DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2019/0023892, “Kang”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0134889, “Lee”).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 7, Kang teaches a thermoplastic resin having a graft copolymer B (e.g., [0031] - [0040]) and a second copolymer C ([0089] – [0099]). The first graft copolymer may comprise a acrylic rubber ([0037], [0025]) having an average particle diameter on the range of from 50 to 200 nm ([0032]), and an alky acrylate aromatic vinyl and vinyl cyanide graft copolymer ([0037], [0025]). The Examiner notes that an alkyl acrylate is an ester of an acrylic acid (e.g., methyl acrylate is the methyl ester of acrylic acid). Kang fails to specifically teach the claimed alkyl acrylate coverage value. However, because Kang teaches that the gelation content and acrylic contents that read on the presently claimed values Kang at least implicitly teaches the claimed alkyl acrylate coverage values of 67% or more. For example, Kang teaches the resin may have a gel content of 40% (components A and B having gelation contents of 50% and being contained in an amount 0.4, [0028], [0019], [0035], [0041]) and the acrylic content in the gel may be on the range of 20% (e.g., 50% of the components A and B, thus being 0.5*0.4, [0020], [0036]) and thus may have an alkyl acrylate coverage value on the range of 1.0 ((0.4-0.2)/0.2=1). Kang fails to specifically teach the haze and transmittance properties of the resin. However, in the same field of endeavor of thermoplastic resin compositions ([0002], [0012]), Lee teaches that such a resin composition should have a low haze and high transmittance ([0042], [0046], [0047]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have adjusted the haze of the resin of Kang to in the range of less than 5% ([0046]) and transmittance of the resin of Kang to greater than 90% ([0047]) as such properties are described by Lee as being helpful for molded articles manufactured from the resin (Lee, e.g., [0002], [0042], [0012]). Modified Kang fails to specifically teach that the haze value difference under the testing conditions would be less than 6.7. But as Kang teaches the importance of mechanical strength and impact resistance ([0003], [0010] and see Table 1, showing sufficiently high impact strength) and Lee teaches the importance of transmittance and low haze (Lee, e.g., [0042], [0046], [0047]), it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have optimized or improved the impact resistance of the sheet so as to provide for minimal deformation of the sheet upon impact, including such that under the claimed testing conditions the haze value of the sheet would change minimally (Kang, [0003], [0010]; Lee [0042], [0046], [0047]).
Regarding claim 2, Kang additionally teaches that the copolymer corresponding to the claimed non-graft copolymer may include 10 to 35% by weight of an aromatic vinyl compound (e.g., [0096]), 65 to 85% by weight of a (meth)acrylate compound ([0096], reading on the claimed acrylic acid alkyl ester), and from 1 to 10% by weight of a vinyl cyanide compound ([0099]).
Regarding claim 3, Kang additionally teaches that the compound reading on the claimed non-graft copolymer may have a molecular weight on the range of from 50,000 to 150,000 g/mol ([0090]).
Regarding claim 4, Kang additionally teaches that the component corresponding to the graft copolymer may include 35 to 85% by weight of an aromatic vinyl compound – vinyl cyanide compound ([0036]) and 20 to 60% by weight of a rubber acrylate compound ([0036]).
Regarding claim 5, Kang additionally teaches that the graft copolymer may have a grafting degree on the range of from 20 to 80% ([0043]).
Regarding claim 10, Kang additionally teaches that further additives may be included, including, for example, a dye ([0122]).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Kang additionally teaches that the composition may be injection molded into an article ([0131]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Lee as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Sumimoto et al. (US 2010/0016507, “Sumimoto”).
Regarding claim 9, while Kang teaches that an article of the claimed resin may be extruded ([0124]), Kang fails to specifically teach the shape of the sheet. However, such a sheet would have been obvious in view of the available prior art. For example, in the same field of endeavor of extruded thermoplastic resins (e.g., [0009]), Sumimoto teaches that it is known to extrude a sheet to a thickness on the range of from 20 to 300 micrometers (e.g., [0153], [0154]) in order to produce a thin-walled article. It therefore would have been obvious to have created a sheet having a conventional length, width, and thickness in order to make thin-walled articles such as the types described by Sumimoto (e.g., [0267], various applications). Furthermore, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/4/25 are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Arguments that are relevant to the current rejections are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the alky acrylate content present in the claimed composition must be calculated by NMR analysis or Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (e.g., Remarks of 11/4/25, p. 10-11). However, this is not required by the present claim language. As Applicant notes, the claimed alkyl acrylate coverage value is merely defined by the given equation based on gel fraction and weight of alkyl acrylate in the gel fraction. These component elements are not further defined in the claim. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the method of measuring gel fraction or alkyl acrylate composition in the gel fraction) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, for the reasons given above, notably that Kang teaches that the gelation content and acrylic contents that read on the presently claimed values, Kang is considered to at least implicitly teaches the claimed alkyl acrylate coverage values of 67% or more.
Applicant argues that Kang fails to teach the claimed graft copolymer that contains alkyl acrylate rubber having an average particle diameter of from 60 to 200 nm. The examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that Kang teaches embodiments wherein a graft copolymer that contains alkyl acrylate rubber having an average particle diameter of from 60 to 200 nm (see, e.g., [0032] - [0034], 500 to 2000 angstroms, which is equivalent to 50 to 200 nm). “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). Please see MPEP §2123.The Examiner notes that 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Applicant argues that Kang and Lee do not disclose any relationship between non-whitening properties and a haze difference before and after an impact test. However, such non-whitening properties (i.e., the whitening effects of an impact test) do not appear to be specifically claimed. However, as described above, Kang teaches the importance of mechanical strength and impact resistance ([0003], [0010] and see Table 1, showing sufficiently high impact strength) and Lee teaches the importance of transmittance and low haze (Lee, e.g., [0042], [0046], [0047]). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have optimized or improved the impact resistance of the sheet so as to provide for minimal deformation of the sheet upon impact, including such that under the claimed testing conditions the haze value of the sheet would change minimally (Kang, [0003], [0010]; Lee [0042], [0046], [0047]).
Therefore, claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected as described above.
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 ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782