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 .
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/07/2025 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 108117732 A) in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0179314 A1) and further in view of Seidel (KR20180136962A; English equivalent US 2020/0325330 A1 is utilized for the discussion below) with evidentiary support of TDS PEBAX ® MV1074 SP01.
Regarding claims 1-3, 7 and 10-12, Huang teaches polycarbonate-based resin (para [0069], Table 1, Example 1) with 65wt% polycarbonate, 8 wt% ASA, which is rubber graft polymer acrylate-styrene-acrylonitrile graft copolymer, 8 wt% SAN, which is styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer (para [0020]), which meets the claimed requirement of A, B and C respectively. Huang’s Example 1 utilizes 1.1 wt% zinc oxide (ZnO) as an acid binding agent (para [0030]), but fails to mention the required limitations of ZnO. Huang however highlights the use of the inventive polycarbonate based resin for electronic appliances (para [0037]). One of ordinary skill would take guidance from related disclosures which are used for electronic applications to ascertain the structural features of a suitable ZnO.
Kim teaches a thermoplastic resin composition with zinc oxide (abstract), and highlights the use of ZnO (Table 1) C1, with average particle size of 1.2 µm, the peak position degree (2θ) in the range of 35 to 37 oC (reference claim 7), BET surface area of 4.0 m2/g, and peak intensity ratio (B/A) in photoluminescence measurement to be 0.28, which meet the claimed requirements. Kim highlights that zinc oxide with the required parameters improve the antibacterial properties of the thermoplastic resin compositions (para [0066]) used for external surfaces of electronic products (paras [0003] and [0080]).
Huang is silent on the use of block copolymer which includes a polyether segment and a polyamide segment. In order to optimize the polycarbonate-based resin, a skilled artisan would look to analogous polycarbonate art such as Seidel, who teaches polycarbonate-based composition with preferable 6 to 12 wt% polyether block copolymer consisting of polyethylene glycol blocks and polyamide 12 blocks (paras [0023], [0147], [0178] and reference claim 19), which overlaps with the claimed requirement. Seidel discloses (para [0151]) polyetheramide block copolymer Pebax TM MV1074 SP01 (Arkema, France). The technical data sheet shows that the polyetheramide block copolymer has a melting point of 158 oC, which meets the claimed requirement. Seidel advantageously, provides the motivation to utilize the polyetheramide block copolymer, since it provides permanent antistatic properties to the polycarbonate compositions (paras [0019 and [0014]) which are used for electronic components (para [0173]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted Huang’s ZnO with zinc oxide as taught by Kim to serve the dual role of an acid binding agent and provide antibacterial activity to surfaces of electronic appliances; and further added 10 wt% (which is within Seidel’s preferred range) of polyetheramide block copolymer, Pebax TM MV1074 SP01, as taught by Seidel for the same application of creating polycarbonate composition based electronic products with permanent antistatic activity.
Regarding claim 4, Huang teaches polycarbonate resin with melt flow index of 10g/10 min measured per ASTM D1238 (paras [0042] and [0055]), which meets the claimed requirement.
Regarding claim 6, Huang teaches rubber graft polymer acrylate-styrene-acrylonitrile graft copolymer (ASA), with rubber content of 50 wt% (para [0043]), meeting the claimed requirement.
Regarding claim 8, Huang teaches SAN resin (para [0044]), with acrylonitrile content of 25 wt%, meeting the claimed requirement.
Regarding claim 14, Huang teaches example 1 with 12.5 wt% phosphate flame retardant (Table 1, para [0069]), meeting the claimed requirement.
Regarding claims 15-16, Huang discloses creation of extrusion molded specimens for property evaluation (para [0065]). Huang’s example 1 (Table 1 continuation, Col 1 with impact strength 641 J/m) demonstrates an Izod impact strength (para [0056]) measured per ASTM D256 of ~64.1 Kgf.cm/cm (1kgf= 9.8 J/m), meets the claimed requirement. Obvious embodiment of Huang in view of Kim and Seidel as discussed when addressing claim 1 with the inclusion of additional 10 wt% of polyetheramide block copolymer would be reasonably expected to meet the claimed impact strength.
Regarding claim 17, Huang is silent on the antibacterial property of the molded product. The ZnO taught by Kim is identical as the instant specification in terms of particle size, crystallite size and surface area. Additionally, Kim’s inventive example 5 (Table 2) which utilizes 1wt% ZnO (C1) in the entire thermoplastic resin, meets the antibacterial activity. Obvious composition of Huang in view of Kim and Seidel which incorporates 1.1 wt% of Kim’s ZnO is similar to instant examples 1, 6 and 7, and therefore would be reasonably expected to meet the claimed antibacterial activity.
Regarding claim 18, Huang does not address the volume resistivity of the molded polycarbonate compositions. Instant specification comparative examples 1-4 and 7 demonstrate, that the polycarbonate compositions with polyetheramide block copolymer outside the claimed range do not meet the volume resistance requirements, while all the inventive and remaining comparative examples with polyetheramide block copolymer in the claimed range meet the volume resistance. Obvious composition of Huang in view of Kim and Seidel with 10 wt% polyetheramide block copolymer, which meet the claimed range, would be expected to meet the claimed volume resistivity.
Regarding claim 19, Huang is silent about the half-life of the molded product. Instant specification comparative examples 1-3 with absence of polyetheramide block copolymer (and comparative example 4 with polyetheramide block copolymer lower than the claimed range) have a significantly higher half-life outside the claimed range. Obvious composition of Huang in view of Kim and Seidel with 10 wt% polyetheramide block copolymer, which meet the claimed range, would be reasonably expected to meet the claimed half-life.
Regarding claim 20, Huang is silent on the gloss value of the polycarbonate molded compositions. Instant specification demonstrates that only comparative example 8, which uses ZnO that does not have the required features of instant claim 1, fails to meet the gloss value limitation. The ZnO taught by secondary reference Kim is identical as the instant specification’s inventive ZnO in terms of particle size, crystallite size and surface area. Obvious composition of Huang in view of Kim and Seidel which incorporates 1.1 wt% of Kim’s ZnO is similar to instant examples 1, 6 and 7, and therefore would be reasonably expected to meet the claimed gloss.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang Huang in view of Kim and further in view of Seidel along with evidentiary support of TDS PEBAX ® MV1074 SP01, as applied to claim 1, with additional evidentiary support of Cheng (CN109762293A).
Regarding claim 5, Huang incorporates ASA called XC 500A from Kumho (para [0043]), in the inventive composition Example 1. Evidentiary reference Cheng is utilized to verify the particle diameter which is noted to be 400-600nm (para [0078]), which overlaps with the claimed requirement. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang Huang in view of Kim and further in view of Seidel along with evidentiary support of TDS PEBAX ® MV1074 SP01, as applied to claim 1, with evidentiary support of SAN 80HF LG Chem.
Regarding claim 9, Huang incorporates SAN resin called 80HF from LG (para [0044]), in the inventive composition Example 1. Technical data sheet of SAN 80F shows the melt flow index measured per ASTM D1238 at 200 oC/5kg to be 3g/10 min, which meets the claimed requirement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes that the there is no motivation to combine the cited references, that primary reference Huang is directed to halogen-free flame retardant PC composition while Siedel focuses on achieving antistatic properties by using a polyether-based polymer. Both Huang and Siedel are directed to polycarbonate based resins which are useful for electronic applications which can be housing of electronic appliances. A person of ordinary skill in the art, in order to protect the electronics from static build up would strive to attain antistatic properties in the polycarbonate compositions used for electronic housing.
Applicant adds that Kim’s specific zinc oxide is used in a different resin system. While it is acknowledged that Kim discloses a different resin system, both Huang and Kim generate compositions which are tailored for electronic products. A person of ordinary skill in the art would want to make an electronic surface antimicrobial if it is touched frequently (like cell phones), and would substitute Huang’s zinc oxide with the specific zinc oxide as taught by Kim which is shown to achieve antibacterial property in a thermoplastic resin system.
Thus, applicant’s arguments that there is no motivation to combine the references is not convincing.
Applicant further discusses that the claimed compositions exhibit an unpredictable synergistic effect. Applicant has presented a number of inventive and comparative examples, and few data comparisons are highlighted: Comparative CEx 3 does not comprise the antistatic agent and therefore does not possess the volume resistance or half-life values as the inventive Ex 1 but still has excellent impact and gloss, which would be an expected behavior.
Similarly, comparative CEx8 does not contain the proper zinc oxide and therefore is expected to not show lesser antibacterial activity.
When applicant’s inventive examples and suitable comparative examples are evaluated, it is determined that the evidence does not demonstrate unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Surbhi M Du whose telephone number is (571)272-9960. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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 (Riviere) 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.
/S.M.D./
Examiner
Art Unit 1765
/DAVID J BUTTNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765 8/27/25