DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
As previously set forth: 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/10/26 has been entered.
Priority
As previously set forth: There is no English translation on file for the foreign priority, thus the claims have an effective date of the filing of the PCT: 11/26/21
Response to Affidavit
Regarding the Affidavit filed 4/10/26, arguments/data there are not completely persuasive because the claims are not commensurate with the unexpected results. Merely claiming the gel content is not sufficient. The data therein is for very specific monomers, core latex, ect. Claims must be commensurate with any unexpected results.
Alternative to putting in the monomers and other exact details of the experiments the Examiner recommends putting a “cutting” property into the claims. This property is described in [0079] of the instant specification, and, Applicant shows that additional considerations are needed in order to obtain a cutting time from 400-500s (this would have to be put in with measurement details). Alternatively Applicant may consider a tensile strength reduction rate property, however Applicant would have to only use data in the specification for support for any endpoints/ranges used in such a property.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues Jeon does not disclose the MW or gel content and Matsuyama does not disclose the MW or core-shell. Applicant argues one would not use the gel content of [0124] because it is used in comparative examples. Applicant argues the declaration shows that the gel content is critical to get superior properties.
The Examiner disagrees. Though the gel content of 88% is used in a comparative example, such does not seem to the point/criticality of said comparison example. E.G. Jeon seems to just be disclosing the gel content of the latex of various examples and is not for or against any gel content in particular. Although Applicant shows criticality for the gel content, the affidavit is for very specific monomers and wt% thereof, etc., the likes of which are much more narrow than what is instantly in the claims. Any unexpected results must be commensurate in scope, and, here the claims must also be limited to the specifics of the exemplified copolymer as well, unless Applicant shows that gel numbers of different graft copolymers (of the breadth of the claims, thus exemplifying many different monomers, wt%, etc.) also give the unexpected results of the claims. Alternatively the Examiner has suggested (above) amending a cutting, or, tensile strength property into the claims however additionally notes that said property must be supported by the originally filed written description.
Arguments drawn to Jeon and Matsuyama not meeting MW, gel content and/or core-shell are not persuasive. These elements are met in the newly put forth rejection below. Arguments herein are thusly not persuasive.
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.
Rejection over Claim(s) 1-5, 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (WO 2019164176, published 8/29/19, wherein US 2020/0140597 is used as an equivalent English document) is withdrawn, claim 6 has been amended into claim 1 and is not met by Jeon.
Rejection over Claim(s) 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama (US 2017/0107373) is withdrawn in light of the new core-shell requirements of the claim.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama (US 2017/0107373) in view of Jeon (WO 2019164176 wherein US 2020/0140597 is used as an equivalent English document).
Matsuyama discloses thermoplastic resin compositions and molded articles thereof (title). Matsuyama discloses the resin composition therein to comprise graft copolymer (B) (abstract). Graft copolymer B is further discussed in [0035+]. Therein there is a core that may be polybutadiene [0037] (meeting the rubbery polymer latex including a rubber polymer of claim 1) that is enlarged with an enlargement treatment [0046] of an acid group containing latex [0047] that comprises an acid group such as acrylic acid [0049] and an alkyl acrylate [0050] wherein the acid group monomer is 5-40% of the latex [0052]. The acid group containing copolymer latex is added in amounts of 0.1-10 parts to the core latex to enlarge the core [0058] (meeting the polymer coagulant latex and preparation of an enlarged rubbery polymer latex of claim 1). Then, monomers are graft polymerized onto this core-coagulant [0060], the monomers may be styrene [0060] (meeting the aromatic vinyl monomer claim 12) and acrylonitrile [0061] (meeting the vinyl cyan monomer claim 12) wherein the vinyl cyanide monomer is present in a range from 0-30 wt% [0067] (meeting the content of vinyl cyan based monomer of claim 1). The particle size of the acid-containing polymer latex is exemplified to be 110 nm [0126] (meeting the requirements of claim 3). The particle size here is a direct relation to the molecular weight (MW). Since the particle size of the latex is met, the weight average MW required by claim 1 must be met/embraced by the reference (meeting the MW of 550k-750k of claim 1). The gel content is exemplified to be 88 wt% [0124] for the core butadiene latex, and it is the Examiner’s position that the overall latex would also have this same gel% (since this gel% would not be modified from the remaining reactions), [meeting the gel content of claim 1].
Regarding the core-shell requirement, Matsuyama includes elements as set forth above. Jeon discloses preparation of ABS graft copolymers and methods of making thermoplastic resins therefrom (title). Said graft copolymers are formed from a 100% conjugated diene core [0029] that is coagulated with a polymer latex coagulant [0041] (this akin to Matsuyama). The coagulant comprises an acid such as acrylic acid [0047] and acrylate such as acrylic acid alkyl ester [0049] in a core/shell configuration wherein the core may be 100% acrylic alkyl ester and the shell comprises 90% acrylic acid ester and 10% acrylic acid [0058] (also akin to Matsuyama). The coagulant of Jeon may be a core-shell structure, use of such reduces the amount of coagulant needed thereby improving productivity [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Matsuyama the use of a core-shell structure for the coagulant, as taught by Jeon, in order to improve productivity.
Elements above embrace and render obvious all the method steps and % requirements of claim 1. Elements above also meet claims 2-5. The polymerization can be made by suspension or bulk polymerization [0071], thus not including an emulsifier, as required by claim 7.
The particle sizes of the end polymer may be controlled by known methods of controlling particle size distribution [0041] wherein rubbery polymers having different particle sizes are provided separately and mixed together to give a desired PSD [0043]. Such renders the use of any particle size distribution prima facie obvious. Further, taking the formula PSD= (D90-D10)/D50, example f-8 has a PSD of 0.47 (190-120)/150, meeting claim 8. Elements above meet claim 9 and the resin of the abstract of Matsuyama that includes graft copolymer B meets claim 10.
Regarding claim 11: Matsuyama and Jeon include elements as set forth above. Jeon discloses methods of preparing ABS graft copolymers and methods of making resins therefrom (title). The ABS graft copolymer resin of Jeon is very similar to that of Matsuyama. Therein, the ABS graft copolymer resin has a core that may be polybutadiene [0029] further enlarged via a coagulant [0028], wherein the coagulant is an acid containing polymer [0043+]. Additional polymerization to include vinyl monomers thereon is then performed [0066+] wherein styrene and acrylonitrile may be added in this step (Examples 1-4). These are very similar end graft copolymer products. Jeon further discloses that these types of graft copolymers are great for making thermoplastic resin compositions [0076]. These are made by mixing 20-40% of the graft copolymer with 60-80% of a nongraft resin [0077], the non-graft resin may be a copolymer of vinyl aromatic compound and vinyl cyanide [0079]. Jeon’s graft copolymer is very similar to that of Matsuyama
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in Matsuyama the use of the graft copolymer B to make an end resin comprising 20-40% of the graft copolymer with 60-80% of a nongraft resin [0077], wherein the non-graft resin may be a copolymer of vinyl aromatic compound and vinyl cyanide [0079], as taught by Jeon, since it is another suitably known resin one can make using a very similar copolymer. 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.
Elements above meet claims 12-13. Matsuyama exemplifies in [0120, 0134] the use of t butyl hydroperoxide, thus meeting claim 14.
Rejection over Claim(s) 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Matsuyama is withdrawn for reasons set forth above.
Rejection over Claim(s) 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (WO 2019164176 wherein US 2020/0140597 is used as an equivalent English document) in view of Matsuyama is withdrawn for reasons set forth above
Double Patenting
Rejection over Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 10 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 2, 4, 13 of copending Application No. 17/771679 (reference application) is withdrawn. Claim 6 was not rejected herein and has been amended into claim 1.
Conclusion
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 at 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
Prosecution Insights