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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 24, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 15-25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0046408 (Minkwitz) as evidenced by EP 0450485 (Seitz) as translated by family member US 5196480 (Seitz).
Minkwitz disclose a thermoplastic molding composition comprising:
3 to 94.6 wt.% of a styrene copolymer inclusive of styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer (SAN) (meets Applicants’ SAN matrix (A-2) and overlaps content thereof), alpha-methylstyrene-acrylonitrile copolymer (AMSAN) (meets Applicants’ AMSAN matrix (A-2) and overlaps content thereof) and mixtures thereof [0033]/[0037];
5 to 95.2 wt.% of a graft rubber comprising styrene units inclusive of ASA (meets Applicants’ styrene-based graft copolymer (A-1) and overlaps content thereof);
0.2 to 0.9 wt.% of a hindered amine light stabilizer (HALS) per formula (I) having a dipiperidine structure (meets Applicants’ HALS (B-1) and content thereof);
0 to 0.9 wt.% of a HALS per formula (II) (meets Applicants’ HALS (B-2) and overlaps content thereof);
0 to 0.5 wt.% of one or more HALS per formula (III)-(VI) (meets Applicants’ HALS (B-3) and content thereof);
0 to 10 wt.% of one or more additives such as colorants, dyes, pigments (meets Applicants’ additive (C) and content thereof); and
0 to 40 wt.% of fillers (meets Applicants’ additive (D) and overlaps content thereof) (e.g., abstract, [0007-0017], [0032-0037], [0086], [0093], examples, claims).
In the working examples, Minkwitz uses an ASA-modified styrene-acrylonitrile rubber (AB-i) [0105], synthesized as described by the example of Seitz ‘480, which is a polymer composition comprising:
(i) 25 wt.% fine ASA graft copolymer (A) (meets Applicants’ styrene-based graft copolymer (A-1));
(ii) 10 wt.% coarse ASA graft copolymer (BI) (also meets Applicants’ styrene-based graft copolymer (A-1)); and
(iii) 65 wt.% SAN copolymer (C) (meets Applicants’ SAN matrix (A-2)).
Thus, Minkwitz’ thermoplastic molding composition per Example 1 (Table 1) comprises:
98 wt.% of polymer composition (AB-i) comprising:
(A-1) 35 wt.% (25+10) fine and coarse ASA graft copolymers (meets Applicants’ styrene-based graft copolymer (A-1) and content thereof); and
(A-2) 65 wt.% SAN copolymer (meets Applicants’ SAN matrix (A-2));
0.5 wt.% Tinuvin 770 (C-i) (meets Applicants’ HALS (B-1) used in examples [0237] and content thereof);
0.5 wt.% Cyasorb 3853 (D-i) (meets Applicants’ HALS (B-2) used in examples [0238] and content thereof); and
1 wt.% carbon black (F-i) (meets Applicants’ pigment (C) used in examples [0240] and content thereof).
As to claim 15, Minkwitz’s Example 1 differs therefrom in that the SAN copolymer is not further combined with an AMSAN copolymer and the Cyasorb 3853 is not in the form of a masterbatch comprising AMSAN. With respect to the first difference, Minkwitz clearly discloses [0033]/[0037] that mixtures of the functionally alternative SAN and AMSAN copolymers can be used as the styrene copolymer (A). Thus, it would have been within the purview of Minkwitz’s inventive disclosure, and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use, e.g., a 50:50 mixture of SAN copolymer and AMSAN copolymer (meets Applicants’ matrix (A-2) comprising 50 wt.% SAN and 50 wt.% AMSAN) for their expected additive effect as the styrene copolymer (A) and with the reasonable expectation of success. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose…[T]the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art”, In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069. As to the second difference, it is within the purview of Minkwitz’s inventive disclosure [0093] to premix some of the individual components to form masterbatches and then mix the masterbatches with the remaining components to form the molding composition. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to pre-mix Minkwitz’s Cyasorb 3853 with at least a portion of the further added AMSAN copolymer with the reasonable expectation of improved dispersion. The selection of any order of performing process steps or mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious, in the absence of new or unexpected results, Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440, In re Gibson, 5 USPQ 230. It is not seen that pre-mixing Minkwitz’s Cyasorb 3853 and AMSAN copolymer is associated with unusual or unexpected results, as compared to mixing all the components at the same time.
As to claim 16, the HALS Tinuvin 770 used by Minkwitz has the claimed structure (I), as evidenced by present specification [0162-0163], and the HALS Cyasorb 3853 used by Minkwitz has the claimed structure (II), as evidenced by present specification [0166-0167].
As to claim 17, Minkwitz does not disclose the presence of ethylene and/or propylene-based components. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the presently claimed lower limit of 0.001 wt.% and Minkwitz’s 0 wt.% are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773 (MPEP 2144.05 l).
As to claim 18, Minkwitz’s composition is free of ethylene and/or propylene-based components.
As to claim 19, in Minkwitz’s examples, the fine ASA copolymer (A) has an average particle size d50 of 93 mm and the coarse ASA copolymer (BI) has an average particle size d50 of 443 mm [0105].
As to claim 20, Minkwitz’s SAN and AMSAN copolymers preferably contain 60 to 80 wt.% styrene or alpha methylstyrene (vinylaromatic units) and 20 to 40 wt.% acrylonitrile (vinyl cyanide units) [0034-0035].
As to claim 21, the above-modified Minkwitz’s Example 1 composition comprises:
35 wt.% fine ASA copolymer (A) and coarse ASA copolymer (BI); and
65 wt.% SAN + AMSAN, wherein each of the SAN and AMSAN preferably contains 60 to 80 wt.% styrene or alpha methylstyrene (vinylaromatic units) and 20 to 40 wt.% acrylonitrile (vinyl cyanide units) [0034-0035].
As to claim 22, Minkwitz discloses the graft copolymer (B) comprises a bimodal size distribution [0057]. In the examples, the fine ASA copolymer (A) has an average particle size d50 of 93 mm and the coarse ASA copolymer (BI) has an average particle size d50 of 443 mm [0105].
As to claim 23, Minkwitz’s Example 1 exhibits a gloss level of 96 before weathering, and a gloss level of 84 (88%) after weathering (Table 1), measured under similar conditions [0099].
As to claim 24, Minkwitz does not expressly disclose the color shift of the composition. Inasmuch, as the compositions exhibit the same gloss properties, it would be expected that such would also exhibit the same coloring properties inclusive of color shift.
As to claim 25, Minkwitz’s exemplified (AB-i) ASA-modified styrene-acrylonitrile rubber would necessarily have a glass transition temperature of less than -20°C, as evidenced by Seitz (e.g., C4:11-15). Thus, Minkwitz’s method of producing the composition [0093]/[0123] meets the claimed process steps.
As to claim 27, Minkwitz’s Example 1 exhibits a gloss level of 96 before weathering (Table 1).
As to claims 28 and 29, Minkwitz’s compositions have good weathering resistance and, as such, would be useful for producing molded articles for exterior applications, implicitly including automotive applications.
Claims 17 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0046408 (Minkwitz) as evidenced by EP 0450485/US 5196480 (Seitz), described hereinabove, in view of US 2017/0145201 (Boeckmann).
As to claim 17, Minkwitz does not expressly disclose an oligomer/polymer comprising ethylene or propylene units as an additive. From Boeckmann it is known that waxes comprising ethylene or propylene units, e.g., PP waxes, PE waxes, HDPE waxes [0064], are common lubricants and/or mold-release agents for similar-such composition comprising SAN copolymers and styrene-based graft rubbers. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a wax comprising ethylene or propylene units as described by Boeckmann as Minkwitz’s lubricant and/or mold release agent in an amount as low as 0.05 wt.% per [0086] for its expected additive effect.
As to claim 26, the introductory phrase, "a method for reducing mold deposit formation" does not serve to patentably distinguish over Minkwitz’s disclosure. This language, in effect, simply states the result of compounding the materials. Thus, it would be expected that compounding the similar-such materials per Minkwitz’s above-modified Example 1, i.e., wherein potassium persulfate is used in the production of the ASA copolymers (per Seitz, C8:35), would give rise to the same results. This is particularly so given that Boeckmann discloses that using a potassium persulfate in the production of the ASA copolymer gives rides to reduced mold deposits (e.g., abstract, [0008], [0030]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is maintained that the presence of unfixed variables, with respect to the materials used, between Examples 1-2 and Comparative Examples 1-4 renders the data nonprobative of unexpected results for using the presently claimed (B-2) masterbatch with AMSAN. The closest comparison appears to be between Example 1 comprising a Cyasorb 3853 (B-2) masterbatch with AMSAN and Comparative Example 3 comprising a Cyasorb 3853 (E-2) masterbatch with polypropylene. However, given that Comparative Example 3 further includes a polyethylene wax (E-1), such cannot be properly compared to Example 1. Moreover, Comparative Example 3 is not representative of Minkwitz’s composition which does not require a polyethylene wax, or any component comprising ethylene.
Applicants’ argument that limiting the polyolefin content to less than 0.1 wt.% renders the data probative of unexpected results is not understood. Inasmuch as Comparative Example 3 further includes a polyethylene wax (E-1), such cannot be properly compared to Example 1.
As to claim 17, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the presently claimed lower limit of 0.001 wt.% and Minkwitz’s 0 wt.% are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773 (MPEP 2144.05 l). In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a wax comprising ethylene or propylene units as described by Boeckmann as Minkwitz’s lubricant and/or mold release agent in an amount as low as 0.05 wt.% per [0086] for its expected additive effect.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ana L Woodward whose telephone number is (571)272-1082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached on 571-270-1831. 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.
/ANA L. WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765