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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s claim amendments filed 7/28/2025 have been entered. Applicant has amended claim 9 to overcome the 112(a) rejection, therefore it is withdrawn. Applicant has canceled claim 11, leaving claims 9-10 and 12 for examination.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada, K. US20100240813 over Bremner et al “Melt Flow Index Values and Molecular Weight Distributions of Commercial Thermoplastics,” Journal of Applied Science.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Terada teaches an aromatic vinyl-unsaturated dicarboximide copolymer (B) that comprises 40-68 wt.% of an aromatic vinyl compound, 32-60 wt.% of an unsaturated dicarboximide, and 0-20 wt.% of a copolymerizable vinyl compound, ¶[0017]. The unsaturated dicarboximide includes maleimide derivatives such as maleimide and N-phenylmaleimide, ¶[0073]. The co-polymerizable vinyl compound includes unsaturated dicarboxylic anhydrides, such as maleic anhydride, and cyanided vinyl compounds, such as acrylonitrile, ¶¶[0077-0079]. These weight percents of the monomer compounds overlap with the claimed weight percents of instant claim 10, rendering them obvious.
Terada does not have an embodiment where the unsaturated dicarboxylic anhydride (maleic anhydride) and the cyanided vinyl (acrylonitrile) are added to copolymer B simultaneously, but Terada suggests the aromatic vinyl-unsaturated dicarboximide copolymer (B) may be one or a mixture of a combination of two or more, ¶[0090]. Terada specifically lists styrene/N-phenylmaleimide/maleic anhydride copolymers and styrene/N-phenylmaleimide/acrylonitrile copolymers ¶[0083]. It would be obvious to the skilled artisan to utilize both acrylonitrile and maleic anhydride as the co-polymerizable vinyl compounds for copolymer B because Terada teaches acrylonitrile is preferable from the viewpoint of transparency, ¶[0079], and that maleic anhydride is preferable from the viewpoint of the control of the degree of polymerization, ¶0078]. The skilled artisan would look to the examples for the amount of maleic anhydride to add, and see that 1 wt.% is used, which is between the claimed range, rendering it obvious.
Terada further teaches the glass transition temperature of copolymer B is 165°C to 250°C, ¶[0092], and the weight average molecular weight of copolymer B is 70,000-250,000 g/mol, ¶[0036], both of which overlap with the claimed range, rendering them obvious.
Terada is silent as to what the melt flow rate is for the copolymer (B).
But Terada teaches the same monomers as applicant, in overlapping weight percents and overlapping molecular weights, as explained above, applicant shows on pages 41-42 of the instant specification that all of the copolymers (comprising the same monomers as taught by Terada) with molecular weights between the claimed 50,000-100,000 g/mol have an MFR between the claimed range. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested, when tested appropriately, the copolymers of Terada that have a Mw that overlaps with the claimed range must have an MFR within the claimed range because every one of applicant’s examples which have similar molecular weights have the claimed MFR.
If it is found that what is taught above is insufficient, Bremner et al discloses that for various polyolefin polymers, which copolymer B has significant portions of, it is well known in the art that the weight average molecular weight (Mw) has an inverse relationship to melt flow rate MFR or melt flow index MFI.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Terada’s copolymer B and control/ lower the Mw, as claimed, to increase the melt flow rate because increasing the melt flow rate will improve the ease of handling/ processing the polymer to form the final product.
Regarding claim 12, Terada does not explicitly disclose the residual maleimide monomer, and is presumed absent. Because the copolymer is presumed to have 0 ppm residual maleimide, this satisfies the limitation because it is less than 300 ppm.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada, K. US20100240813 over Bremner et al “Melt Flow Index Values and Molecular Weight Distributions of Commercial Thermoplastics,” Journal of Applied Science and further in view of Shikisai US6599978B1.
Regarding claim 12, Terada modified by Bremner teaches the invention according to claim 9 as explained above. Terada is silent as to the residual maleimide monomer content.
Shikisai discloses maleimide and/or unsaturated acid anhydride-based copolymers that are excellent in heat resistance, transparency, mechanical strength, moldability, and unlikely to degrade thermally, Col. 1 lines 5-20. The disclosed process results in unreacted maleimide monomer in an amount of 200 ppm or less, abstract. Shikisai further discloses that keeping the residual monomer to a minimum prevents discoloration, or pollution, of the molded product, Col. 2 lines 1-15.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have practiced the process of modified Terada but kept the residual maleimide monomer at a minimum, less than 200 ppm, with the motivation of obtaining a process with lower emitted pollution and discoloration of the molded product, as taught by Shikisai.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRGINIA L STONEHOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-3431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:00PM EST.
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 at 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 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.
/V.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766