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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/11/25 is acknowledged. Claims 2,3,18,20 and 21 are considered nonelected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,4,6,8-12 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eichenauer DE19918729.
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 Carillon 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.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Eichenauer does not report the claimed properties of claims 9-12 and 17. Given Eichenauer employs the same materials in the same amounts as applicant, the same properties are expected to result.
Claims 1,5-12 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi 2017/0158851.
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 of1.46 dl/g would be expected to correspond to a an MFR ~60g/10min -meeting applicant’s polyketone.
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 employs the same materials in the same amounts as applicant, the same properties are expected to result.
Claims 1,5-12 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoon 2017/0166743.
Yoon exemplifies (#3,4) 85/15 and 70-30 blends of 80% 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.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Yoon does not report the claimed properties of claims 9,10 and 12 and 17. Given Choi employs the same materials in the same amounts as applicant, the same properties are expected to result.
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.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichenauer DE19918729.
Eichenauer applies as explained above.
Eichenauer’s 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.
It would have been obvious to increase the 16% ABS in the cited example to at least 20% as this is directly suggested by Eichenauer.
Claims 1,4-12 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi 2017/0158851 or Yoon 2017/0166743.
Choi and Yoon apply as explained above.
Neither report MFR 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.)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1,4-12 and 17 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7,12,18-25 and 27-29 of copending Application No. 18-023710 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending application also claims (#2) blends of polyketone with ABS wherein the polyketone has a MFR of 1-90g/10min. The instant claims are broader in the sense that a flame retardant is not required.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 12/20/25