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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 27, 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on January 27, 2026 have been entered. Claims 16, 18-19, 24-27, and 30-41 are pending in the application. Claims 33-35 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 16, 18-19, 24-27, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (KR 2010/0122303 A, using the machine translation for the citations below) in view of Schulz (WO 2018/172148 A1).
Regarding Claims 16, 26, and 30-32: Han teaches a composition comprising a base resin comprising 25-40wt% of an ABS copolymer, 10-45wt% of a copolymer of an aromatic vinyl compound and a vinyl cyanide compound, and 25-50wt% of a recycled thermoplastic resin (p.4, second paragraph), wherein the copolymer of an aromatic vinyl compound and a vinyl cyanide compound is a SAN-based resin (p.6) and the recycled thermoplastic resin may be ABS (p.7, second paragraph). The composition further comprises, per 100 parts of the base resin, 0.01-0.5 parts by weight of an acrylic copolymer (p.4, second paragraph) and 0.1-5 parts by weight of a lubricant such as ethylene bisstearamide (p.9, first paragraph).
Han is silent to the styrene-butadiene block copolymer.
Schulz teaches a styrenic copolymer blend comprising 85-99wt% of an ABS and/or SAN resin and 0.5-4.5wt% of a styrene-butadiene block copolymer, wherein the addition of the styrene-butadiene block copolymer in that amount reduces the mold shrinkage of the polymer composition by at least 5% (p.2, lines 14-30). Schulz and Han are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely styrene copolymer blends.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a styrene-butadiene block copolymer to the composition taught by Han in an amount of 0.5-4.5wt% in order to decrease the mold shrinkage of the composition.
Based on calculations, and taking into account the additional content of styrene-butadiene block copolymer (SBC), the composition comprises approximately 22.6-49.7wt% recycled ABS, 22.6-39.8wt% virgin ABS, 9.1-44.7wt% SAN, 0.1-4.7wt% lubricant, 0.5-4.5wt% SBC, and 0.01-0.49wt% of a further additive/acrylic copolymer. The virgin material content, comprising the virgin ABS, SAN, SBC, and lubricant, is up to 77.4wt%.
The content of SAN and recycled ABS overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use overlapping amounts of these components, especially a lower amount of SAN for high impact strength and good weather resistance (p.7, second paragraph), and a lower amount of recycled ABS for good fluidity and processability (p.8, first paragraph).
The content of virgin ABS approaches the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges do not overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art but are close, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a similar amount of virgin ABS to the range taught by Han, and they would be especially motivated to use a high amount for the purpose of improving impact strength (p.6).
With regard to Claims 18-19, “obtained by the recycling of durable goods” in claim 18 and “wherein the durable goods are post-consumer durable goods” in claim 19 are product-by-process limitations. MPEP § 2113 states that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”. Therefore, the structure implied by the process step of recycling durable goods will be considered when assessing patentability of Claims 18-19. However, the Applicant should note that “the Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2113(II).
Han teaches recycled ABS (p.7, second paragraph). Although Han is silent to the ABS source being durable goods, the claimed product, i.e. recycled ABS, is disclosed.
Regarding Claims 24-25: The virgin component comprises the ABS copolymer at approximately 30-81wt%, based on the total weight of the virgin component. This teaches the claimed range with sufficient specificity that it is considered anticipated. MPEP 2131.03(II).
Regarding Claim 27: The virgin component comprises the ethylene bisstearamide lubricant at up to approximately 12%, based on the weight of the virgin component. This teaches the claimed range with sufficient specificity that it is considered anticipated. MPEP 2131.03(II).
Claims 37-41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (KR 2010/0122303 A, using the machine translation for the citations below) in view of Schulz (WO 2018/172148 A1) and Ono et al (JP 2019/137732 A, using the machine translation for the citations below).
Regarding Claim 37: Han and Schulz teach the limitations of claim 16, as set forth above. However, Han and Schulz are silent to the claimed properties of the ABS copolymer.
Ono teaches a composition comprising a blend of a graft copolymer, a rigid copolymer, and a recycled ABS (para. 0005), wherein the recycled ABS is derived from refrigerator casings, which have a high acrylonitrile monomer content and high molecular weight for the purpose of being formable and having good chemical resistance; the acrylonitrile monomer content and molecular weight lead to a polymer having a melt volume flow rate of 3-15 cm3/10 minutes at a temperature of 220°C and a load of 10kg (para. 0026). Ono and Han are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely polymer blends containing recycled ABS.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a recycled ABS having a melt volume flow rate within the claimed range because said polymer will impart the composition with good chemical resistance.
Regarding Claims 38-41: Ono is silent to the Vicat temperature, E-modulus, stress at yield, strain at yield, elongation at break, and Charpy impact strength of the recycled ABS. However, physical properties of polymers are dependent on several factors, such as processing methods, molecular weight, and monomer content. Based on Ono’s disclosure of the melt volume flow rate meeting the limitation of the claims due to the monomer content and molecular weight of the recycled ABS, as set forth above, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the factors mentioned above are similar in nature to those of the claimed recycled ABS, and that at least a portion of the ABS taught by Ono would display all of the claimed properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 36 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The combination of references above is the closest prior art, which teaches the basic claimed material of claim 16 as set forth above. However, Han teaches that using an amount of virgin ABS exceeding 40 parts by weight decreases processability and causes problems with scratch resistance (p.6), thereby teaching away from using 51wt% or higher of the virgin ABS.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights