DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 3/13/2026.
Claim(s) 1-9, are now pending in the application.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH0959481 to Koryo et al. (as found on the IDS dated 1/10/2023) in view of EP3533830 to Bae. For the purposes of examination, citations for Koryo are taken from a machine translation equivalent of the document and a translated table [table 1].
Regarding Claim 1-7, Koryo teaches a resin composition [title] wherein example 4 comprises: 25 parts of (B-1) [table 1] that is a copolymer comprising styrene (aromatic vinyl), acrylonitrile (vinyl cyanide), and 50 parts of N-phenylmaleimide (maleimide) [0015] reading on limitations of (A) and (A-1) of claims 1-3;
20 parts of (A-1) [table 1] that is a graft polymer [0003] comprising 50 parts polybutadiene (conjugated diene), styrene (aromatic vinyl), and acrylonitrile (vinyl cyanide) [0012] reading on limitations of (B) and (B-1) of claims 1, and 4-5;
and 55 parts of (C-1) [Table 1] that is a copolymer comprising 100% styrene (aromatic vinyl) and acrylonitrile (vinyl cyanide) [0017] reading on limitations of (C) and (C-1) of claims 1 and 6-7.
Based on the amounts of A-1 (20 parts), B-1 (25 parts), and C-1 (55 parts) set forth in example 4 [table 1], and the amounts of aromatic vinyl, vinyl cyanide, maleimide, and diene monomer of each copolymer e.g., (A-1) [0012], (B-1) [0015], and, (C-1) [0017], the total amount of each monomer unit with respect to 100 parts by mass of copolymers (A), (B), and (C) is reasonably calculated below, thereby reading on 55-65 parts aromatic vinyl monomer, 15-27 parts vinyl cyanide monomer, 3-15 maleimide monomer, and 10-20 conjugated diene.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Koryo further teaches a melt flow rate of 17 g/10 minutes [table 1] thereby reading on a melt mass flow of 3-23 g/10 minutes.
Koryo does not particularly teach the aromatic vinyl monomer unit is 55-65 parts by mass.
However, Koryo teaches the aromatic vinyl/vinyl cyanide monomer ratio used in components (A) and (C) is preferably 82/18 to 60 /40, more preferably 78/22 to 65/35 [0005], therefore any increase in this ratio will meet all limitations of claim 1. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use this range of ratios as they increase chemical resistance, decrease coloring and increase thermal stability [0005].
Koryo does not particularly teach the maleimide copolymer (A) has an unsaturated dicarboxylic acid monomer unit or the total content of the unsaturated dicarboxylic acid monomer unit is 0.05 to 10.0 parts by mass.
However, Bae teaches a resin composition [title] comprising an aromatic vinyl-vinyl cyanide copolymer [0054] comprising other monomers such as maleimide based monomers and maleic anhydride (reading on unsaturated dicarboxylic acid monomer unit as set forth in instant application [0055-0057]) in an amount of 0.1-70 wt%. Bae and Koryo are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely SAN and ABS resin compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the 50 parts of N-phenylmaleimide as taught by Koryo with a blend of maleimide monomer and maleic anhydride as taught by Bae.
The motivation would have been that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.06) In light of In re Kerkhoven, combining maleimide and maleic anhydride would have been obvious given their known and shared intended use to improve the processability and heat resistance without deterioration in other properties [Bae, 0057] in maleimide-aromatic vinyl-vinyl cyanide copolymers.
Regarding Claim 8, Koryo is silent regarding a gel fraction of 15-25 mass%.
Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Koryo, when modified in the manner proposed above, teaches a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties - i.e. gel fraction - would implicitly be achieved in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. See In Re Spada, 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process.
Regarding Claim 9, Koryo teaches a resin composition of claim 1, that can be molded into a product [0006] reading on a molded resin article.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 3/13/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 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(s) of rejection is made in view of Koryo in view of Bae.
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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights