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 .
Priority
The claims have an effective date of the filing of the PCT: 12/23/19
Response to Argument/Amendments
Applicant argues there is a difference in purity depending on when the resin components are washed. Applicant offers experimental data for such. Applicant argues washing the rubber powder before mixing with SAN resin allows for greater surface area contact and improved removal of soluble organic carbon. Applicant argues later washing allows for impurities to be more difficult to remove
The Examiner disagrees. First, Applicant is reminded that any additional data must be in affidavit form. The data in the remarks is not in affidavit form and is thusly not truly considered. However, in the interest of compact prosecution the following remarks are made: though the data shows a difference depending on when washed, the data is not commensurate with Tada. Tada is very specific to obtaining an acrylonitrile content of less than 5000ppm, preferably as low as 50ppm. Acrylonitrile is a soluble organic carbon. It is unclear how acrylonitrile values compare to Applicant’s soluble organic carbon requirement. When Tada washes and obtains an acrylonitrile content of less than 5000ppm it seems this would embrace Applicant’s claims, since, the same polymer resin is being made and the same type of washing is being done. Applicant has not shown that decreasing acrylonitrile to this amount does not correspond/meet the instant claims. Since Tada discloses washing so as to decrease acrylonitrile as low as 50ppm, there is still a prima facie case of obviousness that this embraces Applicant’s claims. The Examiner requests further clarification of such. Without clarification the Examiner cannot further comment on the washing done in the examples of the remarks. Applicant is reminded that examples must compare the closest prior art, and, Tada is very clear in the desire to remove acrylonitrile to a very low concentration (50ppm), which seems to be the same as the soluble organic carbon of Applicant’s claims.
It is noted that Applicant has previously argued [0018] of the instant specification disclosing the soluble organic carbon to be acrylamide monomer, oligomers and emulsifiers. It seems these will equally be removed by the process of Tada when Tada removes acrylamide down to less than 5000ppm. Applicant has no evidence to the contrary. Tada isn’t just removing acrylamide when washing. Tada is removing the same impurities Applicant is removing since there is no way to ‘preferably’ just remove acrylamide monomers while leaving the emulsifier/oligomer.
Applicant argues the washing treatment of Tada is not specific to the powder and as such there is no suggestion or disclosure to obtain a resin with a yellowness index of less than or equal to 18.
The Examiner disagrees. Though Applicant has shown that the timing of washing can make a difference as to whether the yellowness is obtained, Applicant has not shown that Tada does not embrace such. E.G. Tada discloses washing to obtain below 5000ppm acrylonitrile, which, seems to be the same thing or very similar to the soluble organic carbon of the claims. Tada exemplifies 1000ppm residual acrylamide and further prefers removal down to 50ppm. It seems Tada should obtain the claimed yellowness parameter given the disclosure to removing acrylonitrile below 5000ppm. Applicant’s arguments are thusly not persuasive and the rejection stands as previously set forth.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Rejection over Claim 1, and its dependents, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is overcome by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-12, 13-14, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tada (JP S58103506A-English translation previously provided) in optionally in view of Armarego (Armarego et al, Purification of laboratory chemicals Fifth Edition, 2003, 12 pages), and, in further view of Liben (CN 105733120A-English translation provided).
Tada, Armarego and Liben are as previously set forth, reiterated below in its entirety in italics. Regarding the amendment to claim 1, the “can be” is a future intended/capable of limitation. There is no requirement to have the SAN resin blended therein. Since the composition requirements are met, the ABS powder must be capable of such a use. It is noted that Liben is also used in claim 12 to render obvious using the purified ABS powder to make an ABS-SAN blend and alternatively that position is now incorporated here making it prima facie obvious to prepare a ABS-SAN product using the purified ABS product to alternatively meet claim 1.
Tada discloses washing ABS resins (abstract) in hot water and with steam, followed by an alkaline solution of sodium hydroxide (abstract, examples) to reduce the acrylonitrile content to less than 50ppm (abstract). The monitoring the acrylonitrile content is expected to be equal to, or the same thing as, monitoring the soluble organic carbon instantly claimed. E.G. the unreacted monomers are carbon based, thus by monitoring the acrylonitrile content you are implicitly monitoring the soluble organic carbon content in the composition.
Alternatively, Armarego discloses the purification of laboratory chemicals. As set forth in the introduction, page 1, Purity is a matter of degree. Solvents and substances that are specified as pure for a particular purpose may, in fact, be quite impure for other uses (page 1 under The Question of Purity). A substance is usually taken to be of an acceptable purity when the measured property is unchanged by further treatment (page 2 under item 7). Sources of contamination may be from storage containers, contact with grease and screw caps, plastic tubing, etc (see Sources of Impurities, page 2+).
See In re Bergstrom, 427 F.2d 1394, 166 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1970). Pure materials are novel vis-à-vis less pure or impure materials because there is a difference between pure and impure materials. Therefore, the issue is whether claims to a pure material are nonobvious over the prior art. Purer forms of known products may be patentable, but the mere purity of a product, by itself, does not render the product nonobvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to monitor and measure any impurity, such as soluble organic carbon, that is a component of the reaction process and/or contaminant of the composition and to wash with water and NaOH as many times as needed to decrease the impurity until a measured property is unchanged.
Tada and optionally Armarego include elements as set forth above. Tada does not disclose the specifics of the ABS resin or washing to remove iron.
Liben discloses a known ABS resin made by 40-70 parts polybutadiene latex, 15-40 parts styrene, 5-30 parts acrylonitrile, 0-5 parts emulsifying agent (claim 1). The polybutadiene latex has a particle size of 300 + 20nm (top of page 2). In claims 1+ the method of making is a product by process limitation. The process steps aren’t required by the overall method. The concentrations of monomers/components and polybutylene latex particle size of Liben overlap those of instant claims 1, 6-7, thus, the end product ABS resin is seemingly met (regardless if other product by process limitations are not, e.g. reaction time/temperatures/etc).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in Tada and Armarego, the use of this ABS resin to purify, as taught by Liben, since it is recognized as a suitably known ABS resin in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), wherein the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
Washing the Liben ABS resin to improve its purity to give better strength meets claims 6-11 since the resin of Liben embraces the expected end product resin required by the claims (as above, the method of making the ABS resin within the preparation method are product by process steps).
Regarding claims 3, 5 monitoring and removing iron impurities: The Liben synthesis method uses various materials in the synthesis including ferrous sulfate (top of page 2). As above in Armarego: Purity is a matter of degree. Solvents and substances that are specified as pure for a particular purpose may, in fact, be quite impure for other uses (page 1 under The Question of Purity). A substance is usually taken to be of an acceptable purity when the measured property is unchanged by further treatment (page 2 under item 7). Sources of contamination may be from storage containers, contact with grease and screw caps, plastic tubing, etc (see Sources of Impurities, page 2+).
See In re Bergstrom, 427 F.2d 1394, 166 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1970). Pure materials are novel vis-à-vis less pure or impure materials because there is a difference between pure and impure materials. Therefore, the issue is whether claims to a pure material are nonobvious over the prior art. Purer forms of known products may be patentable, but the mere purity of a product, by itself, does not render the product nonobvious.
Washing ABS with water decreases the iron impurity, as shown in the instant specification. See Instant Example 4 wherein the iron impurity is dropped to 57ppm via water washing, also, Instant Example 7 that washes with water to achieve 47ppm and 9ppm iron, respectively.
Tada discloses washing with water. Monitoring and measuring of any impurity, including iron, since ferrous sulfate is used in the reaction, and, washing with water as many times as needed to decrease the impurity/iron content, if one does not desire such as an impurity in the resin, is prima facie obvious.
Thus, claims 3, 5 are met.
Regarding claim 12: Tada and Armarego include elements as set forth above but do not disclose the use of the a blend of ABS and SAN. Liben includes elements as set forth above. Liben discloses that the ABS resin is blended with SAN to make end products useful for household appliances, automobiles and the like (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Tada and Ararego the use of a blending the ABS resin with SAN to form a final resin, in order to make parts for automobiles and appliances with better properties and less toxicity.
Since the composition and purity requirements are embraced by elements above, the yellowness must also be embraced.
Claims 13-14, 16-17 are met by elements previously set forth, additionally, Liben discloses potassium rosinate as the emulsifier, which is the same thing as the claimed ‘potassium disproportionated rosin acid” of claim 16. Further, the preparation steps of these new claims are drawn to the product by process limitations and are treated as previously set forth.
Claim(s) 1-12, 13-14, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liben (CN 105733120-English abstract already of record) in view of Tada and Armarego.
Liben, Tada and Armarego are as previously set forth, reiterated below in its entirety in italics. Regarding the amendment to claim 1, the “can be” limitation it is a future intended/capable of limitation. There is no requirement to have the SAN resin blended therein. Since the composition requirements are met, the ABS powder must be capable of such a use. It is noted, alternatively, that Liben makes an ABS-SAN blend, and it is prima facie obvious to prepare a ABS-SAN product using the purified ABS product.
Liben discloses ABS and SAN composite resins used for household appliances, automobiles and the like (Liben, abstract). Liben includes elements as above but does not disclose purifying the ABS resin of the composite.
Tada includes elements as set forth above. Tada discloses that it is known to purify ABS resin to remove acrylonitrile to less than 50 ppm to decrease toxicity and odor (page 1 under ‘description’). Acrylonitrile is a carbon based compound. Thus, monitoring acrylonitrile implicitly is monitoring soluble organic carbon.
Armarego includes elements as set forth above. Armarego discloses that purity is a matter of degree. Solvents and substances that are specified as pure for a particular purpose may, in fact, be quite impure for other uses (page 1 under The Question of Purity). A substance is usually taken to be of an acceptable purity when the measured property is unchanged by further treatment (page 2 under item 7). Sources of contamination may be from storage containers, contact with grease and screw caps, plastic tubing, etc (see Sources of Impurities, page 2+).
See In re Bergstrom, 427 F.2d 1394, 166 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1970). Pure materials are novel vis-à-vis less pure or impure materials because there is a difference between pure and impure materials. Therefore, the issue is whether claims to a pure material are nonobvious over the prior art. Purer forms of known products may be patentable, but the mere purity of a product, by itself, does not render the product nonobvious.
Monitoring and measuring an impurity such as organic carbon and/or iron, since these materials are used in the synthesis of Liben, and, washing with water and NaOH as many times as needed to decrease the soluble organic carbon and/or iron is prima facie obvious.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to include in Liben the use of the washing process, as taught by Tada and Armarego, in order to reduce odor and toxicity. Since the composition and purity requirements are embraced by elements above, the yellowness must also be embraced.
Claims 13-14, 16-17 are met by elements set forth above, additionally, Liben discloses potassium rosinate as the emulsifier, which is the same thing as the claimed ‘potassium disproportionated rosin acid” of claim 16. Further, the preparation steps of these claims are drawn to the product by process limitations and are treated as previously set forth.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tada, Armarego and Liben, OR, Liben, Tada and Armargo, in further view of Pottier-Metz (US 5977234) (herein Pottier).
Elements of this rejection are as previously set forth reiterated below in its entirety in italics.
Tada, Armarego and Liben include elements as set forth above. Tada discloses washing ABS resins, and, Liben discloses resin composition specifics, but neither disclose using an additional third monomer therein, as further required by claim 15.
Pottier discloses thermoplastic molding compositions that comprise ABS and SAN copolymers (abstract), thus akin to Tada and Liben. Pottier discloses that it is well known that ABS resins are made by grafting styrene/alpha-methylstyrene/methylmethacrylate, and, acrylonitrile/methylmethacrylate/maleic anhydride/maleimides, or mixtures thereof, on to polybutadiene, to make the end ABS resin (Column 2 lines 10-24). Pottier thusly teaches alpha-methylstyrene and methylmethacrylate to function equivalent to styrene as the styrene monomer of ABS, and, methylmethacrylate, maleic anhydride and malimides to function equivalently to the acrylonitrile monomer of the ABS resin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace any of the styrene, OR, acrylonitrile, with any of the above monomers that are taught to be functional equivalents thereof for ABS resins, e.g. to include/substitute alpha methylstyrene or methylmethacrylate for styrene, or, methylmethacrylate, maleic anhydride or malimides for the acrylonitrile, since these comonomers are recognized in the art of ABS resins to be suitable for the intended use of ABS resins and ABS/SAN resin blends. Using them in any amount within what is desired by Tada or Liben for styrene or acrylonitrile is prima facie obvious since the reference teaches using them in the alternative (thus replacing at 100%). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), wherein the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA BLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2451. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 am -3:00 pm 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, Curt Mayes can be reached on 571-272-1234. 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.
/ALICIA BLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759