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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/23/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The antecedent basis of “the aromatic vinyl-vinyl cyanide copolymer” in claim 3 is indefinite. In claim 3, there is an aromatic vinyl-vinyl cyanide copolymer in the continuous phase, and there is an aromatic vinyl-vinyl cyanide copolymer in the dispersed phase.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2019/0203036) in view of Yang et al. (2018/0112056).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 7-10: Kim et al. teach a thermoplastic resin composition comprising:
100 parts by weight of a base resin (A) including (A-1) 50 to 70 wt% of a polycarbonate resin with a Mw of 24,000 g/mol [0099; Examples] and (A-2) 30 to 50 wt% of a rubber modified vinyl-based copolymer that comprises a continuous phase of a styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer and a dispersed phase having a core-shell structure including a core of butadiene having an average particle diameter of 1,000 nm and a shelf from by graft-polymerization of a styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer on the core [0012-0016; Examples; claim 2]; and
1 to 3 parts by weight of an acrylic copolymer having a Mw of 1,000,000 to 5,000,000, with an example at 2,000,000 g/mol [0011-0017, 0103; Examples]; and additives [0079].
Kim et al. fail to teach zinc oxide.
However, Yang et al. teach adding 0.5 to 30 parts, with examples of 2 parts by weight, of the claimed zinc oxide to an analogous thermoplastic resin composition to improve weather resistance, antibacterial properties, and/or mechanical properties [0009-0030; Examples; Tables].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to add 2 parts by weight of the zinc oxide of Yang et al. to the composition of Kim et al. to improve the weather resistance, antibacterial properties, and/or mechanical properties of the compositon.
Regarding claim 5: Kim et al. teach an acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene graft copolymer with an average particle diameter of 1,000 nm [0012].
Regarding claim 6: Kim et al. teach a methyl methacrylate-butyl acrylate copolymer with a Mw of 2,000,000 g/mol [0103; Examples].
A methyl methacrylate-butyl acrylate copolymer is very structurally similar to a methyl methacrylate-ethyl acrylate copolymer.
A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (discussed below and in MPEP § 2144) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, paragraph II.A.4.(c).
Regarding claim 11: Kim et al. teach the claimed additives [0079-0087].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights