DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the After-Final amendment and remarks filed on 9/4/2025.
Claim 3 was canceled. Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are now pending in the application. The previous 112 rejection to claim 9 has been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendment. This Final Rejection replaces the Final Rejection mailed on 7/25/2025 and resets the period for reply.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Nuffel et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0354569 as cited on the IDS dated 9/14/2023) in view of Hyun et al. (KR 20110057415 as listed on the IDS dated 11/29/2022; citations that from the English Machine Translation previously provided).
Regarding claim 1, Van Nuffel et al. teach polycarbonate compositions (Abstract) comprising a) one or more polycarbonates; b) one or more first colorants; c) one or more flame retardants; and d) one or more particles, wherein the particles are synthetic [0005], wherein the particles are mica coated with silicone/acrylic (“M/S/A” in Table 1, Exp 4-6) thereby reading on the on the mica powder being surface-coated with a silicone binder resin; wherein the particles have a second colorant bound to the surface of the particles by the organic polymer thereby reading on component (B) of the instant claim; wherein the particles are present in amounts of from 0.01 to 0.30 percent of the composition [0005] and in a preferred embodiment of 0.0852 parts (0.08 (fleck dosage) + 0.0002 (red dye/colorant) + 0.005 (pigment blue/colorant) = 0.0852 from Table 1 Exp 4-6) thereby reading on the claimed range of from 0.01 to 4 parts by weight of (b); wherein the amounts are based on 100 parts [0015] thereby reading on with respect to 100 parts of (A) polycarbonate resin.
Van Nuffel et al. are silent regarding the (C) rubber-reinforced styrenic resin and further silent on the amount of 1-100 parts by weight of (C).
Hyun et al. teach a thermoplastic resin composition comprising 100 parts by weight thermoplastic resin, wherein the thermoplastic resin is polycarbonate (claim 2) and wherein the thermoplastic resin composition comprises 5-10 parts by weight of a mica gloss pigment (claim 1), wherein the mica is treated with a surface treatment agent containing a silicone oil (Abstract, claim 1) and wherein the mica is synthetic and is coated with metal oxides or a coloring agent (p. 5 second paragraph, claim 1). Hyun et al. teach the thermoplastic resin composition comprising “at least one” of the thermoplastic resins comprising polycarbonate and rubber modified polystyrene resins (claim 2), wherein the “at least one of” implies there can be two resins chosen, wherein the thermoplastic resin is present in an amount of 100 parts by weight (claim 1) thereby reading on the 1 to 100 parts by weight of (C) rubber reinforced styrene resin with respect to the 100 parts by weight of (A) polycarbonate resin. Hyun et al. offer the motivation of choosing these particular thermoplastic resins due to their ability to produce a composition capable of implementing a gloss of a paint without causing weld lines, flow marks, or pigment clumping (p. 4, second paragraph). In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the rubber modified styrenic resin in the amount disclosed by Hyun et al. in the thermoplastic resin of Van Nuffel et al., thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Van Nuffel et al. teach the particles having a particle size in a range of 10-700 microns [0005]; wherein in preferred embodiments the particle size is 125-500 microns (S75 in Exp6) and 106-355 micron (S30 in Exp 4).
Van Nuffel and the claims differ in that Van Nuffel et al. do not teach the exact range for the particle size as recited in the instant claims.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Van Nuffel et al. (10-700 microns) overlap the instantly claimed range (300 to 5,000 µ) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Van Nuffel et al. teach talc and wollastonite in combination with mica [0040] and further teach particles are present in amounts of from 0.01 to 0.30 percent of the composition [0005] thereby reading on the claimed range of from 1 to 100 parts by weight.
Regarding claim 6, Van Nuffel et al. teach polycarbonate compositions (Abstract) comprising c) one or more flame retardants.
Van Nuffel et al. do not particularly teach the amount of flame retardants present in the composition.
However, Van Nuffel et al. teach that it is desired for the composition to exhibit flame retardancy between a UL Rating of V-0 at 1.5 mm thickness or V-1 at a 1.0 mm thickness (claim 13).
As such, the amount of the flame retardant will affect the resulting flame retardancy of the composition Therefore, the amount of flame retardants can be optimized to reach the desired properties via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the relative amount of the compounds for the intended application via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Regarding claim 7, Van Nuffel teach an anti-dripping agent in an amount of 0.9 parts by weight (Table 1, Exp. 4-6) thereby reading on the claimed range of 0.1 to 10 parts by weight.
Regarding claim 8, Van Nuffel teach a preferred embodiment a mold release agent in an amount of 0.6 parts by weight (Table 1, Exp. 4-6) thereby reading on the claimed range of 0.01 to 10 parts by weight.
Regarding claim 9, Van Nuffel et al. teach a molded article with a dot appearance (Abstract, Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 102 rejection under Van Nuffel, et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, and in light of the amendment, a new ground of rejection is made under 103 over Van Nuffel et al. in view of Hyun.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Imamura (US PG Pub 2007/0155888 A1 as cited on the IDS dated 9/14/2023).
Imamura teaches a polycarbonate resin composition comprising 100 parts by weight of polycarbonate and 0.01 to 50 parts by weight of a silicate filler (Abstract), wherein the silicate filler is synthetic mica [0210], wherein the silicate filler is prepared by introducing a silicon compound (Abstract). Imamura further teaches the polycarbonate resin composition comprising coloring agents [177-179], rubber reinforced styrene, other inorganic fillers, flame retardants, anti-drip agents, mold release agents [0177] and a molded article [0179].
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 LANEE REUTHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7026. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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, Yvonne Eyler can be reached at 571-272-1200. 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.
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764