DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/29/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 4-17 are pending as amended on 1/29/2026.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8 and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burchill (US 2015/0267891) in view of Yonemura (US 2018/0267315).
As to claims 1, 4, 10 and 14, Burchill discloses an optical light diffuser for point light sources (e.g., LED light source) which is a transparent plastic matrix having organic particles dispersed within the matrix [0001, 0021]. Burchill discloses acrylics as a preferred type of transparent plastic [0025], and teaches a most preferred acrylic polymer having 80 to 99 percent methyl methacrylate units and 0.5 to 30 weight percent C1-8 alkyl acrylate units [0026], which corresponds to a methacrylic resin comprising a monomer unit derived from methacrylic acid ester and a monomer unit derived from a comonomer that does not contain an aromatic ring, as recited in claims 1 and 10.
As to the recitation that the light diffusing filler is crosslinked styrene-MMA:
Burchill teaches a crosslinked particle based on methyl methacrylate which includes a comonomer, and names styrene as a preferred comonomer for modifying the refractive index of methyl-methacrylate based particles [0038]. See also table 2, wherein Burchill exemplifies PMMA containing crosslinked acrylic-styrene beads.
As to the recited content and particle size of the light diffusing filler:
Burchill discloses utilizing 0 to 10 weight percent (which encompasses the presently claimed range of 1 to 5 parts by mass) of small diffusing particles having a mean particle size from 2 to 20 microns (which overlaps the claimed range of 0.2 to 10 microns; see also table 2, wherein Burchill exemplifies beads which have a mean particle size of 7 microns, which falls within the presently claimed range of 0.2 to 10 microns, and within the narrower range of 1.2 to 9 microns in claim 4). Burchill further discloses utilizing from 0 to 25 weight percent of large diffusing particles having a mean particle size from 30 to 80 microns [0011] and teaches that large beads provide good light transmission but poorer hiding power, while smaller beads provide good hiding power but reduced transmission [0030]. Burchill teaches that large particles can be used when a frosted or rough surface is desired [0032]; when a smooth surface is desired, small particles provide a transmission of greater than 85% and a hiding power of greater than 85% [0033].
In Table 3, Burchill shows that a composition comprising only small particles has excellent hiding power and smooth surface (first row), while a composition comprising small and large particles together has excellent hiding power and texture surface (third row). Therefore, Burchill teaches one embodiment which is a methacrylic resin composition comprising only small diffusing particles (i.e., without large diffusing particles) for applications requiring a smooth surface (see, e.g., [0033] and Table 3 row 1), and, an alternative embodiment which is a methacrylic resin composition comprising small diffusing particles together with large diffusing particles for applications wherein a textured surface is desired (see, e.g., row 3 of Table 3).
In either of these embodiments, the small diffusing particles in Burchill’s composition correspond to the presently recited light diffusing filler which consists of a crosslinked styrene-MMA resin having an average particle diameter of 0.2 to 10 (or 1.2 to 9) microns, because the small diffusing particles do not include any unrecited element. Note that the presently recited composition comprises the light diffusing filler which consists of crosslinked styrene-MMA resin having a diameter of 0.2 to 10 micron. Because of the transitional phrase “comprising” in line 1 of the claim, unrecited elements are not excluded from the overall claimed composition; unrecited elements are excluded only from the recited 0.2-10 micron crosslinked styrene-MMA resin light diffusing filler component. Therefore, either of Burchill’s disclosed embodiments (i.e., the composition which comprises only small particles in order to provide a smooth surface, and, the composition which comprises both small and large particles in order to provide a textured surface) are encompassed by the instant claims.
Additionally, as set forth above, Burchill discloses utilizing 0 to 10 weight percent of small diffusing particles (which encompasses the presently claimed range of 1 to 5 parts by mass). Case law has established that a prima facie case of obviousness is established where the claimed ranges overlap the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05. Burchill further shows how %transmission of PMMA decreases as the wt% of small (7 micron) particles increases from 2 to 40 wt% (see Table 2). It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have selected any loading of the small particles within Burchill’s disclosed range of 0 to 10 weight%, including a loading within the presently claimed range of 1 to 5 parts by weight, in order to achieve an appropriate balance between a desired increase in the hiding power and an undesired decrease in transmission.
Burchill discloses that the transparent polymer matrix may contain additives, including additives with light absorbing characteristics, and an additive to help prevent degradation upon exposure to UV radiation [0028]. Burchill also teaches mixing the transparent plastic with UV stabilizer [0042]. However, Burchill fails to teach 0.005 to 0.3 parts by mass of an ultraviolet absorber.
Yonemura discloses a resin composition comprising a thermoplastic resin, and discloses methacrylic resin as preferred from a viewpoint of optical properties, light resistance and weather resistance [0021]. Yonemura discloses addition of additives to impart various properties [0351], including ultraviolet absorbers [0396]. Yonemura discloses that from the viewpoint of the risk of bleeding out during processing, the amount of UV absorber per 100 parts methacrylic resin is preferably 2 parts by mass or less, and discloses a preferred range of 0.01 to 1.8 parts by mass [0405]. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have included a UV absorber in Burchill’s methacrylic resin composition in any amount within Yonemura’s disclosed range 0.01 to 1.8 parts by mass in order to achieve a desired degree of ultraviolet light absorption (e.g., to prevent the resin from being deteriorated by ultraviolet light) while minimizing bleed out, including within the presently claimed range of 0.005 to 0.3 parts by weight.
As to the presently recited glass transition temperature:
Yonemura discloses that from a viewpoint of obtaining sufficient heat resistance, the glass transition temperature of the methacrylic resin is preferably 120 C or higher [0166], measured by the midpoint method [0167]. Considering that excellent thermomechanical strength is taught by Burchill as required for compact luminous devices because of the high temperature inside the device [0025], it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have formed a methacrylic resin composition as suggested by modified Burchill having any appropriate midpoint/intermediate glass transition temperature of 120 C or higher in order to achieve a desired degree of heat resistance, meeting the presently claimed range of 105 C or higher.
As to claim 8, modified Burchill suggests a composition according to claim 1 as set forth above, which comprises an ultraviolet absorber. Yonemura discloses that to efficiently suppress transmission through a small amount of ultraviolet absorber, it is preferable to use two types in combination in the form of a compound having an absorption maximum at a wavelength of 200-315 nm and a compound having an absorption maximum at a wavelength of 315-380 nm [0402]. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed a composition comprising methacrylic resin and UV absorber, as taught by modified Burchill, by utilizing a combination of a first UV absorber compound having any absorption maximum within a wavelength of 200-315 nm and a second UV absorber compound having any absorption maximum within a wavelength of 315-380 nm, including a combination wherein one or both or the UV absorbers have a maximum absorption wavelength within the presently claimed range of 300-350 nm, in order to suppress transmission efficiently.
As to claim 11, Burchill discloses that the transparent polymer matrix may contain additives, including stabilizers and antioxidants [0028, 0042]. However, Burchill fails to teach that the composition comprises an additive and that the content is 0.15 parts by mass or less.
Yonemura discloses utilizing a thermal stabilizer, such as an antioxidant, because of the long heat history imparted to methacrylic resin during processing [0363-4]. Yonemura discloses that the content is any amount that enables an effect of thermal stability to be obtained, but that an excessive content may lead to bleed-out during processing. A preferred range is disclosed to be 0.01 to 0.5 parts by mass [0378]. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed a methacrylic resin composition including an antioxidant as additive, as suggested by modified Burchill, by including the antioxidant in any content within Yonemura’s disclosed range of 0.01 to 0.5 parts by mass, including within the presently claimed range of 0.15 parts or less, in order to achieve a desired effect of thermal stability without causing bleed-out during processing.
As to claim 12, modified Burchill suggests a composition according to claim 1 as set forth above. Burchill fails to specifically teach a residual monomer content of 8000 ppm or less. However, Yonemura discloses reducing silver streaks through residual monomer reduction [0113], and teaches a devolatilization device to remove unreacted monomer from a polymerization reactor [0252]. See also [0174] and [0451]. Considering Yonemura’s disclosure, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce residual/unreacted monomer when preparing methacrylic resin in order to, e.g., reduce silver streaks. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed a composition as suggested by modified Burchill by decreasing the content of unreacted/residual monomer to any desired extent in order to improve properties (such as streak-free appearance), including to within the presently claimed range of 8000 mass ppm or less.
As to claim 13, Burchill nowhere requires including a yellowish dye. A dye is taught as an optional additive [0042], and therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have omitted a (yellow) dye for applications wherein a yellow colored material is not desired.
As to claim 15, Burchill discloses a preferred thickness of 0.1 to 5 cm [0044], which is equivalent to 1 to 50 mm. Burchill further discloses that a commercial lens or cover is 2 mm thick [0051], which falls within the presently claimed range of 1 to 5 mm.
As to claim 16, Burchill discloses that thicker covers can be injection molded [0044].
As to claim 17, modified Burchill suggests a molded article according to claim 15, as set forth above. Burchill discloses test samples which are 2 inches (50 mm) in length and 2 mm in thickness [0054], and therefore, Burchill fails to exemplify an article which meets instant condition 2 or 3. However, Burchill discloses that the cover may have a variety of different geometries, depending on the nature of the intended application [0043]. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have selected appropriate dimensions for the molded article of modified Burchill in order to provide a geometry tailored for any of the luminous device applications taught by Burchill [0046-50], including dimensions which satisfy the conditions recited in claim 17. See also MPEP 2144.04 IV (A) and (B) regarding changes in size/proportion and changes in shape.
Claim(s) 5, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burchill (US 2015/0267891) in view of Yonemura (US 2018/0267315), and further in view of Azuma et al (US 2009/0239050).
The rejection of claim 1 over Burchill in view of Yonemura is incorporated here by reference.
Burchill fails to teach the molecular weight and properties recited in claims 5, 6 and 9.
As to claims 5 and 6, Azuma teaches that methacrylic resins are transparent and are used in a wide range of applications, including lighting, but that poor flowability of resin leads to insufficient injection pressure, resulting in failure to mold or causing deformation of molded articles [0002]. Azuma teaches that a methacrylic resin having a specific low molecular weight component at a specific ratio has improved flowability and moldability which is essential in processes such as injection and extrusion molding, while maintaining heat resistance [0010]. Azuma teaches that the methacrylic resin has a weight average molecular weight measured by GPC of 60,000-230,000 and comprises 7 to 30% of a component having a weight average molecular weight of 1/5 or less of a peak weight average molecular weight [0012].
Considering Azuma’s disclosure, when preparing a molded article from methacrylic resin as suggested by modified Burchill, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized methacrylic resin having any molecular weight within Azuma’s disclosed range of 60,000-230,000 (including within the presently claimed range of 75,000-230,000) and any content of component having a weight average molecular weight of 1/5 or less of a peak weight average molecular weight within Azuma’s disclosed range of 7-30% (which falls within the presently claimed range of 6 to 50%), in order to improve flowability and moldability while maintaining heat resistance.
As to claim 9, modified Burchill suggests a composition according to claims 1, 5 and 6, as set forth above, wherein the methacrylic resin has a Tg above 120 C, a weight average molecular weight which is 75,000-230,000, and wherein the resin contains 7-30% of a molecular weight component that is 5 times or more lower than a peak top molecular weight [0110].
As discussed above, Yonemura discloses that from a viewpoint of obtaining sufficient heat resistance, the glass transition temperature of the methacrylic resin is preferably 120 C or higher [0166], measured by the midpoint method [0167]. Considering that heat resistance is desired by Burchill (see, e.g., [0025]), it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have formed a methacrylic resin composition as suggested by modified Burchill having any appropriate midpoint/intermediate glass transition temperature of 120 C or higher in order to achieve a desired degree of heat resistance, including a Tg within any of the ranges recited in claim 9 (i.e., within a range of 120 C or higher and 130 C or lower).
As to the recited viscosity ranges:
Azuma discloses that the Mw is above 60,000 in view of mechanical strength [0056], and lower than 230,000 in view of flowability [0056]. Azuma also discloses selecting an appropriate content of the lower molecular weight component which is 7% or more in view of plasticization effect and flowability, and 30% or less in view of heat resistance and strength [0059].
Viscosity/flowability is closely related to molecular weight. Considering that the ranges of molecular weight and content of lower molecular weight component taught by Azuma substantially overlap the ranges for these properties recited in the instant claims and described in the instant specification, there is reasonable basis to conclude that modified Burchill suggests compositions possessing a range of viscosities which at least substantially overlap the viscosity range(s) recited in claim 9. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected any appropriate molecular weight and low molecular weight component content from within the ranges disclosed by Azuma in order to achieve a desired balance between strength, heat resistance and flowability, including values which correspond to viscosities falling within one or more of the ranges recited in instant claim 9.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burchill (US 2015/0267891) in view of Yonemura (US 2018/0267315), and further in view of Konishi et al (US 2015/0166695).
The rejection above over Burchill and Yonemura is incorporated here by reference.
Burchill fails to teach an amount of unsaturated double bond ends.
Like Burchill, Konishi discloses a methacrylic resin composition that has high transparency and fluidity [0025], which can be used in applications such as display components and headlight covers for automobiles [0088]. Konishi discloses that the methacrylic resin includes less than 0.025 mol% of terminal double bonds [0034]. A comparative example having a higher terminal bond content was found to have poor moldability and appearance (table 1, comparative example 3, silver appearance). Considering Konishi’s disclosure, the presence of terminal double bonds in a methacrylic resin was known in the art as undesired and responsible for poor moldability and appearance. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have reduced the terminal bond content of a methacrylic resin to any desired value (e.g., within a range of less than 0.025 mol%, as taught by Konishi) in order to improve moldability and appearance, including within the presently claimed range of 0.013 mol% or less.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues (p 5) that claim 1 has been amended to limit the filler component to a single type, excluding the mixture of different particles as taught in the cited references. The examiner disagrees that the claims have been amended to exclude a mixture of different particles. The phrase “consists of” appears in a clause of the body of the claim and therefore closes only the element set forth in that clause (i.e., closes only the light diffusing filler first recited in line 2) to unrecited elements (i.e., elements other than a crosslinked styrene-MMA resin having a diameter of 0.2 to 10 micron). Other elements (including other light diffusing elements) are not excluded from the claimed composition as a whole. See MPEP 2111.03 (II). [The rejection has also been modified to show that, even if the claims were amended to exclude any unrecited element, the claimed composition is still suggested by the cited prior art.]
Applicant further argues (pp 6-7) that Burchill requires a mixture of small and large particles, which is unpersuasive as it does not consider Burchill’s teachings in [0033] regarding using small particles for instances when a smooth surface is desired, nor Burchill’s first embodiment (row 1) in Table 3 wherein only small particles are utilized. These teachings in Burchill are discussed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL KAHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7346. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8-5.
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.
/RACHEL KAHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights