoerken (U.S. 20080242879), Seo (U.S. 20170275452) and Collier (U.S. 20080057019) as evidenced by Hanzlicek (U.S. 20070237738).
Yuan teaches ABS compositions comprising 1.5 wt% of castor oil zinc salt, 1.5 wt% of sodium aluminosilicate and 89 wt% of ABS (exemplified ¶[0024]). In ¶[0016] Yuan teaches the combination of sodium aluminosilicate and castor oil zinc salt are absorbents that reduce the volatiles and odor of the ABS resin.
Yuan does not explicitly teach pigment is contained in the ABS compositions but does not exclude pigments from being used. The ABS resins of Yuan are to be used in automotive applications. ¶[0004]
Guerrieri, working in the field of reducing odors in styrenic compositions similar to Yuan and Applicant, teaches reduced odor compositions styrenic compositions which can comprise 0.1 to 20 wt% of pigments including carbon black which are a conventional additive. ¶[0082]/¶[0085].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Yuan, in particular that of the example above by adding 1 to 20 wt% of a pigment, because Guerrieri teaches that pigments are conventional additives for use in styrenic based compositions for the automotive area. This represents the combination of known prior art elements, the use of pigments in styrenic compositions in the automotive arena, for the predictable result of a pigmented styrene composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose carbon black for the above pigment because Guerrieri specifically suggests it as a pigment.
This reads over the pigment of Claim 1, the amount of Claim 3 and the inorganic and carbon black pigment of Claim 6 and Claim 8.
The ABS reads over the styrenic composition polymer of Claim 1 and said polymer as ABS as recited by Claim 2.
Schoerken, working on the problem of reducing odors similar to Yuan and Applicant, teaches castor oil reacted with zinc oxide creates zinc ricinoleate. ¶[0072] Yuan only teaches zinc salt of castor oil, however, based on the above teachings of Schoerken one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested the zinc salt of castor oil includes zinc ricinoleate as a compound as it comprises a zinc salt made from castor oil and castor oil includes ricinoleic acid. This, along with amount, reads over the zinc salt of a fatty acid of Claim 1 and also Claim 4’s zinc ricinolate.
As evidenced by Hanzlicek in ¶[0006] zinc ricinoleate is known for its odor reducing effects similar to what Yuan teaches in ¶[0016]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested the 1.5 wt% of zinc salt of castor oil is referring to a similar amount of zinc ricinoleate as this is the active ingredient for odor absorption as discussed above.
This reads over the zinc compound of a fatty acid of Claim 1, the zinc ricinoleate of Claim 4 and Claim 32.
The sodium aluminosilicate of Yuan is not necessarily a zeolite.
Collier, working on the problem of reducing odors similar to Yuan and Applicant, teaches zeolites are a form of sodium aluminosilicate. ¶[0021-0025]/sodium aluminosilicate ¶[0022]).
Yuan teaches sodium aluminosilicates are absorbent (¶[0016]) and Schoerken teaches zeolites are absorbent. (¶[0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Yuan as discussed above by choosing the sodium aluminosilicate to be a zeolite because Schoerken teaches zeolites are absorbent, Collier teaches zeolites are a form of sodium aluminosilicate and Yuan teaches the sodium aluminosilicate is absorbent as discussed above.
This reads over the additional material of zeolite of Claim 7.
Yuan does not teach the levels of residual styrene of the compositions.
Guerrieri suggest in Table of ¶[0119] residual styrene levels of ~52 to ~443 ppm are found in the compositions of Guerrieri, which as above are useful for the automative area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Yuan, even by adding the clay of Guerrieri which is how Guerrieri reduces residual styrene levels, such that the resulting residual styrene levels are ~ 52 to ~443 ppm because Guerrieri demonstrates these levels of styrene are desirable in styrene compositions in automative applications.
This reads over the residual styrene amount of Claim 1 and Claim 9.
Yuan does not teach the total amount of volatile organic compounds (TVOC) of the resulting odor reducing compositions.
Seo, working in the field of reducing volatile organic compounds in ABS resins similar to Yuan and Applicant, teaches modified ABS resins with TVOC of 30 μg C/ g or less (C for carbon or organic). ¶[0073] In ¶[0009] Seo teaches ABS has a high content of volatile organic compounds making it difficult to adopt as an environmentally friendly material. Therefore, the teaching of high VOC along with the teaching of desirable TVOC content in the ABS resin along with Seo being directed to materials used in automobile interiors reasonably suggests the TVOC of 30 μg C/ g or less of ¶[0073] is also a relevant level of TVOC for ABS compositions as the ABS composition itself must also have a 30 μg C/ g or less in order to be environmentally friendly as suggested in ¶[0009].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Yuan such that the TVOC level as 30 μg C/ g or less, even if this requires using the modified ABS of Seo as the ABS of Yuan because Seo suggests as above the 30 μg C/ g or less TVOC levels makes the compositions more environmentally friendly for automotive applications.
A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in the above modification to reach TVOC of 30 μg C/ g or less because Yuan is already drawn to reducing TVOC and Yuan does not exclude the ABS of Seo from being used as the ABS of Yuan if the ABS composition of Yuan are found to have more TVOC than the above limits.
This reads over the VOC limit of Claim 1 and Claim 5.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (CN101314462; reference made to the included English machine translation) in view of Guerrieri (U.S. 20080188607), Schoerken (U.S. 20080242879), Seo (U.S. 20170275452) and Collier (U.S. 20080057019) as evidenced by Hanzlicek (U.S. 20070237738) in view of Ingulli (U.S. 3,555,119).
Yuan is applied as above.
Yuan teaches various ABS resins that may be used but does not teach or suggest the amount of styrene in them.
Ingulli teaches ABS resins typically (commonly) have 25 to 85 wt% styrene in them.(Column 2 lines 37-50)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Yuan by using an ABS resin with 25 to 85 wt% of styrene in it because Ingulli teaches this is a common or typical amount of styrene in ABS.
This reads over the 60 wt% styrene of Claim 31.
Claim 1, 3-9 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerrieri (U.S. 20080188607) in view of Yuan (CN101314462; reference made to the included English machine translation), Schoerken (U.S. 20080242879), Seo (U.S. 20170275452) and Collier (U.S. 20080057019) as evidenced by Hanzlicek (U.S. 20070237738).
Guerrieri teaches styrenic compositions which include a clay that have residual styrene levels of ~52 to ~443 ppm. The styrenic compositions may be ABS (¶[0038, other monomers = butadiene and acrylonitrile).
This reads over the residual styrene amount of Claim 1 and Claim 9.
Guerrieri does not teach or suggest a zinc fatty acid salt as a component or exemplify ABS as the styrenic resin.
Guerrieri teaches the clay (bentonite) has slightly less impact resistance at higher levels ¶[00115]
Yuan, working in the field of reducing odors of ABS resins, teaches ABS compositions comprising 1.5 wt% of castor oil zinc salt, 1.5 wt% of sodium aluminosilicate and 89 wt% of ABS (exemplified ¶[0024]). In ¶[0016] Yuan teaches the combination of sodium aluminosilicate and castor oil zinc salt are absorbents that are effective in reducing the amount of volatiles and odor of the ABS resin.
Yuan also teaches ABS has high impact strength, good dimensional stability, excellent electrical properties and good wear resistance among other properties. ¶[0015]
Guerrieri, teaches reduced odor compositions styrenic compositions which can comprise 0.1 to 20 wt% of pigments including carbon black which are a conventional additive. ¶[0082]/¶[0085].
This reads over the pigment of Claim 1, the amount of Claim 3 and the inorganic and carbon black pigment of Claim 6 and Claim 8.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Guerrieri by choosing the styrenic resin to be ABS for the above identified reasons for using ABS resin taught by Yuan.
The ABS reads over the styrenic composition polymer of Claim 1 and said polymer as ABS as recited by Claim 2.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Guerrieri to add the sodium aluminosilicate and zinc salt of castor oil as absorbents taught by Yuan in order to reduce the amount of clay used in Guerrieri to overcome the decrease in impact strength found by Guerrieri in using higher amounts of clay but still achieve the lower residual styrene found in using higher amounts of clay as Yuan teaches the sodium aluminosilicate and zinc salt of castor oil is useful for reducing the volatiles of the ABS resin as discussed above.
This would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the amounts of sodium aluminosilicate and zinc salt of castor oil taught by Yuan in the ABS composition of Guerrieri. As above, 1.5 wt% is exemplified for each.
Schoerken, working on the problem of reducing odors similar to Yuan and Applicant, teaches castor oil reacted with zinc oxide creates zinc ricinoleate. ¶[0072] Yuan only teaches zinc salt of castor oil, however, based on the above teachings of Schoerken one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested the zinc salt of castor oil includes zinc ricinoleate as a compound as it comprises a zinc salt made from castor oil and castor oil includes ricinoleic acid. This, along with amount, reads over the zinc salt of a fatty acid of Claim 1 and also Claim 4’s zinc ricinolate.
As evidenced by Hanzlicek in ¶[0006] zinc ricinoleate is known for its odor reducing effects similar to what Yuan teaches in ¶[0016]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested the 1.5 wt% of zinc salt of castor oil is referring to a similar amount of zinc ricinoleate as this is the active ingredient for odor absorption as discussed above.
This reads over the zinc compound of a fatty acid of Claim 1, the zinc ricinoleate of Claim 4 and Claim 32.
The sodium aluminosilicate of Yuan is not necessarily a zeolite.
Collier, working on the problem of reducing odors similar to Guerrieri, Yuan and Applicant, teaches zeolites are a form of sodium aluminosilicate. (¶[0021-0025]/sodium aluminosilicate ¶[0022]).
Yuan teaches sodium aluminosilicates are absorbent (¶[0016]) and Schoerken teaches zeolites are absorbent. (¶[0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Guerrieri modified by Yuan as discussed above by choosing the sodium aluminosilicate to be a zeolite because Schoerken teaches zeolites are absorbent, Collier teaches zeolites are a form of sodium aluminosilicate and Yuan teaches the sodium aluminosilicate is absorbent as discussed above.
This reads over the additional material of zeolite of Claim 7.
Yuan does not teach the total amount of volatile organic compounds (TVOC) of the resulting odor reducing compositions.
Seo, working in the field of reducing volatile organic compounds in ABS resins similar to Guerrieri and Applicant, teaches modified ABS resins with TVOC of 30 μg C/ g or less (C for carbon or organic). ¶[0073] In ¶[0009] Seo teaches ABS has a high content of volatile organic compounds making it difficult to adopt as an environmentally friendly material. Therefore, the teaching of high VOC along with the teaching of desirable TVOC content in the ABS resin along with Seo being directed to materials used in automobile interiors reasonably suggests the TVOC of 30 μg C/ g or less of ¶[0073] is also a relevant level of TVOC for ABS compositions as the ABS composition itself must also have a 30 μg C/ g or less in order to be environmentally friendly as suggested in ¶[0009].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Guerrieri such that the TVOC level as 30 μg C/ g or less, even if this requires using the modified ABS of Seo as the ABS of Guerrieri because Seo suggests as above the 30 μg C/ g or less TVOC levels makes the compositions more environmentally friendly for automotive applications.
A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in the above modification to reach TVOC of 30 μg C/ g or less because Guerrieri is already drawn to reducing TVOC and Guerrieri does not exclude the ABS of Seo from being used as the ABS of Guerrieri if the ABS composition of Guerrieri are found to have more TVOC than the above limits.
This reads over the VOC limit of Claim 1 and Claim 5.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerrieri (U.S. 20080188607) in view of Yuan (CN101314462; reference made to the included English machine translation), Schoerken (U.S. 20080242879), Seo (U.S. 20170275452) and Collier (U.S. 20080057019) as evidenced by Hanzlicek (U.S. 20070237738) in view of Ingulli (U.S. 3,555,119).
Guerrieri is applied as above.
Guerrieri teaches ABS resins that may be used but does not teach or suggest the amount of styrene in them.
Ingulli teaches ABS resins typically (commonly) have 25 to 85 wt% styrene in them.(Column 2 lines 37-50)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Guerrieri by using an ABS resin with 25 to 85 wt% of styrene in it because Ingulli teaches this is a common or typical amount of styrene in ABS.
This reads over the 60 wt% styrene of Claim 31.
In general as multiple §103s are made in this action, If Applicant intends to argue there is criticality which gives an unexpected result to the compositions in light of the teachings of the prior art, Applicant is reminded such arguments to unexpected results can only be properly considered when all the factors in MPEP §716.02 are properly taken into account. Overcoming a §103 rejection based on unexpected results requires the combination of three different elements: the results must fairly compare with the prior art, the claims must be commensurate in scope and the results must truly be unexpected. (See MPEP §716.02) Applicant’s showing of allegedly unexpected results must satisfy ALL of these requirements. Additionally, MPEP §716.01(b) states a “nexus” between the claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected results, must be present. The burden rests with Applicant to establish results are unexpected and significant. (MPEP §716.02(b)).
Applicant’s results do not appear to be truly unexpected. Guerrieri (U.S. 20080188607), Yuan (CN101314462; reference made to the included English machine translation), Schoerken (U.S. 20080242879), Seo (U.S. 20170275452) and Collier (U.S. 20080057019) are all suggesting that not only are zinc fatty acid such as zinc ricinoleate are known to reduce VOCs in ABS compositions, the levels achieved by Applicant are also known levels that are achievable and desirable in the prior art. Therefore, Applicant’s results are not considered truly unexpected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks filed November 21, 2025 have been fully considered but are not sufficient to move the application to allowance. The rejections of record have been updated to address Applicant’s broadening of Claim 1 and the newly added claims. Additionally, the newly added claims have introduced a §112 4th rejection. These modifications and new §112 rejection have been necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s remarks filed November 21, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the blend of Krabbenborg is excluded by the claims. This argument is not persuasive. As detailed in the rejection of record, the comprising language of the claims permits additional polymers which are not styrenic to be present while still permitting the composition to be read over styrenic as styrene polymers are present in the composition.
Applicant further argues with respect to Claim 7, Krabbenborg does not teach ABS as substitute for ASA. This argument is not persuasive. Throughout the disclosure Krabbenborg teaches ABS and ASA together and does not disparage ABS. All disadvantages of ASA are taught with ABS and vice versa. All benefits and knowledge of ABS is taught with ASA and vice versa. (See background section for the discussion of ABS and ASA). Further, the ASA copolymer maybe have butadiene in it ¶[0069] which further reasonably suggests the teachings of Krabbenborg can be applied to PC/ABS composition just as well PC/ABS. This also reasonably suggests art related to PC/ABS composition can be explored for finding motivation to modify Krabbenborg.
Applicant argues Yuan requires a problem to be addressed by the motivation of the secondary reference for the motivation to combine to be proper. This argument is not persuasive. There is no such requirement. Applicant then argues that Yuan and Guerrieri are both directed to odor reduction and solve it different ways so there is no need to modify Yuan with Guerrieri. This argument is not persuasive. The odor comes the styrene which undermines Applicant’s first argument. Additionally, Applicant can point to no reason the solutions of Yuan and Guerrieri to solve their similar problem are some how mutually exclusive or using one prevents the other from working. Further, the levels of residual styrene can be measured and but Applicant has provided no evidence, only speculation, that using the absorbents of Yuan cannot achieve the levels desired by Guerrieri. Therefore, Applicant attempts to state there is no reasonable expectation of success in achieving said levels in Yuan are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remark Yuan not teaching TVOC levels thereby preventing anyone practicing Yuan from being motivated to achieve certain TVOC levels are the not persuasive for the same reason as the lack of residual styrene levels in Yuan does not prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from seeking to lower residual styrene levels as discussed above.
Applicant’s remarks to Guerrieri and Yuan are not persuasive for the same reasons as Yuan and Guerrieri above. Simply because Guierrieri achieves reduced VOC and residual styrene through alternative methods does not necessarily mean there is no room for further improvement or adding additional means to solve the same problem or address related issues to VOC levels. Applicant can also point to no parts of Guerrieri that exclude Yuan’s zinc fatty acid salt. The reference is open to its addition and the rejection of record establishes there is a reason to do it. Contrary to Applicant simply stating it, the silicate and zinc of Yuan are taught to reduce volatiles in Yuan and that why there is an expectation of some amount of substitution of clay in Guerrieri is expected have similar reduction in VOC and styrene residuals as discussed in the rejection of record. Further, Applicant ignores the impact strength portion of the rejection in making this substitution. Applicant only speculates the silicate and zinc would not perform as a substitute and therefore has not properly passed the burden back to the Office to require the level of evidence they are arguing must be present. The burden has been properly shifted to Applicant as discussed above and the teachings of Yuan undermine Applicant attempt to burden shift for more evidence.
Applicant’s argument to the claimed invention achieving the recited levels of residual styrene without the use of clay are not persuasive. Guerrieri teaches those levels are desirable and achieves them with clay. Applicant does it another way. There is no exclusion on clay in claim 1 and Guerrieri is not applied to claims which include an exclusion to additional absorbents in the compositions.
Applicant argues with Guerrieri that TVOC is not taught or suggested by Guerrieri and, therefore, is not obvious to modify Guerrieri with respect to TVOC teaching. This has been addressed and found not persuasive for the same reasons as discussed above. There is no requirement the prior art references applied have reciprocal desire to be modified for the motivations used. Applicant is essentially arguing through the remarks the only prior art that can be applied is either §102 specifically addressing TVOC and residual styrene amounts or primary references under §103 that also specifically address TVOC and residual styrene and addresses these properties in the same manner as Applicant. No other prior art is applicable against the claims. This is entirely untrue and, therefore, not persuasive for the reasons outlined above.
Applicant’s remarks to their proffered data have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument here is unclear. The rejection of record address the ranges of TVOC claimed and why the prior art of record reads on these ranges. These ranges and amounts are broader than Applicant’s argued data in this section. Achievement of these values without clay and aluminosilicate is all well can good but the art applied reads on these limitations and the exclusions Applicant is referring to are not present in all the independent claims. Therefore, the rejections of record still stand.
With respect to the new claims, Applicant is reminded zinc ricinoleate is a C18 hydroxy unsaturated acid but zinc stearate is only a C18 saturated fatty acid and lacks any hydroxyl group.
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 CHRISTOPHER M RODD whose telephone number is (571)270-1299. The examiner can normally be reached on 7 am - 3:30 pm (Pacific).
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on (571) 272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Christopher M Rodd/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766