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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 30, 2026 has been entered.
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 8 and 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 8 and 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 an iodine adsorption and CTAB surface testing via adsorption techniques.
Niosh (see PTO-892) on page 11 last paragraph (page 17 2 full paragraph starting with Komarova, page 36 last paragraph) along with page 1 (PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) teaches there is evidence that carbon black has the capability of adsorbing various polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
Based on this evidence, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested that carbon black must be capable of functioning as an adsorbent in the compositions claimed. Either strongly or poorly but still capable of functioning to some degree as an adsorbent. 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 adsorbent which is excluded by these claims. Similarly, Claim 8 does not further limit Claim 6, Claim 3 and Claim 1 from which it depends.
Note also the claims just exclude adsorbents as a category of materials and there is no exclusion of adsorbent of specific compounds.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Green (U.S. 20060264561).
Green teaches in ¶[0040] a SAN composition comprising SAN and 0.5 wt% Zinc Stearate. This anticipates the compositional claims as claim 1. No additional adsorbents are taught.
Green is silent on the residual VOC and residual styrene monomer levels in the SAN or ABS/SAN compositions above, however, as the compositions contain carbon black, ABS and zinc stearate in the range recited by Claim 1 and every example in Applicant’s specification has the components and zinc stearate in the recited range of Claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested when tested appropriately, the above SAN composition of Green must have TVOC and residual styrene monomer amounts in the range recited by Claim 1 and Claim 5. Note Applicant’s as-filed specification does not disclose the amount of residual styrene monomer in any exemplified composition. Therefore, the above is rationale also is true for the above Claim 9’s residual styrene monomer range. Zinc stearate anticipates Claim 4.
Separately in ¶[0041], Green teaches another ABS composition made from 250 g of the above SAN masterbatch diluted with 1250 g of an ABS resin. This makes the total amount of the composition 1500 g. 250 g * 0.3 = 75 g of carbon black from the master batch and 250 * 0.005 = 1.25 g of zinc stearate. Total amount of carbon block is then 75/1500 * 100 = 5 wt% carbon black and 1.25 / 1500 * 100 = 0.083 wt% zinc stearate. These anticipate components and amounts Claim 1, Claim 3, Claim 4, Claim 6, Claim 8, Claim 9.
Note that the ABS and SAN combination is with the scope of claim as the claimed composition is solely from polymer in the list. The comprising language permits that additional polymers to be present as long as they are in the list. Note also that Applicant’s examples use SAN masterbatches when are then compounded into ABS. Therefore, these examples include a combination of SAN and ABS as in Green above. If Applicant does not agree to this interpretation, then the number of examples available for Applicant to argue allegedly unexpected results is severely diminished.
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 3, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (U.S. 20060264561).
Green is applied as above under §102.
Green exemplifies 30 wt% Carbon black in the above specific formulation (masterbatch) which is outside the range of Claim 3 prior to further compounding into ABS.
In ¶[0083] Green teaches the masterbatches can contain 10 to 50 wt% carbon black.
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 Green, in particular that of ¶[0040] masterbatch above, by using 10 to 50 wt% of carbon black in the masterbatch because Green teaches this in ¶[0083]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to choose 10 to less than 30 wt% in the masterbatch because this is the lower part of the range based on the already exemplified 30 wt%. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose 10 wt% carbon black in the master batch as a way to attain acceptable carbon black color while no unduly degrading the mechanical properties and surface appearance due to higher loadings of carbon black as suggested by Green in ¶[0002].
Therefore, this would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to compositions comprising 10 to 50 wt%, alternatively, 10 to less than 30 wt% and 10 wt% carbon black in the above described masterbatch. This reads over Claim 3, Claim 6 and Claim 8.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (U.S. 20060264561) in view of Ingulli (U.S. 3,555,119).
Green is applied as above under §102.
Green 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 Green 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.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (U.S. 20060264561) in view of Sosa (U.S. 5,540,813) and Reimers (U.S. 20060189757).
Green teaches in ¶[0040] a SAN composition comprising SAN and 0.5 wt% Zinc Stearate. This reads over the compositional claims as claim 1. No additional adsorbents are taught.
Green does not generally teach the residual styrene levels in the compositions. Green is drawn to automotive applications. ¶[0081]
Reimers, working in the field of styrene compositions similar to Applicant, teaches the removal of residual monomers from polymerizations of thermoplastic materials is often necessary and these residual monomers are often health and environmental hazards. (¶[0001]-¶[0004]).
Sosa, working in the field of reducing the level of residual monomers similar to Applicant, teaches a process in which the residual monomer level in polystyrene type polymers, which includes ABS as this is under Sosa’s other polymerized vinyl aromatic polymers, is 200 ppm or less (Column 7 lines 1-5 / Column 6 lines 57-65) and in Table III exemplifies residual styrene monomer amounts from 190 to 500 ppm which does not require extensive stripping methods which Sosa teaches degrades the quality of the polymer. (See above cited sections of Sosa)
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 Green such that the ABS / SAN polymers were processed according to remove residual monomers such as the styrene for health / environmental reasons as taught by Reimers above and to accomplish this by using the process of Sosa for its lack of extensive additional stripping methods that may degrade the polymer as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to run the process of Sosa on the SAN/ABS of Green to arrive at 190 to 500 ppm residual styrene because Sosa exemplifies this amount of residual styrene from the process. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to work to 200 ppm or less styrene as Sosa teaches this level generally and is focused on the residual level of styrene monomer in the exemplified Table III.
This overlaps the amount of residual styrene monomer of Claim 1 and Claim 9.
Green is silent on the VOC levels in the SAN or ABS/SAN compositions above, however, as the compositions contain carbon black, ABS and zinc stearate in the range recited by Claim 1 and every example in Applicant’s specification has the components and zinc stearate in the recited range of Claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested when tested appropriately, the above SAN composition of Green must have residual VOC amounts in the range recited by Claim 1. The above is rationale also is true for the above Claim 5’s VOC range. Zinc stearate reads over Claim 4.
Separately in ¶[0041], Green teaches another ABS composition made from 250 g of the above SAN masterbatch diluted with 1250 g of an ABS resin. This makes the total amount of the composition 1500 g. 250 g * 0.3 = 75 g of carbon black from the master batch and 250 * 0.005 = 1.25 g of zinc stearate. Total amount of carbon block is then 75/1500 * 100 = 5 wt% carbon black and 1.25 / 1500 * 100 = 0.083 wt% zinc stearate. These read over the components and amounts Claim 1, Claim 3, Claim 4, Claim 6, Claim 8, Claim 9.
Note that the ABS and SAN combination is with the scope of claim as the claimed composition is solely from polymer in the list. The comprising language permits that additional polymers to be present as long as they are in the list. Note also that Applicant’s examples use SAN masterbatches when are then compounded into ABS. Therefore, these examples include a combination of SAN and ABS as in Green above. If Applicant does not agree to this interpretation, then the number of examples available for Applicant to argue allegedly unexpected results is severely diminished.
Alternatively for Claims 3, 6 and 8, Green exemplifies 30 wt% Carbon black in the above specific formulation (masterbatch) which is outside the range of Claim 3 prior to further compounding into ABS.
In ¶[0083] Green teaches the masterbatches can contain 10 to 50 wt% carbon black.
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 Green, in particular that of ¶[0040] masterbatch above, by using 10 to 50 wt% of carbon black in the masterbatch because Green teaches this in ¶[0083]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to choose 10 to less than 30 wt% in the masterbatch because this is the lower part of the range based on the already exemplified 30 wt%. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose 10 wt% carbon black in the master batch as a way to attain acceptable carbon black color while no unduly degrading the mechanical properties and surface appearance due to higher loadings of carbon black as suggested by Green in ¶[0002].
Therefore, this would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to compositions comprising 10 to 50 wt%, alternatively, 10 to less than 30 wt% and 10 wt% carbon black in the above described masterbatch. This reads over Claim 3, Claim 6 and Claim 8.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (U.S. 20060264561) in view of Sosa (U.S. 5,540,813) and Reimers (U.S. 20060189757) in view of Ingulli (U.S. 3,555,119).
Green, Sosa and Reimers are applied as above under §103.
Green 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 Green 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, 3-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (U.S. 20060264561) in view of Seo (U.S. 20170275452).
Green teaches in ¶[0040] a SAN composition comprising SAN and 0.5 wt% Zinc Stearate. This reads over the compositional claims as claim 1. No additional adsorbents are taught.
Green does not generally teach the level of VOC and the exemplified amount is outside the claimed range of Claim 5. Green is drawn to automotive applications. ¶[0081]
Seo, working in the field of reducing volatile organic compounds in ABS resins similar to Green 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 Green 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 Green 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])
This reads over the TVOC of Claim 1 and Claim 5 as 30 μg C/g or less meets or overlaps the recited ranges.
Green is silent on the residual styrene monomer levels in the SAN or ABS/SAN compositions above, however, as the compositions contain carbon black, ABS and zinc stearate in the range recited by Claim 1 and every example in Applicant’s specification has the components and zinc stearate in the recited range of Claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested when tested appropriately, the above SAN composition of Green must have residual styrene monomer amounts in the range recited by Claim 1.
Note Applicant’s as-filed specification does not disclose the amount of residual styrene monomer in any exemplified composition. Therefore, the above is rationale also is true for the above Claim 9’s residual styrene monomer range. Zinc stearate reads over Claim 4.
Separately in ¶[0041], Green teaches another ABS composition made from 250 g of the above SAN masterbatch diluted with 1250 g of an ABS resin. This makes the total amount of the composition 1500 g. 250 g * 0.3 = 75 g of carbon black from the master batch and 250 * 0.005 = 1.25 g of zinc stearate. Total amount of carbon block is then 75/1500 * 100 = 5 wt% carbon black and 1.25 / 1500 * 100 = 0.083 wt% zinc stearate. These read over the components and amounts Claim 1, Claim 3, Claim 4, Claim 6, Claim 8, Claim 9.
Note that the ABS and SAN combination is with the scope of claim as the claimed composition is solely from polymer in the list. The comprising language permits that additional polymers to be present as long as they are in the list. Note also that Applicant’s examples use SAN masterbatches when are then compounded into ABS. Therefore, these examples include a combination of SAN and ABS as in Green above. If Applicant does not agree to this interpretation, then the number of examples available for Applicant to argue allegedly unexpected results is severely diminished.
This reads over the VOC limit of Claim 5.
Alternatively for Claims 3, 6 and 8, Green exemplifies 30 wt% Carbon black in the above specific formulation (masterbatch) which is outside the range of Claim 3 prior to further compounding into ABS.
In ¶[0083] Green teaches the masterbatches can contain 10 to 50 wt% carbon black.
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 Green, in particular that of ¶[0040] masterbatch above, by using 10 to 50 wt% of carbon black in the masterbatch because Green teaches this in ¶[0083]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to choose 10 to less than 30 wt% in the masterbatch because this is the lower part of the range based on the already exemplified 30 wt%. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose 10 wt% carbon black in the master batch as a way to attain acceptable carbon black color while no unduly degrading the mechanical properties and surface appearance due to higher loadings of carbon black as suggested by Green in ¶[0002].
Therefore, this would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to compositions comprising 10 to 50 wt%, alternatively, 10 to less than 30 wt% and 10 wt% carbon black in the above described masterbatch. This reads over Claim 3, Claim 6 and Claim 8.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (U.S. 20060264561) and Seo (U.S. 20170275452) in view of Ingulli (U.S. 3,555,119).
Green and Seo are applied as above under §103.
Green 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 Green and Seo 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, 3-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (U.S. 20060264561) in view of Seo (U.S. 20170275452), Sosa (U.S. 5,540,813) and Reimers (U.S. 20060189757).
Green teaches in ¶[0040] a SAN composition comprising SAN and 0.5 wt% Zinc Stearate. This reads over the compositional claims as claim 1. No additional adsorbents are taught.
Green does not generally teach the level of VOC and the exemplified amount is outside the claimed range of Claim 5. Green is drawn to automotive applications. ¶[0081]
Seo, working in the field of reducing volatile organic compounds in ABS resins similar to Green 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 Green 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 Green 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])
This reads over the TVOC of Claim 1 and Claim 5 as 30 μg C/g or less meets or overlaps the recited ranges.
Green does not generally teach the residual styrene levels in the compositions. Green is drawn to automotive applications. ¶[0081]
Reimers, working in the field of styrene compositions similar to Applicant, teaches the removal of residual monomers from polymerizations of thermoplastic materials is often necessary and these residual monomers are often health and environmental hazards. (¶[0001]-¶[0004]).
Sosa, working in the field of reducing the level of residual monomers similar to Applicant, teaches a process in which the residual monomer level in polystyrene type polymers, which includes ABS as this is under Sosa’s other polymerized vinyl aromatic polymers, is 200 ppm or less (Column 7 lines 1-5 / Column 6 lines 57-65) and in Table III exemplifies residual styrene monomer amounts from 190 to 500 ppm which does not require extensive stripping methods which Sosa teaches degrades the quality of the polymer. (See above cited sections of Sosa)
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 Green such that the ABS / SAN polymers were processed according to remove residual monomers such as the styrene for health / environmental reasons as taught by Reimers above and to accomplish this by using the process of Sosa for its lack of extensive additional stripping methods that may degrade the polymer as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to run the process of Sosa on the SAN/ABS of Green to arrive at 190 to 500 ppm residual styrene because Sosa exemplifies this amount of residual styrene from the process. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to work to 200 ppm or less styrene as Sosa teaches this level generally and is focused on the residual level of styrene monomer in the exemplified Table III.
This overlaps the amount of residual styrene monomer of Claim 1 and Claim 9.
Zinc stearate reads over Claim 4.
Separately in ¶[0041], Green teaches another ABS composition made from 250 g of the above SAN masterbatch diluted with 1250 g of an ABS resin. This makes the total amount of the composition 1500 g. 250 g * 0.3 = 75 g of carbon black from the master batch and 250 * 0.005 = 1.25 g of zinc stearate. Total amount of carbon block is then 75/1500 * 100 = 5 wt% carbon black and 1.25 / 1500 * 100 = 0.083 wt% zinc stearate. These read over the components and amounts Claim 1, Claim 3, Claim 4, Claim 6, Claim 8, Claim 9.
Note that the ABS and SAN combination is with the scope of claim as the claimed composition is solely from polymer in the list. The comprising language permits that additional polymers to be present as long as they are in the list. Note also that Applicant’s examples use SAN masterbatches when are then compounded into ABS. Therefore, these examples include a combination of SAN and ABS as in Green above. If Applicant does not agree to this interpretation, then the number of examples available for Applicant to argue allegedly unexpected results is severely diminished.
This reads over the VOC limit of Claim 5.
Alternatively for Claims 3, 6 and 8, Green exemplifies 30 wt% Carbon black in the above specific formulation (masterbatch) which is outside the range of Claim 3 prior to further compounding into ABS.
In ¶[0083] Green teaches the masterbatches can contain 10 to 50 wt% carbon black.
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 Green, in particular that of ¶[0040] masterbatch above, by using 10 to 50 wt% of carbon black in the masterbatch because Green teaches this in ¶[0083]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to choose 10 to less than 30 wt% in the masterbatch because this is the lower part of the range based on the already exemplified 30 wt%. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose 10 wt% carbon black in the master batch as a way to attain acceptable carbon black color while no unduly degrading the mechanical properties and surface appearance due to higher loadings of carbon black as suggested by Green in ¶[0002].
Therefore, this would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to compositions comprising 10 to 50 wt%, alternatively, 10 to less than 30 wt% and 10 wt% carbon black in the above described masterbatch. This reads over Claim 3, Claim 6 and Claim 8.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (U.S. 20060264561) and Seo (U.S. 20170275452), Sosa (U.S. 5,540,813) and Reimers (U.S. 20060189757) in view of Ingulli (U.S. 3,555,119).
Green, Seo, Sosa and Reimers are applied as above under §103.
Green 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 Green and Seo 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 21-22, 24-25, 27-30, 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Green (U.S. 20060264561) in view of Ishidai (U.S. 20130260306) and Stobby (U.S. 20140187692).
The rejection starts with Claim 21 and its dependents as these are more specific versions of Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9 and Claim 32.
Green teaches in ¶[0040] a SAN composition comprising SAN and 0.5 wt% Zinc Stearate. This reads over the compositional claims as claim 1. No additional adsorbents are taught.
The zinc stearate does not meet the zinc compound recited by Claim 21 and Claim 32.
Green does not teach the purpose of the zinc stearate but Stobby in ¶[0039] establishes zinc stearate is a known lubricant in processing resins such as ABS. ¶[0039].
Green does not teach a lubricant that is zinc ricinoleate (a C18 hydroxy unsaturated fatty acid zinc salt in Claim 1).
Ishidai, working in the field of compositions of polystyrene (binder) ¶[0064]/¶[0067] similar to Green 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 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 Green as discussed above such that the zinc stearate, a lubricant as taught by Stobby, was substituted by zinc ricinoleate because 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 27, Claim 28, Claim 29 are read over for the same reasons above. The compositions of Green as discussed above, either the masterbatch or the ABS/SAN mixture, 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 requirement that Green explicitly teach an exclusion of additional absorbents to read over the claimed invention.
Green is silent on the residual VOC and residual styrene monomer levels in the SAN or ABS/SAN compositions above, however, as the compositions contain carbon black, ABS and zinc stearate in the range recited by Claim 1 and every example in Applicant’s specification has the components and zinc stearate in the recited range of Claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested when tested appropriately, the above SAN composition of Green must have TVOC and residual styrene monomer amounts in the range recited by Claim 1, Claim 21, Claim 5 and Claim 26 and also Claim 30. Note Applicant’s as-filed specification does not disclose the amount of residual styrene monomer in any exemplified composition. Therefore, the above is rationale also is true for the above Claim 9 and Claim 26’s residual styrene monomer range. Zinc stearate prior to modification reads over Claim 4 and Zinc ricinoleate reads over Claim 1’s and Claim 32’s zinc salt along with Claim 21’s and Claim 25’s zinc salt.
Separately in ¶[0041], Green teaches another ABS composition made from 250 g of the above SAN masterbatch diluted with 1250 g of an ABS resin. This makes the total amount of the composition 1500 g. 250 g * 0.3 = 75 g of carbon black from the master batch and 250 * 0.005 = 1.25 g of zinc stearate. Total amount of carbon block is then 75/1500 * 100 = 5 wt% carbon black and 1.25 / 1500 * 100 = 0.083 wt% zinc stearate. These reads over the components and amounts Claim 1, Claim 3, Claim 4, Claim 6, Claim 8, Claim 9 along with Claim 21, Claim 24, and Claim 29.
Alternatively for Claims 3, 6 and 8, Green exemplifies 30 wt% Carbon black in the above specific formulation (masterbatch) which is outside the range of Claim 3 / Claim 24 prior to further compounding into ABS.
In ¶[0083] Green teaches the masterbatches can contain 10 to 50 wt% carbon black.
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 Green, in particular that of ¶[0040] masterbatch above, by using 10 to 50 wt% of carbon black in the masterbatch because Green teaches this in ¶[0083]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to choose 10 to less than 30 wt% in the masterbatch because this is the lower part of the range based on the already exemplified 30 wt%. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose 10 wt% carbon black in the master batch as a way to attain acceptable carbon black color while no unduly degrading the mechanical properties and surface appearance due to higher loadings of carbon black as suggested by Green in ¶[0002].
Therefore, this would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to compositions comprising 10 to 50 wt%, alternatively, 10 to less than 30 wt% and 10 wt% carbon black in the above described masterbatch. This reads over Claim 3, Claim 6 and Claim 8 and also Claim 24 (note that Claim 24 does not have the same claim dependency of similar claims 3/6/8).
Note that the ABS and SAN combination is with the scope of claim as the claimed composition is solely from polymer in the list. The comprising language permits that additional polymers to be present as long as they are in the list. Note also that Applicant’s examples use SAN masterbatches when are then compounded into ABS. Therefore, these examples include a combination of SAN and ABS as in Green above. If Applicant does not agree to this interpretation, then the number of examples available for Applicant to argue allegedly unexpected results is severely diminished.
With respect to Claim 33, Green is silent on the VDA odor rating of the compositions. However, all compositions in the as-filed specification which comprising zinc ricinoleate and carbon black in the recited range have the VDA 270 measurement in the recited range of Claim 33. Therefore, as Green as modified above also has zinc ricinoleate and carbon black in ABS/SAN compositions (SAN masterbatch compounded into ABS as in the examples of the as-filed specification) one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested, when tested appropriately, the above modified and discussed compositions of Green must have a VDA in the recited range of Claim 33.
Claim 23 and 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (U.S. 20060264561) in view of Ishidai (U.S. 20130260306) and Stobby (U.S. 20140187692) in further view of Ingulli (U.S. 3,555,119).
Green and Ishidai / Stobby are applied as above under §103.
Green 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 Green and Seo 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 23 and Claim 31.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Green (U.S. 20060264561) in view of Ishidai (U.S. 20130260306) and Stobby (U.S. 20140187692) and in further view of Eichenauer (U.S. 6,297,307).
Green, Ishidai and Stobby are applied as above.
Green is silent on the VDA 270 rating of the compositions. As above Green is drawn to automative applications.
Eichenauer, working in the field of reducing odors in ABS compositions similar to Applicant, teaches the use of a combination of zinc oxide and/or magnesium oxide and an epoxy compound combination to provide ABS polymer molding compositions which have no unpleasant odors once they have been processed into mouldings. (Column 1 lines 25-40).
Eichenauer measures the VDA 270 odor values of the resulting ABS compositions and exemplifies 1.5-2.5 as inventive values of VDA 270. See Table 2.
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 Green by adding the zinc oxide and/or magnesium oxide and epoxy compound of Eichenauer in order to reduce the odors of the resulting ABS moldings of Green as taught by Eichenauer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve resulting compositions with VDA 270 of 1.5-2.5 by doing the above modification because Eichenauer exemplifies these levels for resulting compositions.
This overlaps the range of Claim 33.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 21-22, 24-25, 27-30, 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Green (U.S. 20060264561) in view of Ishidai (U.S. 20130260306), Sosa (U.S. 5,540,813) and Reimers (U.S. 20060189757) and Stobby (U.S. 20140187692).
The rejection starts with Claim 21 and its dependents as these are more specific versions of Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9 and Claim 32.
Green teaches in ¶[0040] a SAN composition comprising SAN and 0.5 wt% Zinc Stearate. This reads over the compositional claims as claim 1. No additional adsorbents are taught.
The zinc stearate does not meet the zinc compound recited by Claim 21 and Claim 32.
Green does not teach the purpose of the zinc stearate but Stobby in ¶[0039] establishes zinc stearate is a known lubricant in processing resins such as ABS. ¶[0039].
Green does not teach a lubricant that is zinc ricinoleate (a C18 hydroxy unsaturated fatty acid zinc salt in Claim 1).
Ishidai, working in the field of compositions of polystyrene (binder) ¶[0064]/¶[0067] similar to Green 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 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 Green as discussed above such that the zinc stearate, a lubricant as taught by Stobby, was substituted by zinc ricinoleate because 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 27, Claim 28, Claim 29 are read over for the same reasons above. The compositions of Green as discussed above, either the masterbatch or the ABS/SAN mixture, 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 requirement that Green explicitly teach an exclusion of additional absorbents to read over the claimed invention.
Green does not generally teach the residual styrene levels in the compositions. Green is drawn to automotive applications. ¶[0081]
Reimers, working in the field of styrene compositions similar to Applicant, teaches the removal of residual monomers from polymerizations of thermoplastic materials is often necessary and these residual monomers are often health and environmental hazards. (¶[0001]-¶[0004]).
Sosa, working in the field of reducing the level of residual monomers similar to Applicant, teaches a process in which the residual monomer level in polystyrene type polymers, which includes ABS as this is under Sosa’s other polymerized vinyl aromatic polymers, is 200 ppm or less (Column 7 lines 1-5 / Column 6 lines 57-65) and in Table III exemplifies residual styrene monomer amounts from 190 to 500 ppm which does not require extensive stripping methods which Sosa teaches degrades the quality of the polymer. (See above cited sections of Sosa)
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 Green such that the ABS / SAN polymers were processed according to remove residual monomers such as the styrene for health / environmental reasons as taught by Reimers above and to accomplish this by using the process of Sosa for its lack of extensive additional stripping methods that may degrade the polymer as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to run the process of Sosa on the SAN/ABS of Green to arrive at 190 to 500 ppm residual styrene because Sosa exemplifies this amount of residual styrene from the process. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to work to 200 ppm or less styrene as Sosa teaches this level generally and is focused on the residual level of styrene monomer in the exemplified Table III.
This overlaps the amount of residual styrene monomer of Claim 1 and Claim 9 and Claim 21 and Claim 30.
Zinc stearate prior to modification reads over Claim 4.
Green is silent on the residual VOC and in the SAN or SAN/ABS composition above, however, as the compositions contain carbon black, ABS and zinc stearate in the range recited by Claim 1 and every example in Applicant’s specification has the components and zinc stearate in the recited range of Claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested when tested appropriately, the above SAN composition of Green must have VOC and residual styrene monomer amounts in the range recited by Claim 1, Claim 21, Claim 5 and Claim 26.
Zinc ricinoleate reads over Claim 1’s and Claim 32’s zinc salt along with Claim 21’s and Claim 25’s zinc salt.
Separately in ¶[0041], Green teaches another ABS composition made from 250 g of the above SAN masterbatch diluted with 1250 g of an ABS resin. This makes the total amount of the composition 1500 g. 250 g * 0.3 = 75 g of carbon black from the master batch and 250 * 0.005 = 1.25 g of zinc stearate. Total amount of carbon block is then 75/1500 * 100 = 5 wt% carbon black and 1.25 / 1500 * 100 = 0.083 wt% zinc stearate. These reads over the components and amounts Claim 1, Claim 3, Claim 4, Claim 6, Claim 8, Claim 9 along with Claim 21, Claim 24, and Claim 29.
Alternatively for Claims 3, 6 and 8, Green exemplifies 30 wt% Carbon black in the above specific formulation (masterbatch) which is outside the range of Claim 3 / Claim 24 prior to further compounding into ABS.
In ¶[0083] Green teaches the masterbatches can contain 10 to 50 wt% carbon black.
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 Green, in particular that of ¶[0040] masterbatch above, by using 10 to 50 wt% of carbon black in the masterbatch because Green teaches this in ¶[0083]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to choose 10 to less than 30 wt% in the masterbatch because this is the lower part of the range based on the already exemplified 30 wt%. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose 10 wt% carbon black in the master batch as a way to attain acceptable carbon black color while no unduly degrading the mechanical properties and surface appearance due to higher loadings of carbon black as suggested by Green in ¶[0002].
Therefore, this would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to compositions comprising 10 to 50 wt%, alternatively, 10 to less than 30 wt% and 10 wt% carbon black in the above described masterbatch. This reads over Claim 3, Claim 6 and Claim 8 and also Claim 24 (note that Claim 24 does not have the same claim dependency of similar claims 3/6/8).
Note that the ABS and SAN combination is with the scope of claim as the claimed composition is solely from polymer in the list. The comprising language permits that additional polymers to be present as long as they are in the list. Note also that Applicant’s examples use SAN masterbatches when are then compounded into ABS. Therefore, these examples include a combination of SAN and ABS as in Green above. If Applicant does not agree to this interpretation, then the number of examples available for Applicant to argue allegedly unexpected results is severely diminished.
With respect to Claim 33, Green is silent on the VDA odor rating of the compositions. However, all compositions in the as-filed specification which comprising zinc ricinoleate and carbon black in the recited range have the VDA 270 measurement in the recited range of Claim 33. Therefore, as Green as modified above also has zinc ricinoleate and carbon black in ABS/SAN compositions (SAN masterbatch compounded into ABS as in the examples of the as-filed specification) one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested, when tested appropriately, the above modified and discussed compositions of Green must have a VDA in the recited range of Claim 33.
Claim 23 and 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (U.S. 20060264561) in view of Ishidai (U.S. 20130260306), Sosa (U.S. 5,540,813) and Reimers (U.S. 20060189757) and Stobby (U.S. 20140187692) in further view of Ingulli (U.S. 3,555,119).
Green and Ishidai / Sosa / Reimers Stobby are applied as above under §103.
Green 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 Green and Seo 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 23 and Claim 31.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Green (U.S. 20060264561) in view of Ishidai (U.S. 20130260306), Sosa (U.S. 5,540,813) and Reimers (U.S. 20060189757) and Stobby (U.S. 20140187692) and in further view of Eichenauer (U.S. 6,297,307).
Green, Ishidai, Sosa, Reimers and Stobby are applied as above.
Green is silent on the VDA 270 rating of the compositions. As above Green is drawn to automative applications.
Eichenauer, working in the field of reducing odors in ABS compositions similar to Applicant, teaches the use of a combination of zinc oxide and/or magnesium oxide and an epoxy compound combination to provide ABS polymer molding compositions which have no unpleasant odors once they have been processed into mouldings. (Column 1 lines 25-40).
Eichenauer measures the VDA 270 odor values of the resulting ABS compositions and exemplifies 1.5-2.5 as inventive values of VDA 270. See Table 2.
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 Green by adding the zinc oxide and/or magnesium oxide and epoxy compound of Eichenauer in order to reduce the odors of the resulting ABS moldings of Green as taught by Eichenauer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve resulting compositions with VDA 270 of 1.5-2.5 by doing the above modification because Eichenauer exemplifies these levels for resulting compositions.
This overlaps the range of Claim 33.
There is no evidence of record to reasonably suggest zinc oxide and/or magnesium oxide and the epoxy compound of Eichenauer are capable of being adsorbents.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 21-22, 24-25, 27-30, 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Green (U.S. 20060264561) in view of Seo (U.S. 20170275452), Ishidai (U.S. 20130260306) and Stobby (U.S. 20140187692).
The rejection starts with Claim 21 and its dependents as these are more specific versions of Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9 and Claim 32.
Green teaches in ¶[0040] a SAN composition comprising SAN and 0.5 wt% Zinc Stearate. This reads over the compositional claims as claim 1. No additional adsorbents are taught.
The zinc stearate does not meet the zinc compound recited by Claim 21 and Claim 32.
Green does not teach the purpose of the zinc stearate but Stobby in ¶[0039] establishes zinc stearate is a known lubricant in processing resins such as ABS. ¶[0039].
Green does not teach a lubricant that is zinc ricinoleate (a C18 hydroxy unsaturated fatty acid zinc salt in Claim 1).
Ishidai, working in the field of compositions of polystyrene (binder) ¶[0064]/¶[0067] similar to Green 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 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 Green as discussed above such that the zinc stearate, a lubricant as taught by Stobby, was substituted by zinc ricinoleate because 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 27, Claim 28, and Claim 29 are read over for the same reasons above. The compositions of Green as discussed above, either the masterbatch or the ABS/SAN mixture, 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 requirement that Green explicitly teach an exclusion of additional absorbents to read over the claimed invention.
Green does not generally teach the level of VOC and the exemplified amount is outside the claimed range of Claim 5. Green is drawn to automotive applications. ¶[0081]
Seo, working in the field of reducing volatile organic compounds in ABS resins similar to Green 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 Green 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 Green 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])
This reads over the TVOC of Claim 1 and Claim 5 along with the VOC ranges of Claim 21 and Claim 26 as 30 μg C/g or less meets or overlaps the recited ranges.
Green is silent on the residual styrene monomer levels in the SAN or ABS/SAN compositions above, however, as the compositions contain carbon black, ABS and zinc stearate in the range recited by Claim 1 and every example in Applicant’s specification has the components and zinc stearate in the recited range of Claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested when tested appropriately, the above SAN composition of Green must have the residual styrene monomer amounts in the range recited by Claim 1, Claim 21, Claim 5 and Claim 26. Note Applicant’s as-filed specification does not disclose the amount of residual styrene monomer in any exemplified composition. Therefore, the above is rationale also is true for the above Claim 9 and Claim 26’s residual styrene monomer range. Zinc stearate prior to modification reads over Claim 4 and Zinc ricinoleate reads over Claim 1’s and Claim 32’s zinc salt along with Claim 21’s and Claim 25’s zinc salt.
Separately in ¶[0041], Green teaches another ABS composition made from 250 g of the above SAN masterbatch diluted with 1250 g of an ABS resin. This makes the total amount of the composition 1500 g. 250 g * 0.3 = 75 g of carbon black from the master batch and 250 * 0.005 = 1.25 g of zinc stearate. Total amount of carbon block is then 75/1500 * 100 = 5 wt% carbon black and 1.25 / 1500 * 100 = 0.083 wt% zinc stearate. These reads over the components and amounts Claim 1, Claim 3, Claim 4, Claim 6, Claim 8, Claim 9 along with Claim 21, Claim 24, and Claim 29.
Alternatively for Claims 3, 6 and 8, Green exemplifies 30 wt% Carbon black in the above specific formulation (masterbatch) which is outside the range of Claim 3 / Claim 24 prior to further compounding into ABS.
In ¶[0083] Green teaches the masterbatches can contain 10 to 50 wt% carbon black.
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 Green, in particular that of ¶[0040] masterbatch above, by using 10 to 50 wt% of carbon black in the masterbatch because Green teaches this in ¶[0083]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to choose 10 to less than 30 wt% in the masterbatch because this is the lower part of the range based on the already exemplified 30 wt%. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose 10 wt% carbon black in the master batch as a way to attain acceptable carbon black color while no unduly degrading the mechanical properties and surface appearance due to higher loadings of carbon black as suggested by Green in ¶[0002].
Therefore, this would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to compositions comprising 10 to 50 wt%, alternatively, 10 to less than 30 wt% and 10 wt% carbon black in the above described masterbatch. This reads over Claim 3, Claim 6 and Claim 8 and also Claim 24 (note that Claim 24 does not have the same claim dependency of similar claims 3/6/8).
Note that the ABS and SAN combination is with the scope of claim as the claimed composition is solely from polymer in the list. The comprising language permits that additional polymers to be present as long as they are in the list. Note also that Applicant’s examples use SAN masterbatches when are then compounded into ABS. Therefore, these examples include a combination of SAN and ABS as in Green above. If Applicant does not agree to this interpretation, then the number of examples available for Applicant to argue allegedly unexpected results is severely diminished.
With respect to Claim 33, Green is silent on the VDA odor rating of the compositions. However, all compositions in the as-filed specification which comprising zinc ricinoleate and carbon black in the recited range have the VDA 270 measurement in the recited range of Claim 33. Therefore, as Green as modified above also has zinc ricinoleate and carbon black in ABS/SAN compositions (SAN masterbatch compounded into ABS as in the examples of the as-filed specification) one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested, when tested appropriately, the above modified and discussed compositions of Green must have a VDA in the recited range of Claim 33.
There is no evidence of record to reasonably suggest zinc oxide and/or magnesium oxide and the epoxy compound of Eichenauer are capable of being adsorbents.
Claims 23 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (U.S. 20060264561) in view of Seo (U.S. 20170275452), Ishidai (U.S. 20130260306) and Stobby (U.S. 20140187692) in further view of Ingulli (U.S. 3,555,119).
Green and Ishidai / Seo / Stobby are applied as above under §103.
Green 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 Green and Seo 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 23 and Claim 31.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Green (U.S. 20060264561) in view of Ishidai (U.S. 20130260306) and Stobby (U.S. 20140187692) and in further view of Eichenauer (U.S. 6,297,307).
Green, Seo, Ishidai and Stobby are applied as above.
Green is silent on the VDA 270 rating of the compositions. As above Green is drawn to automative applications.
Eichenauer, working in the field of reducing odors in ABS compositions similar to Applicant, teaches the use of a combination of zinc oxide and/or magnesium oxide and an epoxy compound combination to provide ABS polymer molding compositions which have no unpleasant odors once they have been processed into mouldings. (Column 1 lines 25-40).
Eichenauer measures the VDA 270 odor values of the resulting ABS compositions and exemplifies 1.5-2.5 as inventive values of VDA 270. See Table 2.
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 Green by adding the zinc oxide and/or magnesium oxide and epoxy compound of Eichenauer in order to reduce the odors of the resulting ABS moldings of Green as taught by Eichenauer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve resulting compositions with VDA 270 of 1.5-2.5 by doing the above modification because Eichenauer exemplifies these levels for resulting compositions.
This overlaps the range of Claim 33.
There is no evidence of record to reasonably suggest zinc oxide and/or magnesium oxide and the epoxy compound of Eichenauer are capable of being adsorbents.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 21-22, 24-25, 27-30, 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Green (U.S. 20060264561) in view of Seo (U.S. 20170275452), Sosa (U.S. 5,540,813) and Reimers (U.S. 20060189757), Ishidai (U.S. 20130260306) and Stobby (U.S. 20140187692).
The rejection starts with Claim 21 and its dependents as these are more specific versions of Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9 and Claim 32.
Green teaches in ¶[0040] a SAN composition comprising SAN and 0.5 wt% Zinc Stearate. This reads over the compositional claims as claim 1. No additional adsorbents are taught.
The zinc stearate does not meet the zinc compound recited by Claim 21 and Claim 32.
Green does not teach the purpose of the zinc stearate but Stobby in ¶[0039] establishes zinc stearate is a known lubricant in processing resins such as ABS. ¶[0039].
Green does not teach a lubricant that is zinc ricinoleate (a C18 hydroxy unsaturated fatty acid zinc salt in Claim 1).
Ishidai, working in the field of compositions of polystyrene (binder) ¶[0064]/¶[0067] similar to Green 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 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 Green as discussed above such that the zinc stearate, a lubricant as taught by Stobby, was substituted by zinc ricinoleate because 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 27, Claim 28, and Claim 29 are read over for the same reasons above. The compositions of Green as discussed above, either the masterbatch or the ABS/SAN mixture, 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 requirement that Green explicitly teach an exclusion of additional absorbents to read over the claimed invention.
Green does not generally teach the level of VOC. Green is drawn to automotive applications. ¶[0081]
Seo, working in the field of reducing volatile organic compounds in ABS resins similar to Green 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 Green 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 Green 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])
This reads over the TVOC of Claim 1 and Claim 5 along with the VOC ranges of Claim 21 and Claim 26 as 30 μg C/g or less meets or overlaps the recited ranges.
Green does not generally teach the residual styrene levels in the compositions. Green is drawn to automotive applications. ¶[0081]
Reimers, working in the field of styrene compositions similar to Applicant, teaches the removal of residual monomers from polymerizations of thermoplastic materials is often necessary and these residual monomers are often health and environmental hazards. (¶[0001]-¶[0004]).
Sosa, working in the field of reducing the level of residual monomers similar to Applicant, teaches a process in which the residual monomer level in polystyrene type polymers, which includes ABS as this is under Sosa’s other polymerized vinyl aromatic polymers, is 200 ppm or less (Column 7 lines 1-5 / Column 6 lines 57-65) and in Table III exemplifies residual styrene monomer amounts from 190 to 500 ppm which does not require extensive stripping methods which Sosa teaches degrades the quality of the polymer. (See above cited sections of Sosa)
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 Green such that the ABS / SAN polymers were processed according to remove residual monomers such as the styrene for health / environmental reasons as taught by Reimers above and to accomplish this by using the process of Sosa for its lack of extensive additional stripping methods that may degrade the polymer as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to run the process of Sosa on the SAN/ABS of Green to arrive at 190 to 500 ppm residual styrene because Sosa exemplifies this amount of residual styrene from the process. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to work to 200 ppm or less styrene as Sosa teaches this level generally and is focused on the residual level of styrene monomer in the exemplified Table III.
This overlaps the amount of residual styrene monomer of Claim 1 and Claim 9 and Claim 21 and Claim 30.
Zinc stearate prior to modification reads over Claim 4 and Zinc ricinoleate reads over Claim 1’s and Claim 32’s zinc salt along with Claim 21’s and Claim 25’s zinc salt.
Separately in ¶[0041], Green teaches another ABS composition made from 250 g of the above SAN masterbatch diluted with 1250 g of an ABS resin. This makes the total amount of the composition 1500 g. 250 g * 0.3 = 75 g of carbon black from the master batch and 250 * 0.005 = 1.25 g of zinc stearate. Total amount of carbon block is then 75/1500 * 100 = 5 wt% carbon black and 1.25 / 1500 * 100 = 0.083 wt% zinc stearate. These reads over the components and amounts Claim 1, Claim 3, Claim 4, Claim 6, Claim 8, Claim 9 along with Claim 21, Claim 24, and Claim 29.
Alternatively for Claims 3, 6 and 8, Green exemplifies 30 wt% Carbon black in the above specific formulation (masterbatch) which is outside the range of Claim 3 / Claim 24 prior to further compounding into ABS.
In ¶[0083] Green teaches the masterbatches can contain 10 to 50 wt% carbon black.
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 Green, in particular that of ¶[0040] masterbatch above, by using 10 to 50 wt% of carbon black in the masterbatch because Green teaches this in ¶[0083]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to choose 10 to less than 30 wt% in the masterbatch because this is the lower part of the range based on the already exemplified 30 wt%. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose 10 wt% carbon black in the master batch as a way to attain acceptable carbon black color while no unduly degrading the mechanical properties and surface appearance due to higher loadings of carbon black as suggested by Green in ¶[0002].
Therefore, this would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to compositions comprising 10 to 50 wt%, alternatively, 10 to less than 30 wt% and 10 wt% carbon black in the above described masterbatch. This reads over Claim 3, Claim 6 and Claim 8 and also Claim 24 (note that Claim 24 does not have the same claim dependency of similar claims 3/6/8).
Note that the ABS and SAN combination is with the scope of claim as the claimed composition is solely from polymer in the list. The comprising language permits that additional polymers to be present as long as they are in the list. Note also that Applicant’s examples use SAN masterbatches when are then compounded into ABS. Therefore, these examples include a combination of SAN and ABS as in Green above. If Applicant does not agree to this interpretation, then the number of examples available for Applicant to argue allegedly unexpected results is severely diminished.
With respect to Claim 33, Green is silent on the VDA odor rating of the compositions. However, all compositions in the as-filed specification which comprising zinc ricinoleate and carbon black in the recited range have the VDA 270 measurement in the recited range of Claim 33. Therefore, as Green as modified above also has zinc ricinoleate and carbon black in ABS/SAN compositions (SAN masterbatch compounded into ABS as in the examples of the as-filed specification) one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested, when tested appropriately, the above modified and discussed compositions of Green must have a VDA in the recited range of Claim 33.
There is no evidence of record to reasonably suggest zinc oxide and/or magnesium oxide and the epoxy compound of Eichenauer are capable of being adsorbents.
Claims 23 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (U.S. 20060264561) in view of Seo (U.S. 20170275452), Sosa (U.S. 5,540,813) and Reimers (U.S. 20060189757), Ishidai (U.S. 20130260306) and Stobby (U.S. 20140187692) in further view of Ingulli (U.S. 3,555,119).
Green and Ishidai / Seo / Sosa / Reimers / Stobby are applied as above under §103.
Green 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 Green and Seo 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 23 and Claim 31.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Green (U.S. 20060264561) in view of Ishidai (U.S. 20130260306) , Sosa (U.S. 5,540,813) and Reimers (U.S. 20060189757), and Stobby (U.S. 20140187692) and in further view of Eichenauer (U.S. 6,297,307).
Green, Seo, Ishidai and Stobby are applied as above.
Green is silent on the VDA 270 rating of the compositions. As above Green is drawn to automative applications.
Eichenauer, working in the field of reducing odors in ABS compositions similar to Applicant, teaches the use of a combination of zinc oxide and/or magnesium oxide and an epoxy compound combination to provide ABS polymer molding compositions which have no unpleasant odors once they have been processed into mouldings. (Column 1 lines 25-40).
Eichenauer measures the VDA 270 odor values of the resulting ABS compositions and exemplifies 1.5-2.5 as inventive values of VDA 270. See Table 2.
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 Green by adding the zinc oxide and/or magnesium oxide and epoxy compound of Eichenauer in order to reduce the odors of the resulting ABS moldings of Green as taught by Eichenauer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve resulting compositions with VDA 270 of 1.5-2.5 by doing the above modification because Eichenauer exemplifies these levels for resulting compositions.
This overlaps the range of Claim 33.
There is no evidence of record to reasonably suggest zinc oxide and/or magnesium oxide and the epoxy compound of Eichenauer are capable of being adsorbents.
Claims 21-25, and 27-33 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 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 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 21.
Krabbenborg is silent on the residual styrene in the claimed range of Claim 21 and Claim 30.
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 21 and Claim 30.
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.
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”.
With respect to Claim 33, Krabbenborg is silent on the VDA odor rating of the compositions. However, all compositions in the as-filed specification which comprising zinc ricinoleate and carbon black in the recited range have the VDA 270 measurement in the recited range of Claim 33. Therefore, as Krabbenborg as modified above also has zinc ricinoleate and carbon black in ABS one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested, when tested appropriately, the above modified and discussed compositions of Green must have a VDA in the recited range of Claim 33.
Claim 26 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 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 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Krabbenborg (WO2017089547 reference made to national stage U.S. 20180346715) in view of Ishidai (U.S. 20130260306)and in further view of Eichenauer (U.S. 6,297,307).
Krabbenborg and Ishidai are applied as above.
Krabbenborg is silent on the VDA 270 rating of the compositions. As above Green is drawn to automative applications.
Eichenauer, working in the field of reducing odors in ABS compositions similar to Applicant, teaches the use of a combination of zinc oxide and/or magnesium oxide and an epoxy compound combination to provide ABS polymer molding compositions which have no unpleasant odors once they have been processed into mouldings. (Column 1 lines 25-40).
Krabbenborg measures the VDA 270 odor values of the resulting ABS compositions and exemplifies 1.5-2.5 as inventive values of VDA 270. See Table 2.
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 adding the zinc oxide and/or magnesium oxide and epoxy compound of Eichenauer in order to reduce the odors of the resulting ABS moldings of Green as taught by Eichenauer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve resulting compositions with VDA 270 of 1.5-2.5 by doing the above modification because Eichenauer exemplifies these levels for resulting compositions.
This overlaps the range of Claim 33.
There is no evidence of record to reasonably suggest zinc oxide and/or magnesium oxide and the epoxy compound of Eichenauer are capable of being adsorbents.
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), Sosa (U.S. 5,540,813) and Reimers (U.S. 20060189757), Eichenauer (U.S. 6,297,307) 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 April 30, 2026 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 modification of Claim 1 and addition of Claim 33. Rejections based on Yuan and separately Guerrieri are withdrawn due to the negative adsorbent limitation now in Claim 1. Rejections based on Green are applied to all claims and Krabbenberg are maintained for Claims 21 and its dependents for the new limitations.
Applicant’s remarks filed April 30, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the carbon black is not an adsorbent, and therefore, the §112 4th is improper. The §112 4th has been updated to reflect additional evidence that carbon black is capable of being an adsorbent. Therefore, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained and applied to Claim 8.
Applicant’s remarks to Krabbenberg are fully considered but not persuasive. Applicant cites NPL that was not provided with the response as of the date of the writing of this action, July 20, 2026, and therefore, the remarks to the effect of ricinoleate on polycarbonate are considered speculative by Applicant at this time. The Examiner cannot assess Applicant’s arguments and their evidence without NPL cited being provided and made of record.
Applicant’s arguments to no reasonable expectation of success arriving at the claimed effects Applicant has found for using zinc hydroxy unsaturated acids are not persuasive. The reasonable expectation of success is with respect to the modification of the art and not arriving at the effects Applicant argues their combination provides. If Applicant has found some effect that naturally flows from the use of the obvious use of compounds as claimed, this cannot be a basis for patentability.
The fact that the inventor 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 Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Applicant agues the recited
Applicant’s remarks to Applicant’s desire to provide aromatic polymers which have low amounts of total volatile compounds have been fully considered but are not persuasive. This argument is considered an argument to unexpected results. Applicant’s arguments to their results continues to be non-persuasive. The prior art teaches desirability of the recited levels of VOC, VDA 270 and residual styrene monomer amounts and also composition comprising styrenic polymers, with zinc salts already present and also carbon black without the additional adsorbents as claimed. Therefore, Applicant cannot state their results are truly unexpected at this time. Further Claim 1 and its dependent claims (absent Claim 32) is not even limited to the argued zinc hydroxy unsaturated salts and Claim 21 is open to any composition comprising styrene in its broadest scope. Therefore, the required nexus between the demonstrations and the allegedly unexpected results are not present. In effect, Applicant appears to be arguing there is no §102 against the claims, in particular that of Claim 21, and therefore, the claimed invention must be allowable. This is not persuasive as §102 and §103 are both applied to the claimed invention and there is no requirement that requires only §102s to be present to properly reject the claims.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights