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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I Claims 16-29 and SBS/PS in a 2 phase heterogenous morphology in the reply filed on October 28, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 30-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 28, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 16-22, 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matheson, et al., "Light Stability of Polystyrene and Polyvinylidene Chloride".
While not elected, the Matheson NPL used to break unity is still applicable for the single phase homogeneous non-elected morphology of the claims.
Matheson teaches polystyrene compositions with 1 wt% of amine stabilizer as detailed below on page 870.
PNG
media_image1.png
192
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, based on page 869 1st and 2nd paragraph of the Use of Antioxidants in Polystyrene, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested the above amine light stabilizer is also considered an antioxidant.
The above is a 99 wt% polystyrene (GPPS) composition with 1 wt% antioxidant/light stabilizer.
Matheson does not teach or suggest the limitations a)-d) of common technical feature. However, Applicant’s as filed specification discloses that polystyrene meets a)-c) (see table of page 7) and, additionally, there are no other materials in the polystyrene of Matheson, and therefore, this is reasonably suggested to be a single-phase polymer with no co-continuous structure involved.
The reliance upon the specification by the Office to establish inherent properties has been supported by the Federal Circuit. In re Kao, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1809 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
As the limitations of a)-d) are all to thermoplastic polymer (A) and are all met, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested the polystyrene of Matheson is a thermoplastic polymer (P) having reduced migration barrier properties for stabilizers anticipating Claim 16, Claim 17, Claim 18, Claim 19 and Claim 20, as the Tg of polystyrene is known to be ~ 100 oC, Claim 21, Claim 22 (PS as GPPS), Claim 25, Claim 26, Claim 27.
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.
Claims 16-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoeppel (U.S. 20120289656).
Knoeppel teaches two phase heterogeneous polystyrene compositions which comprise a polystyrene (exemplified) matrix in an amount of more than 70 wt% and an 3 to 20 wt% elastomeric component that comprises polybutadiene and/or a styrene-butadiene block copolymer. (See abstract and ¶[0019] and Table 4 which has 12 wt% of a Styrene-Butadiene block copolymer).
In ¶[0021], Knoeppel teaches the styrene butadiene block copolymer can be a diblock or triblock copolymer but does not exemplified a triblock version (i.e. SBS)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Knoeppel, such as the compositions of Table 4, using a SBS triblock copolymer for the elastomeric copolymer because Knoeppel teaches this in ¶[0021].
This reads over the SBS elected for the two phase SBS/PS heterogeneous system of Claim 16.
The polystyrene reads over the PS as Pm (or GPPS – general purpose styrene) of Claim 16, the amount of PS of Claim 17, the Tg of polystyrene is known to be ~100 oC which reads over the polymer (P) Tg of Claim 19 and Claim 20, GPPS of Claim 22 and the amounts of at least 70 wt% reads over Claim 24’s at least 50 wt% PS.
The particle size of the elastomeric component (i.e. the SBS) is claimed by Knoeppel to be 0.5 to 1.5 microns which is 500 nm to 1.5 microns and read over the particle size of Claim 16. While the range is not specifically taught as weight average, when tested accordingly one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested the particle size taught by Knoeppel must be in the recited range when measured with weight average molecular weight because the numerical range of Knoeppel is completely within the range recited.
The SBS as the dispersed phase reads over the Pp phase of Claim 16 along with the specific polymers of Claim 21, Claim 23, the amounts of Claim 24.
Mineral oil in an amount of 0.1 to 5 wt% is specifically exemplified and mentioned as an specific embodiment. (¶[0023] and Example 4, 1.4 wt%) This reads over the further ingredient and amount of Claim 16, Claim 17, and Claim 18.
Knoeppel in ¶[0023] teaches a variety of stabilizers including anti-oxidants and UV stabilizers that may be used in the compositions of Knoeppel but does not exemplify stabilizers in the compositions.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Knoeppel as discussed above by adding anti-oxidants and/or UV stabilizers (i.e. two different stabilizers) including with the specific mineral oil taught because Knoeppel teaches addition of these additives in ¶[0023]. While Knoeppel does not explicitly teach the amount of UV stabilizers and anti-oxidants to be used, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose 0.1 to 5 wt% as the amount because Knoeppel teaches this amount of a similar additive (mineral oil) in ¶[0023].
This reads over Claim 25, Claim 26, Claim 27, Claim 28 and Claim 29.
With respect to the conditions (a)-(d) as recited, Knoeppel does not teach or suggest any of these conditions. However, as the polymers are SBS and PS and Applicant’s as-filed specification example suggest the amount of SBS and PS sufficient to give discontinuous, phase separated particles (SBS) in the matrix (PS) is achieved by these conditions, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested these conditions must be present in the composition of Knoeppel based on the above features they have in common. This reads over the conditions and lack of continuous structure of Claim 16.
As the limitations of a)-d) are all to thermoplastic polymer (A) and are all met, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested the polystyrene of Knoeppel is a thermoplastic polymer (P) having reduced migration barrier properties for stabilizers according Claim 16.
The reliance upon the specification by the Office to establish inherent properties has been supported by the Federal Circuit. In re Kao, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1809 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M RODD whose telephone number is (571)270-1299. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 3:30 pm (Pacific).
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571) 272-1302. 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.
/Christopher M Rodd/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766