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 Status
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2-5, 7, 9-11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (CN111117186A; herein ‘Chen’; all citations are directed towards the English machine translation) in view of Min (KR 20200052177A; all citations are directed toward the English machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 13 and 14; Chen is directed towards a flame-retardant, low-temperature impact resistance and high weather-resistant PC/PBT alloy and preparation method thereof [abstract].
The composition of Chen comprises: 45-70 parts polycarbonate (PC), 15-35 parts polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), 3-6 parts toughening agent, 1-3 parts compatibilizer, 5-9 parts flame retardant, 0.3-0.8 parts anti-dripping agent, 0.1-0.5 parts transesterification inhibitor, 0.1-0.3 parts antioxidant, 0.1-0.5 parts lubricant, and 0.6-1.5 parts light stabilizer [p. 0009].
When considering the ranges taught by Chen, and scaling the sum of the parts of PC and PBT to 100 parts, the composition of Chen comprises:
100 parts of PC + PBT (A), comprising 56-82% PC and 18-44% PBT;
2.9 to 10.0 parts by weight toughening agent (B);
4.8 to 15.0 parts by weight flame retardant (C);
1.0 to 5.0 parts by weight compatibilizer (D);
0.1 to 0.8 parts by weight transesterfication inhibitor (E); and
0.6 to 2.5 parts light stabilizer.
Chen teaches the toughening agent (B) is one or more of polyolefin elastomer (POE), ethylene-methacrylate(EMA), ethylene-methyl acrylate copolymer, and methyl methacrylate-butadiene-styrene terpolymer(MBS) with a core-shell structure [0015].
Chen teaches the flame retardant (C) is composed of antimony trioxide and an organic flame retardant, wherein the organic flame retardant is one or more of tetrabromobisphenol A-tetrabromobisphenol A epoxy propylene ether copolymer, 1,2-bis(2,3,4,5,6-pentabromophenyl)ethane, 2,4,6-tris(2,4,6-tribromophenoxy)-1,3,5-triazine, and isopropylphenol phosphate [p. 0017].
Chen teaches the composition has excellent impact resistance, flame retardancy that can reach UL V0 level, and good weather resistance [p. 0081]. Chen further teaches after 500 hours of heat storage at 80℃, there is no obvious yellowing, and the color difference is within 5.0 after 300 hours of ultraviolet irradiation [p. 0081]. However, Chen is silent with respect to the weather-o-meter value and hot water resistance index of the composition as measured according to UL 746C.
Min is directed towards a polycarbonate resin composition and a molded article thereof. More specifically, it relates to a polycarbonate resin composition having good processability, flame retardancy and weather resistance, and a molded product manufactured therefrom [p. 0001]. Min teaches the polycarbonate resin composition can exhibit flame retardancy of UL-94 V-O grade while simultaneously exhibiting excellent weather resistance [p. 0048]. Min teaches the polycarbonate resin composition can exhibit excellent weather resistance, with each tensile impact value after a UV exposure test (Weather-O-meter protocol) and a water exposure test(immersion protocol) according to UL 746C being 70% or more of the measured value before the exposure test [p. 0171]. In light of this, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would reasonably expect embodiments of the composition of Chen, when tested under the same conditions, to obviously satisfy the claimed weather-o-meter value hot water resistance index as measured according to UL 746C (f1 class) as the composition of Chen exhibits good weather resistance and does not yellow after continued UV exposure.
Chen is silent with respect to the melt flow index of the composition. However, Chen teaches the PC has a melt index of 8-12 g/10 min at 300°C and 1.2 kg [p. 0013]. Min teaches the melt index of the composition increases relative to the melt index of the polycarbonate resin [p. 0069, 0169]. In light of this, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would reasonably predict the composition of Chen would have a melt flow index of 7.0 g/10min or more as measured at a temperature of 250 °C under a load of 5.0 kg.
Regarding claim 3; Chen teaches the PBT has an intrinsic viscosity of 0.9-1.1 dl/g [p. 0014]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4; Chen teaches the PC has a melt index of 8-12 g/10 min at 300°C and 1.2 kg [p. 0013]. In light of this, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect embodiments of Chen to obviously satisfy the claimed melt flow index when tested under the same conditions.
Regarding claims 9 and 10: Chen teaches the flame retardant (C) is composed of antimony trioxide and an organic flame retardant, wherein the organic flame retardant is one or more of tetrabromobisphenol A-tetrabromobisphenol A epoxy propylene ether copolymer, 1,2-bis(2,3,4,5,6-pentabromophenyl)ethane, 2,4,6-tris(2,4,6-tribromophenoxy)-1,3,5-triazine, and isopropylphenol phosphate [p. 0017]. Chen exemplifies the use of the flame retardant as a mixture of tetrabromobisphenol A-tetrabromobisphenol A epoxypropyl ether copolymer and antimony trioxide in a weight ratio of 4:1 [examples 1-3]. Chen does not differentiate between the epoxy flame retardant and the antimony trioxide when teaching the parts by weight of flame-retardant present in the composition. The scaled general teachings of Chen are that the composition comprises 4.8 to 15.0 parts by weight flame retardant (C). Considering exemplified the 4:1 ratio of tetrabromobisphenol A-tetrabromobisphenol A epoxypropyl ether copolymer (C1) and antimony trioxide (C2) and the general range of (C), (C1) may comprise 3.8 to 12 parts by weight of the composition and (C2) may comprise 1.0 to 3 parts by weight of the composition.
In light of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to prepare the composition of Chen with 3.8 to 12 parts by weight of a halogenated epoxy-based flame retardant (C1) and 1.0 to 3.0 parts by weight antimony trioxide (C2). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11; Chen teaches the compatibilizer (D) is preferably one or more of the following: ethylene-butyl acrylate-glycidylmethacrylate terpolymer (EBA-g-GMA), ethylene-octene-glycidyl methacrylate terpolymer (POE-g-GMA),and styrene-acrylonitrile-glycidyl methacrylate terpolymer.
Regarding claim 15; The invention of Chen relates to the field of engineering plastics technology, and in particular to a flame-retardant, low-temperature impact-resistant, and highly weather-resistant PC/PBT alloy and its preparation method [p. 0002]. Chen teaches these alloys are used in car bumpers, car handles, and electronic components [p. 0004]. In light of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to prepare a molded article from the composition of Chen.
Regarding claim 16; Chen teaches the flame-retardant highly weather-resistant PC/PBT allow can be used in electronic components [p. 0002, 0004]. However, Chen is silent with respect to the use of the alloy to mold an electrical box.
Min teaches polycarbonate compositions are applied in the field of exterior materials for electrical and electronic products [p. 0002]. Min further teaches these applications require a high level of flame retardancy [p. 0003].
In light of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to prepare an electrical box from the composition of Chen, as Chen teaches the composition is suitable for production of molded articles and is flame-retardant as well as highly weather resistant.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (CN111117186A; herein ‘Chen’; all citations are directed towards the English machine translation) in view of Min (KR 20200052177A; all citations are directed toward the English machine translation) in further view of Kang (US 10822488).
The disclosure of Chen in view of Min is above and is applied here as such.
Chen teaches the toughening agent (B) is preferably one or more of polyolefin elastomer (POE), ethylene-methacrylate(EMA), ethylene-methyl acrylate copolymer, and methyl methacrylate-butadiene-styrene terpolymer(MBS) with a core-shell structure [p. 0015]. However, Chen is silent with respect to butyl acrylate.
Kang is directed towards a thermoplastic resin composition having excellent weather resistance and thus may be suitable for use as exterior materials [abstract]. Kang teaches core-shell alkyl acrylate rubbers improve impact resistance and are most preferably butyl acrylate rubbers as they improve surface gloss and weather resistance [c. 3, ll. 46-60].
In light of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to prepare the composition of Chen with the core shell butyl acrylate rubbers a toughening agent, as Kang teaches, they improve impact resistance as well as improve surface gloss and weather resistance.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (CN111117186A; herein ‘Chen’; all citations are directed towards the English machine translation) in view of Min (KR 20200052177A; all citations are directed toward the English machine translation) in further view of Xie (CN108164958A; all citations are directed toward the English machine translation).
The disclosure of Chen in view of Min is above and is applied here as such.
Chen teaches the transesterification inhibitor is preferably one or more of pentaerythritol diphosphite, monododecylphosphate, didodecyl phosphate, and octadecyl phosphite [p. 0018]. Chen does not further limit the transesterfication inhibitors and is silent with respect to sodium dihydrogen phosphate.
Xie teaches a low-temperature resistant flame-retardant PC/PBT alloy material and its preparation method [p. 0001]. Xie teaches to better prevent transesterification between PC and PBT, and to improve the low-temperature resistance of the alloy material, sodium dihydrogen phosphate is used as the transesterification inhibitor [p. 0022].
In light of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use sodium dihydrogen phosphate as the transesterfication inhibitor in the composition of Chen as Xie teaches it improves the low temperature resistance of the alloy material.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (CN 111117186 A; herein ‘Chen’; all citations are directed towards the English machine translation) in view of Min (KR 20200052177 A; all citations are directed toward the English machine translation) in further view of Lin (CN 110343506 A all citations are directed toward the English machine translation).
The disclosure of Chen in view of Min is above and is applied here as such.
Chen teaches the compatibilizer (D) is preferably one or more of the following: ethylene-butyl acrylate-glycidylmethacrylate terpolymer (EBA-g-GMA), ethylene-octene-glycidyl methacrylate terpolymer (POE-g-GMA),and styrene-acrylonitrile-glycidyl methacrylate terpolymer. However, Chen is silent with respect to a glycidyl methacrylate vinyl acrylate compatibilizer.
Lin is directed towards a polycarbonate composite material and preparation method thereof [p. 2, ll. 14-16]. Lin teaches during injection molding process, many materials will have burrs at corners, which result in poor material aging and appearance [p. 2, ll. 19-22]. Lin teaches polycarbonate (PC) is susceptible to burr formation [p. 2, ll. 24-28]. Lin teaches the polycarbonate composition comprising a polycarbonate, silicon-polycarbonate copolymer, toughening agent, and compatibilizer overcomes the existing burr defects of polycarbonate-based compositions [p. 3, ll. 1-10].
Lin teaches the compatibilizer is promotes the miscibility of the composition components [p. 6, ll. 16-18]. Lin teaches the compatibilizer is particularly preferred to be at least one of glycidyl esters copolymers, such as methacrylic acid is glycidyl methacrylate, ethylene copolymer, glycidyl methacrylate-acrylate copolymer, and specifically a glycidyl methacrylate-vinyl acrylate copolymer[p. 6, ll. 18-22]. Lin teaches that in the compatibilizer, the polyacrylate segment itself has good toughness, and the glycidyl methacrylate segment can react with the polycarbonate matrix, allowing the compatibilizer to also have adhesion and toughening benefits. Lin teaches these features prevent the polycarbonate composition from breaking into a powder at low temperatures, which allows burrs that are formed during injection molding to be effectively processed [p. 6, ll. 20-25].
As Chen is directed toward a low-temperature impact resistant PC/PBT alloy [p. 0001], it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a glycidyl methacrylate-vinyl acrylate copolymer in the composition of Chen as Lin teaches a compatibilizer comprising both polyacrylate and glycidyl methacrylate segments improve the adhesion and toughness of the composition, which in turn prevents the polycarbonate composition from breaking into powder when processed at low temperatures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLEY GRACE HESTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM -5:00PM.
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.
/HOLLEY GRACE HESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766