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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 3-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steendam 2014/0200303 in view of Mullen 2008/0119619.
Steendam exemplifies (#15) a blend of 48.76 parts polycarbonate(s), 5 parts ITR-PC1, 30 parts PC-PS1, 15 parts talc and 1.25 additives.
The ITR-PC1 (table 1) is a polyestercarbonate containing isophthalic and terephthalic acid units – meeting applicant’s PPC. The PC-PS1 (table 1) is a polycarbonate-siloxane. The additives include some amount of PETS which is a mold release agent (table 1).
This example lacks the epoxy hydrostabilizer and doesn’t point out the amounts of mold release agent used.
Steendam (paragraph 289) teaches the amount of additives such as mold release agents should be present at 0.1-20wt%.
Steendam (paragraph 283) suggests the inclusion of hydrolytic stabilizers, but doesn’t specifically call for epoxy hydrostabilizer.
Mullen (paragraph 43,47,table 1) teaches glycidyl functional styrene/acrylate copolymer functions as a hydrolytic stabilizer for polycarbonate, polycarbonate-siloxane compositions in amounts of 0.1-0.5% (paragraph 49).
It would have been obvious to utilize any known hydrostabilizer in common amounts (such as glycidyl functional styrene/acrylate) to act as Steendam’s hydrostabilizer.
Presumably, applicant’s HDT is met given Steendam’s polymer mixture contains each of applicant’s polymers in applicant’s claimed amounts.
Note that Mullen (paragraph 106) exemplifies PETS amounts of 0.3%.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Presumably, applicant’s Mw retention after hydrolytic aging of claim 4 and 12 is met upon addition of the hydrolytic stabilizer.
Steendam (paragraph 133; table 1) alternatively teaches polycarbonate-siloxanes of higher siloxane contents (eg 20%) meeting applicants claim 5. 30 parts of a 20% pC-siloxane results in an overall 6% siloxane content.
The total of the polycarbonate(s) may be 30-80% of the entire composition – meeting applicant’s claim 6.
The cited example employs both a high Mw polycarbonate PC1 and a low Mw PC2 (table 1) – meeting applicant’s claim 7.
Steendam’s 2nd polycarbonate (the low Mw PC) can be present in amounts of 20-50% (paragraph 109). Increasing the amount of low Mw PC2 in the cited example would have been obvious – meeting applicant’s claim 8.
The additives of the cited example include an antioxidant (table 1) – meeting applicant’s claim 10.
Claim 11’s tensile modulus, UL rating or impact strength is not reported for the cited example. Presumably, some or all are met given Steendam’s polymer mixture contains each of applicant’s polymers in applicant’s claimed amounts.
The cited example was extruded and injection molded – meeting applicant’s claim 13.
Steendam’s compositions are useful as electrical parts, electrical connectors (paragraph 477) and automotive parts (paragraph 473) – meeting applicant’s claim 14 and 15.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Zhu does not have the newly required HDT and EP149789 does not have the newly required amount of PPC.
This is convincing. However, the Steendam reference is now cited which more closely matches applicant’s amended claims.
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 DAVID J BUTTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-3pm.
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 Kelley can be reached at 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.
/DAVID J BUTTNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765 11/18/25