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 1,4,7-12 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichenauer DE19918729 in view of Riise 2005/0179153.
Eichenauer exemplifies (#3) a blend of 75% polyketone and 25% of mixed component “B”. The polyketone (paragraph 56) is the carbon monoxide/ethylene/propylene terpolymer Carilon DP P1000. Inherently, this polyketone has a MFR of 6g/10min @2400C and 2.16kg (see page 14 of the Shell Research document “Value in Use of Carilon Polymers”). This meets applicant’s polyketone.
Mixed component “B” (paragraph 57) is a mix of 64% ABS and 36% SAN. Therefore, the composition as a whole is 75% polyketone, 16% ABS and 9% SAN.
Eichenauer does not report the MFR of his ABS or teach any limitations for the ABS’s MFR.
However, applicant’s 3-10g/10min encompasses a large portion of the possible MFR values for common ABS. Riise (table 2) can be cited to report the “typical” properties of ABS. Given Eichenauer teaches no restrictions for the MFR of his ABS, ABS of any MFR would have been obvious. ABS having the MFR of common commercial ABS would have been particularly obvious.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
The cited example contains only 16% ABS rather than the 20-40% of claim 7.
However, Eichenauer (claim 3) calls for 2-50% of the mixed component “B”. For the exemplified “B” of 64/36 ABS/SAN, this would be 1-32% ABS in the entire blend. Any amount of ABS within this range would have been obvious.
Eichenauer does not report the claimed properties of claims 9-12 and 17. Given Eichenauer renders obvious the same materials in the same amounts as applicant, the same properties are expected to result.
Claims 1,5,7-12 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi 2017/0158851 in view of Riise 2005/0179153.
Choi exemplifies (#39) a blend of 80% polyketone and 20% ABS. The polyketone used (paragraph 258) is a carbon monoxide/ethylene/propylene terpolymer having a melt index of 48g/10min. The conditions for this measurement are not reported.
However, the polyketone’s LVN in hexafluoroispopanol is said to be 1.4dl/g. The LVN and MFR of a polymer are closely linked. Higher LVN means higher molecular weight and therefore lower MFR. Such polyketones having an LVN in hexafluoroispopanol of 1.46dl/g are known to correspond to a MFR of 60g/10min (see tables 1.1.2 and 1.5.1 of the POKETONE Hyosung brochure for the properties of M330). For these reasons, Choi’s polyketone having an LVN of 1.46 dl/g would be expected to correspond to a an MFR ~60g/10min - meeting applicant’s polyketone.
Choi does not report the MFR of his ABS or teach any limitations for the ABS’s MFR.
However, applicant’s 3-10g/10min encompasses a large portion of the possible MFR values for common ABS. Riise (table 2) can be cited to report the “typical” properties of ABS. Given Choi teaches no restrictions for the MFR of his ABS, ABS of any MFR would have been obvious. ABS having the MFR of common commercial ABS would have been particularly obvious.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
The tensile strength of the cited example is 48MPa (table 12) -meeting applicant’s claim 11.
Choi does not report the claimed properties of claims 9,10 and 12 and 17. Given Choi suggests the same materials in the same amounts as applicant, the same properties are expected to result.
Claims 1,5,7-12 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon 2017/0166743 in view of Riise 2005/0179153.
Yoon exemplifies (#3,4) 85/15 and 70/30 blends of polyketone with ABS. The polyketone used (paragraph 108) is a carbon monoxide/ethylene/propylene terpolymer having an LVN in hexafluoroispopanol of 1.4dl/g.
MFR is not reported. The LVN and MFR of a polymer are closely linked. Higher LVN means higher molecular weight and therefore lower MFR. Such polyketones having an LVN in hexafluoroispopanol of 1.46dl/g are known to correspond to a MFR of 60g/10min (see tables 1.1.2 and 1.5.1 of the POKETONE Hyosung brochure for the properties of M330). For this reason, Yoon’s polyketone having an LVN of 1.46 dl/g would be expected to correspond to a an MFR ~60g/10min - meeting applicant’s polyketone.
Yoon does not report the MFR of his ABS or teach any limitations for the ABS’s MFR.
However, applicant’s 3-10g/10min encompasses a large portion of the possible MFR values for common ABS. Riise (table 2) can be cited to report the “typical” properties of ABS. Given Yoon teaches no restrictions for the MFR of his ABS, ABS of any MFR would have been obvious. ABS having the MFR of common commercial ABS would have been particularly obvious.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Yoon does not report the claimed properties of claims 9,10 and 12 and 17. Given Yoon suggests the same materials in the same amounts as applicant, the same properties are expected to result.
Claims 1,4,5,7-12 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi 2017/0158851 or Yoon 2017/0166743 in view of Riise 2005/0179153.
Choi/Yoon/Riise apply as explained above.
Neither Choi nor Yoon report the MFR for their polyketones under the conditions of applicant’s claim. However, both Choi (paragraph 44) and Yoon (paragraph 78,80) teach Mn’s of 20,000-90,000 and LVN’s of 1-2dl/g for the polyketone.
Inherently these Mn’s and LVN’s provide a MFR’s that overlap applicant’s range. This can be demonstrated by tables 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and 1.5.1 of the POKETONE Hyosung brochure summarized below:
Resin Mn LVN dl/g MFR g/10min
M630 100,000 2.16 6
M330 72,000 1.46 60
M930 60,000 1.10 200
It is apparent that the Mn and LVN ranges suggested by either primary reference would significantly overlap applicant’s MFR. Such an overlap renders obvious applicant’s MFR (see MPEP 2144.05 I.)
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Eichenauer’s Carilon DP P 1000 is not the same grade as the “Carilon polymer DP grade reference P1000” of the Shell Research document and that variations in lot might result in the material’s 6g/10min MFR being outside the claimed 1-90d/10min range. These are unserious arguments.
Applicant argues that rejections reliance on LVN to MFR mapping is incorrect.
This is unconvincing. Solution viscosity to MFR correspondence is a well known and accepted principle in polymer science. The Dynisco Handbook (particularly pages 122-124) demonstrate this relationship.
Applicant argues that none of the primary references teach anything regarding the MFR of the ABS.
While this is true, any MFR for the ABS would have been obvious if the references didn’t bother to place any limitations on the MFR. It appears applicant has simply chosen to limit the ABS to a MFR range that encompasses a large fraction of commercial ABS. Choosing to claim less than the entire possible range of commercial ABS is no reason for allowance.
Applicant has shown nothing to overcome this prima facie obviousness of using a commercial ABS of any typical MFR. Evidence presented after final will not be entered.
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 4/29/26
Prosecution Insights