DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response of May 13, 2025 has been fully considered. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are amended. Claims 1-16 are pending.
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 .
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.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isahaya et al. (WO 2014/077341) in view of Sawaki et al. (US 2004/0147655). For convenience, the citations below for Isahaya et al. are taken from English language equivalent US 2015/0284509.
Regarding claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11-13, and 15, Isahaya et al. teaches a process of making an aromatic polycarbonate resin composition (¶199) comprising reacting an aromatic polycarbonate prepolymer and an aliphatic diol compound in the presence of a transesterification catalyst (¶200, 204, 207). The reaction vessel to be used for the transesterification reaction is preferably a twin-screw extruder (using an extruder meets the limitation of feeding the crude aromatic polycarbonate resin to an extruder because it is already there) (¶224). This reaction heightens the molecular weight of the aromatic polycarbonate resin (¶222) and produces cyclic carbonates (¶215, 216). A deactivator of the catalyst may be used to the polymer heightened in molecular weight (¶226). The deactivating catalyst is an acidic compound (¶226). After deactivating the catalyst, a step of devolatilizing and removing a low boiling point compound in the polymer under a pressure of 0.013 to 0.13 kPaA (0.1 to 1 ton), at a temperature of 200 to 350° C. may be provided (indicates there is a vent port) (¶229). Since the deactivating catalyst is added before the devolatilization of the cyclic carbonates, the port for adding the catalyst must be upstream from any water injection port or any vent port.
Isahaya et al. does not teach injecting water through a water injection port. However, Sawaki et al. teaches a process of producing a polycarbonate powder by reacting bisphenol A with phosgene in the presence of p-tert-butylphenol as a terminal capping agent in a unidirectional rotating intermeshed twin-screw extruder having two processing zones each consisting of a kneading portion and a vent portion at a rate of 110 kg/hr to be molten. In the first processing zone of the extruder, ion exchange water was supplied in an amount of 1 wt % based on the polymer and kneaded with the above polycarbonate (any port used to inject the water is considered a water injection port), and the resulting mixture was vacuum treated at 15 Torr (1,995 Pa) in the vent portion (vent port) right after the kneading portion (water injection port is located upstream from the vent port) through a material seal to remove low-boiling substances, i.e., cyclic carbonates, contained in the polymer together with water (¶252). Isahaya et al. and Sawaki et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely processes for producing aromatic polycarbonate resin compositions. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use water to aid in the devolatilization procedure to remove low-boiling substances, such as the cyclic carbonates, as taught by Sawaki et al., in the process, as taught by Isahaya et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure as much of the cyclic carbonates as possible are removed.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 10, Isahaya et al. teaches that it is most preferred to remove as much of the cyclic carbonates as possible, preferably to a level of 300 ppm or less (¶218). Therefore, it follows that the level before the removal would be in the range of 1 to 10,000 ppm in order for it to be possible to remove down to a level of 300 ppm or less.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Isahaya et al. teaches that the dialcohol compound that is represented by formula (8a) (¶145-150).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Isahaya et al. provides no teaching as to a content of heterogeneous structure containing a substance derived from salicylic acid. Therefore, there must be none and the amount is zero.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sawaki et al. supplies water to the polycarbonate produced so as to remove phenol and diphenyl carbonate and not to remove aliphatic cyclic carbonate. Applicant additionally argues that Sawaki et al. does not disclose that the water injection port is provided upstream from the vent port. Finally, applicant argues that the combination of references does not disclose or suggest the method of claim 1, which is used to produce an aromatic polycarbonate resin with a smaller heterogeneous structure content, less aliphatic cyclic carbonate, and improved color hue. All of these arguments submitted by applicant are unpersuasive.
First, Isahaya et al., the primary reference of record, teaches the method of claim 1 except for the inclusion of water in the devolatilization step to help aid in removing at least a part of the aliphatic cyclic carbonate, which is a low-boiling point substance. Isahaya et al. teaches removal of the aliphatic cyclic carbonate compounds, it simply does not teach the inclusion of water to do so. However, Sawaki et al. teaches a process for making a polycarbonate, which process does include the inclusion of water to aid in removing low-boiling point compounds. It is not necessary for Sawaki et al. to specifically teach adding water to remove aliphatic cyclic carbonate compounds. Sawaki et al. disclosing using water in the process of producing a polycarbonate to aid in removing of low-boiling point substances is enough to suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that this process step could aid in the removal of any low-boiling point substance.
Further, Sawaki et al. teaches that the water is added to the polycarbonate during the kneading portion of the process and before the vent portion/devolatilizing portion of the process. Therefore, the port used to inject the water must be upstream of the vent port. Finally, it is unnecessary for the combination of references to teach or suggest the advantages recognized by applicant. 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). Therefore, the Office finds these arguments unpersuasive and the rejection of record stands.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767