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 .
Response to Arguments
In their response dated 12/11/2025 the applicants amended claims to require vinyl cyan monomers that are collectively added before the polymerization step (S10). This is understood as limiting instant claims to form copolymers that are not graft, comb, core shell and the like. The limitation therefore would encompass polymers that are not formed from any seed. Consequently the rejections of record, which are directed graft or comb polymers are no longer applicable as applied in the office action dated 9/17/2025. As a result, updated search was conducted and new reference was identified. Applicants arguments with respect to Yu and Tobias are therefore considered moot because rejection is withdrawn.
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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2003/0032747) in view of Yu (CN 103030741).
With respect to claims 1, 7 and 8, Lee discloses continuous polymerization of styrene and acrylonitrile with mixed initiator system which comprises a multifunctional peroxide and monofunctional peroxide (Abstract). Preferred styrene is alpha methylstyrene [0032]
In the process of Lee styrene and acrylonitrile and two peroxides were continuously fed into the reactor until conversion into polymer reaches 50-70% which meets the limitation of claim 7 [0036].
The peroxide system is utilized in amount of 0.5-0.3% and it comprises multifunctional peroxide and monofunctional peroxide.
Multifunctional peroxides include 1,1-bis-(t-butylperoxy)-3,3,5-trimethylcyclohexane, 2,2-bis(t-butylperoxycyclohexane propane), 2,2-bis(t-butylperoxide)butane [0054].
Monofunctional peroxides include dicumyl peroxide, t-butyl cumyl peroxide di-t-butyl peroxide [0054].
Lee stated that using mixture of the two initiators as disclosed can produce copolymer having high molecular weight and high conversion rate [0048].
While Lee teaches using two initiators, the list of both multi and mono functional initiators is not rather limited.
Yu also discloses process of polymerizing styrene and acrylonitrile with the dual initiator system which are also multi and mono peroxide initiators.
The multifunctional peroxide initiators of Yu include the same initiators as those of Lee [0017] and [020]. The monofunctional peroxide initiators in addition to those disclosed in Lee include t-butyl peroxybenzoate, t-butyl peroxyacetate and the like [0019] [0021].
Yu also states that in polymerization of styrene and acrylonitrile, combination of the two peroxide initiators increases polymerization rate and production efficiency while increasing molecular weight during polymerization.
In the light of the above disclosure it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize two peroxide initiators such as t-butyl peroxybenzoate of Yu in the teachings of Lee with any multifunctional peroxide already disclosed in Lee and thereby obtain the claimed invention. The t-butyl peroxybenzoate in combination with another multifunctional peroxide obtains the same results which are desired by Lee. Consequently, the t-butyl peroxybenzoate is viewed as functional equivalent to monofunctional peroxides of Lee’s
It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
“[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of claim would have been obvious] need no seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court to take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.“ KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc. 127 S. Ct 1727, 1740-1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441, F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). See DyStar Textilfarben GmBH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patric Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir 2006) (“The motivation need not be found in the references sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself.”; In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)(“Having established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.’”); In re Hoeschelle, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-407, 160 USPQ 809, 811-12 (CCPA 1969) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the references but also the inference which one skilled in the art would reasonable be expected to draw therefrom …”). The analysis supporting obviousness, however, should be made explicit and should “identify reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine elements” in manner claimed. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
With respect to claim 3, content of the two peroxides in Lee is 0.05-0.3% (claim 1).
With respect to claim 4, monofunctional peroxides will be inherently different from multifunctional peroxides and their ratio according to working examples 1 and 2 (Table 1) is approximately 10:1. Please note that this ratio is based on examples only, and it is not limited by the overall teaching of Lee.
With respect to claim 6, in [0040] Lee states that the monomers are fed into the reactor continuously until 70% or less of monomers are converted into polymer. Based on the total content of the monomers [0041] not all monomer are fed before conversion of 70% or less. Any unreacted monomer content and solvent are both devolatilized. This will meet the limitation of claim 6 because the claims broadly states that part of the styrene based monomer is fed, without providing any insight at to the extent of the term “part”. As such term “part” reads on content as high as 90%.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 5712701046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 December 30, 2025