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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 7, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-4 and 8-14 are pending as amended on July 7, 2026. Support for amended claim 1 is found in original claim 7. Claim 7 is cancelled. Claims 11-14 stand withdrawn from consideration.
Any objections and/or rejections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in the action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed July 7, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Xu (CN-102241880-A) does not teach or suggest the specific primary amides recited in amended claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Takimoto (US 2018/0355113 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takimoto (US 2018/0355113 A1) and evidenced by Takahashi (US 5,468,803).
Regarding claim 1, Takimoto teaches a polycarbonate-based resin composition comprising 100 parts by mass of a polycarbonate-based resin, 0.5-40 parts by mass of a white pigment, and 0.02-5.0 parts by mass of a hydrolysis resistant agent ([0032]). The resin composition is prepared by blending and kneading the components ([0185]). The kneading is performed at a temperature of 240-320 °C, preferably in an extruder ([0186]). An extruder reads on the claimed melt-mixing device.
Takimoto’s hydrolysis resistant agent can be an amide compound, an imide compound, an epoxy compound, an acid anhydride, an oxazoline compound, an oxazine compound, or a ketene compound ([0120]). Suitable amide compounds taught by Takimoto include primary amides such as lauramide, myristamide, palmitamide, behenamide, and montanamide ([0125]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have prepared the composition of Takimoto using any hydrolysis resistant agent taught by Takimoto, including lauramide, myristamide, palmitamide, behenamide, or montanamide.
Takimoto exemplifies using a “TEM-35B” twin-screw extruder manufactured by Toshiba Manufacturing Co., Ltd with an ejection amount of 25 kg/hr ([0240]).
Takimoto does not explicitly teach the residence time of the extruder.
However, Takimoto teaches an ejection amount that correspond to a residence time within the claimed range of at least 0.5 minutes, as evidenced by Takahashi. Takahashi teaches that a TEM-35B twin-screw extruder has a residence time of about 2 minutes when used with an ejection amount of 10 kg/hr (Takahashi, col. 25, lines 1-5). Based on this description, the residence time of the same extruder operated at 25 kg/hr is about 0.8 minutes (2 minutes *(10/25)=0.8 minutes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have used the twin-screw extruder ejection amount (25 kg/hr) exemplified by Takimoto. This ejection amount corresponds to a residence time of about 0.8 minutes. Takimoto therefore teaches a method in which polycarbonate is melt-mixed with a primary amide that is lauramide, myristamide, palmitamide, behenamide, or montanamide at a temperature of 240-320 °C for about 0.8 minutes.
Takimoto does not explicitly teach that the polycarbonate and primary amide react to form a modified polycarbonate with the claimed increase in melt volume rate and para-hydroxy phenol groups compared to the polycarbonate.
However, Takimoto teaches reaction conditions that would necessarily lead to the claimed reaction and increases in melt volume flow rate and para-hydroxy phenol groups. Takimoto teaches that polycarbonate and a primary amide that is lauramide, myristamide, palmitamide, behenamide, or montanamide are in contact at a temperature of 240-320 °C for about 0.8 minutes. The instant specification specifies that a temperature of at least 230 °C and a time of at least 0.5 minutes is sufficient to form the modified polycarbonate (instant specification page 7, line 34 through page 3, line 1). Takimoto teaches using the primary amide in an amount of 0.02-5.0 parts by mass based on 100 parts of polycarbonate ([0032]). This primary amide content is very close to the 0.05-5% of amide recited in the instant specification (instant specification, page 8, lines 11-14). Like the instant method, Takimoto’s composition does not include a solvent (none of Takimoto’s examples comprise a solvent and Takimoto’s broader disclosure does not require including a solvent). Given that the relative amounts of primary amide and polycarbonate, time, temperature, and lack of solvent taught by Takimoto are consistent with the conditions suggested by the instant specification as facilitating polycarbonate modification, it is reasonable to expect that the Takimoto’s process leads to polycarbonate modification. The instant examples provide further support for this position. Instant example E3 is closest to Takimoto because this example uses behenamide as an amide. Examples E1 and E2 use iso stearyl amide and Example E4 uses erucamide, neither of which read on the primary amide of instant claim 1. Erucamide is taught by Takimoto, but iso stearyl amide is not explicitly taught ([0125]). The instant examples undergo extrusion with a barrel and die head temperature between 250 °C and 300 °C (page 10, lines 4-10). The reaction time is not specified. The modified polycarbonates of examples E1-E4 all have a melt flowrate increase within the claimed range (see Table 2) and a para-hydroxy phenol group content increase into the claimed range (see Table 3). The instant specification provides no evidence of a primary amide and a polycarbonate undergoing melt-mixing at the claimed temperature for the claimed time without producing the claimed melt flowrate increase and para-hydroxy phenol group content. Therefore, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the claimed reaction necessarily occurs and leads to the claimed polycarbonate modification, increase in melt flow volume, and para-hydroxy phenol group content.
Regarding claim 2, Takimoto teaches the method of claim 1. Takimoto further reports notched Izod impact strengths as measured by ASTM D-256 on injection molded test pieces measuring 63 x 13 x 3.2 mm at 23 °C ([0261-0265]) for the examples. The sample size is about the same as the claimed size (64 x 13 x 3.2 mm). Takimoto’s examples have notched Izod impact strengths in the range of 64-68.6 kJ/m2 at 23 °C (Table 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have prepared the resin of Takimoto with any notched Izod impact strength in the range of 64,000-68,600 J/m2 because Takimoto exemplifies this range.
Takimoto’s notched Izod impact strength is reported in units of J/m2 rather than the claimed units of J/m.
Notched Izod impact strengths with these units are related by the thickness of the sample at the notch. Takimoto does not report the notch depth; however, the thickness must be less than 13 mm because the sample has a thickness of 13 mm. The claimed lower limit of 400 J/m would be satisfied for Takimoto’s Izod impact strength range as long as the notch in the sample is not more than about 7 mm deep (400 J/m / 68,600 J/m2 = 0.0058 m; 400 J/m / 64,000 J/m2 = 0.00625 m; and 13 mm – 6 mm = 7 mm). It is highly likely that the notch does not account for more than 50% of the thickness because the ASTM D-256 method is used. Therefore, Takimoto’s Izod impact strength would necessarily fall within the claimed range if measured in the claimed units of J/m.
Regarding claim 3, Takimoto teaches the method of claim 1. Takimoto further teaches that the polycarbonate-based resin contains a polycarbonate-polyorganosiloxane copolymer (PC-POS) ([0012]). The PC-POS can comprise bisphenol A residues ([0072], [0090]) and be produced by interfacial polymerization using phosgene ([0071-0072]). Takimoto therefore teaches a bisphenol A polycarbonate obtained from an interfacial process copolymerizing bisphenol A with phosgene.
Regarding claim 9, Takimoto teaches the method of claim 1. Takimoto uses a twin-screw extruder ([0186]), reading on wherein the method is a continuous method. Twin screw extruders enable continuous methods, as evidenced by the instant specification. Instant specification page 9, lines 2-3 reads “The use of an extruder allows the modification to be carried out continuously thereby providing a polycarbonate with a stable level of modification.”
Regarding claim 10, Takimoto teaches the method of claim 1. Takimoto further teaches providing a mixture to a twin-screw extruder, melt-kneading, and producing a pellet (Takimoto, [0240]). In order to obtain a pellet from a mixture that is being melt-kneaded, one would necessarily need to extrude the modified polycarbonate through a die into at least one strand, followed by cooling the at least one strand and cutting the at least one strand into pellets.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takimoto (US 2018/0355113 A1) and evidenced by Takahashi (US 5,468,803) as applied to claim 1 above, and further evidenced by Hiemenz (Polymer Chemistry, 2nd edition, Chapter 1, CRC Press, 2007, 1-41)
Takimoto teaches the method of claim 1. Takimoto teaches that the viscosity-average molecular weight (Mv) is 12,000-30,000 ([0069]). Takimoto teaches that when the Mv is 12,000 or greater, sufficient strength of the molded article can be obtained ([0069]). Takimoto further teaches that when the Mv is 30,000 or less, moldability is satisfactory ([0069]). Based on these teachings, one of ordinary skill would understand that increasing molecular weight improves strength and decreasing molecular weight improves moldability.
Takimoto does not teach a weight average molecular weight (Mw) measured by GPC with polycarbonate standards.
However, Takimoto’s Mv range overlaps with the claimed Mw range, as evidenced by Hiemenz. Hiemenz teaches that Mn ≤ Mv ≤ Mw for most flexible polymers (Hiemenz, page 32, second to last paragraph where Mn is the number-average molecular weight). Hiemenz further teaches that typical polymerization schemes give polydispersity indexes (PDIs) near 2 (Hiemenz, page 26, last paragraph). It is therefore reasonable to estimate that the claimed Mw range of 15,000-60,000 corresponds to a Mn range of about 7,500-30,000 (PDI=Mw/Mn). Because Mn ≤ Mv ≤ Mw there is reasonable basis to conclude that Takimoto’s Mv of 12,000-30,000 overlaps with the claimed Mw range of 15,000-60,000.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have selected any Mv in the range of 12,000-30,000, including a Mv that corresponds to a Mw that overlaps with the claimed range of 15,000-60,000. It would further have been obvious to optimize the Mw into the claimed range of 15,000-60,000 as measured by GPC with polycarbonate standards. One would have been motivated to optimize the Mw in order to balance strength and moldability. The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takimoto (US 2018/0355113 A1) and evidenced by Takahashi (US 5,468,803) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Monden (US 2011/0245388 A1, cited with 9/19/2025 Office action).
Takimoto teaches the method of claim 1. Takimoto further teaches that the polycarbonate component can further comprise an additional polycarbonate other than the PC-POS ([0065]). This component is preferably an aromatic polycarbonate-based resin ([0065]) derived from bisphenol A ([0102]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have included a bisphenol A polycarbonate in the polycarbonate component of Takimoto, as taught by Takimoto.
Takimoto does not teach that the bisphenol A polycarbonate is post-consumer recycled polycarbonate.
However, prior to the effective filing date, mixtures of virgin polycarbonate and post-consumer recycled polycarbonate were known as alternatives to virgin polycarbonate, as taught by Monden. Monden teaches that polycarbonate resin may be not only made of virgin raw materials but also a polycarbonate resin generated from used products, such as optical recording media, light guide plates, and vehicle transparent members (Monden, [0275]), reading on post-consumer recycled polycarbonate. Monden further teaches that the amount of regenerated polycarbonate resin is preferably 80% by mass or less because regenerated polycarbonate resins are likely to have undergone degradation (Monden, [0276]).
Case law has established that it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). MPEP § 2143, rationale (B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted up to 80% by mass of the polycarbonate of Takimoto with post-consumer recycled polycarbonate, as taught by Monden. One would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully producing a polycarbonate article with typical mechanical properties because Monden teaches that a polycarbonate composition can comprise up to 80% by mass of post-consumer recycled polycarbonate without deterioration in mechanical properties (Monden, [0276]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDRA DESTEFANO whose telephone number is (703)756-1404. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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.
/AUDRA J DESTEFANO/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights