DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
For the utmost clarity, the acronyms “ABS,” “ASA,” “AES,” and “SAN” should be defined in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higaki (US 8,742,015 B2) in view of Gupta (Investigations of thermal and viscoelastic properties of polymers relevant to hot melt extrusion – I:Polyvinylpyrrolidone and related polymers, J. Excipients and Food Chem. 5 (2014), 32-45) and Furusawa (US 2003/0152709 A1, Cite No. 1 on 7/22/2025 IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 6-7, Higaki teaches a heat resistant resin composition (Higaki, column 1, lines 6-8) and further teaches an injection molded body molded by using the composition (Higaki, col. 20, lines 64-66) and use of the injection molded body as an interior material of an automobile (Higaki, col. 21, lines 18-25) (claim 6-7).
Higaki teaches that the resin composition comprises a rubber-reinforced resin (A) (Higaki, col. 3, lines 60-62) and that the rubber-reinforced resin comprises a rubber-reinforced copolymeric resin (A1) and a (co)polymer (A2) (Higaki, col. 4, lines 6-10). As (A1), Higaki teaches polybutadiene/styrene/acrylonitrile, reading on ABS (ABS exemplified in Higaki, col. 22, lines 32-39; see also col. 4, lines 7-9; col. 4, line 22; and col. 7, lines 5-10, 20, and 26). Higaki teaches that (A2) can be a styrene•N-phenylmaleimide copolymer or a styrene/acrylonitrile/N-phenylmaleimide copolymer, reading on a maleimide-based copolymer (Higaki, col. 9, lines 24-31). Higaki therefore teaches a resin composition comprising a maleimide-based copolymer and ABS resin.
Higaki teaches that the resin composition can be made into an article by methods including injection molding, press molding, extrusion molding, and sheet-extrusion molding (Higaki, col. 20, lines 64-67). Because Higaki exemplifies an extruder temperature of 240 °C (Higaki, col. 21, lines 42-44), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to set the temperature at 240 °C when extruding the composition. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to control the rheology of the composition to produce a quality article at the temperature of 240 °C taught by Higaki. However, Higaki is silent as to the G’/G’’ ratio at 240 °C and an angular velocity of 0.63 rad/s.
However, prior to the effective filing date, G’/G’’ at low angular velocity was known in the art as a result effective variable, as evidenced by Gupta and Furusawa.
Gupta teaches that when polymers are used in melt extrusion they need to be in a rubbery or flow condition in order to ensure proper melting and flow (Gupta, page 34, col. 2, paragraph 1). Gupta teaches that the polymer undergoes a transition from a glassy state to a rubbery state when G’’/G’=1 (Gupta, page 35, col 1, paragraph 1). Below the crossover point, the storage modulus dominates while above the crossover point the material acts more like a liquid (Gupta, page 35, col 2, paragraph 3). Gupta determines the crossover point by sweeping temperature at an angular velocity of 0.1 rad/sec (Gupta, page 37, col. 1). Given the disclosure of Gupta, one of ordinary skill would have understood that for a polymer to properly melt and flow for melt extrusion, G’/G’’ should be 1 or less at an angular velocity of about 0.1 rad/sec at the extruding temperature.
Furusawa teaches that films of a coating composition where G’/G’’ is measured at 0.1 Hz (0.63 rad/sec) (Furusawa, [0040]). Furusawa teaches that when G’/G’’ is less than 0.3, the film is liable to sag and lose its smoothness on vertical planes while when G’/G’’ is over 1.0 the film lacks fluidity and becomes rough (Furusawa, [0041]). Based on the disclosure of Furusawa, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that selecting an appropriate G’/G’’ is a balance between fluidity and sagging. One would have understood that decreasing G’/G’’ too much would result in a more liquid-like composition prone to sagging.
Based on the disclosures of Gupta and Furusawa, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that G’/G’’ at the processing temperature should be low enough to enable flow but high enough to avoid sagging. One would have also known that the G’/G’’ should be 1 or less when measured at low angular velocities (about 0.1 rad/sec). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the G’/G’’ ratio measured in accordance with JIS K 7244-10 under conditions of 240 °C at an angular velocity of 0.63 rad/s into the claimed range of 0.3-1.0. One would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully producing an extrudable composition because Gupta teaches that a G’/G’’ of at most 1 at 0.1 rad/sec is appropriate for extrusion. The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 2, modified Higaki teaches the heat resistant resin composition of Claim 1. Higaki exemplifies compositions with an ABS resin (A1-2) and a maleimide copolymer (A2-4) (Higaki, examples 3-4, 9, and 13 in Tables 1-3). These examples span a maleimide-based copolymer content of 9.1-38.6 mass% (examples 9 and 4). In addition to the ABS resin, the exemplified compositions further comprise a SAN resin (A2-1) that reads on the resin of claim 1. The combined amount of ABS and SAN resin exemplified by Higaki is 39-90.9 mass% (examples 13 and 9)
Based on the examples of Higaki, it would have been obvious to use 9.1-38.6 mass% of the maleimide-based copolymer and 39-90.9 mass% of ABS and SAN resin combined. A range of 39-90.9 mass% overlaps with the claimed range of 60 to 95 mass%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 3, modified Higaki teaches the heat resistant resin composition of Claim 1. Higaki exemplifies a styrene•N-phenylmaleimide copolymer with 56 mass% of an aromatic vinyl monomer unit (styrene) and 44 mass% of a maleimide-based monomer unit (N-phenylmaleimide) (Higaki, col. 23, lines 13-15).
Regarding claim 4, modified Higaki teaches the heat resistant resin composition of Claim 1. Higaki teaches that the composition can be prepared by kneading in an extruder at 200-280 °C (Higaki, col. 20, lines 25-31). Higaki also exemplifies melt mass flow rates (MFR) in the range of 10-32 g/10 min (Higaki, examples 3-4, 9, and 13 in Tables 1-3) measured according to ISO 1133 under conditions of 240°C and 98 N (Higaki, column 21, lines 50-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have targeted a MFR in the range exemplified by Higaki for any extruder temperature taught by Higaki in order to have a sufficient flow rate for extruding. A flowrate of 10-32 g/10 min at 220 °C overlaps with the claimed range of a melt mass flow rate of the heat resistant resin composition measured in accordance with JIS K 7210 under conditions of 220 °C and 10 kg is 5 to 30 g/10 min. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 5, modified Higaki teaches the heat resistant resin composition of Claim 1. Higaki further teaches that the Vicat softening temperature is preferably 105 °C or higher under a load of 9.8 N measured in accordance with ASTM D1525 (Higaki, col. 20, lines 49-52). The Vicat softening temperature of Higaki is obtained according to ASTM D1525 with a load of 9.8 N, rather than the presently recited method of JIS K-7206 requiring a load of 50 N. These results are not directly comparable because one of ordinary skill would expect a higher load to cause softening to occur at a lower temperature.
However, Higaki further teaches that if the softening temperature is too low, applications of the molded article may be limited and that when such an article is used at high temperature, undesirable phenomenon such as deformation may be observed. (Higaki, col. 20, lines 52-54). Given the disclosure of Higaki, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that increasing the Vicat softening temperature is advantageous for avoiding deformation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized a Vicat softening temperature of the heat resistant resin composition measured in accordance with JIS K-7206 into the claimed range of 105 °C to 130 °C. One would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully producing a heat resistant composition because Higaki teaches that the composition is heat resistant (Higaki, Abstract). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDRA DESTEFANO whose telephone number is (703)756-1404. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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.
/AUDRA J DESTEFANO/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights