DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
No new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the graft polymer comprises a free polymer. It is unclear how a polymer comprises another polymer. What is the difference between this free polymer from the non-grafted polymer? Clarification is required. For purposes of expediting prosecution, the free polymer is interpreted as the same as the non-grafted polymer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga et al (JPH09207134) in view of Choi et al (US 2007/0078221).
Claims 1, 3-9 : Fukunaga teaches a composition comprising a thermoplastic resin and a waste thermosetting resin, the thermoplastic resin can be ABS resin [0011], the amount of the waste thermosetting resin is no more than 70 wt% [0013, examples], the waste thermosetting resin is artificial marble [0010]. The composition can be used to make products such as bathtubs, counters, floor pans etc. [0004]. Case law holds that 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).
Fukunaga does not teach the thermoplastic resin being a mixture of grafted and non-grafted polymers like claimed.
However, Choi teaches a thermoplastic resin composition with high hardness, excellent scratch resistance, impact strength, surface gloss and better scratch resistance than ABS resin [0002-0004]. The thermoplastic resin composition comprising a graft copolymer prepared by graft-copolymerization of conjugated diene rubber latex with (meth)acrylate monomer and vinyl aromatic monomer and vinyl cyan monomer, a non-grafted copolymer prepared by polymerization of (meth)acrylate monomer, vinyl aromatic monomer and vinyl cyan monomer [0010]. The weight ratio of the graft copolymer and non-grafted copolymer is 25:75 to 75:25 [0017]. The diene rubber lates has a particle size of 80-350 nm [0028]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to replace ABS of Fukunaga with the thermoplastic resin composition of Choi to provide the final composition a better scratch resistance.
Claim 10: Choi teaches the diene rubber latex content is 4-10 wt% of the total weight of the composition [0010]. When the amount of the resin mixture is 50 wt% of the composition of Fukunaga, the diene rubber latex content is 2-5 wt% of the composition of Fukunaga. Therefore, the amount of the diene rubber latex overlaps the claimed range. The graft copolymer is prepared by graft polymerization with i) 10-20 weight part of conjugated diene rubber latex, ii) 40-80 weight part of (meth)acrylic acid alkyl ester compound, iii) 0-40 weight part of aromatic vinyl compound and iv) 0-20 weight part of vinyl cyan compound [0018]. The non-grafted copolymer is prepared by polymerization with i) 40-80 weight part of (meth)acrylic acid alkyl ester compound, ii) 0-50 weight part of aromatic vinyl compound and iii) 0-30 weight part of vinyl cyan compound [0021]. Therefore the contents of monomer units also overlaps the claimed range.
Claims 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga et al (JPH09207134) in view of Choi et al (US 2007/0078221) and further in view of Morita et al (JP 2007/039640).
Fukunaga and Choi teach the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Fukunaga and Choi do not teach the artificial marble comprises acrylate monomer units.
However, Morita teaches the artificial marble is made from resin such as thermosetting acrylic resin [0020]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to recognize that artificial marble comprises acrylate monomer units.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument regarding the meaning of the term “free polymer”, the argument is not persuasive because 1) the term is not defined in the specification, 2) claim language does not distinguish “free polymer” from “non-grafted polymer”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument regarding unexpected results, the arguments have been fully considered, however, they are insufficient to establish unexpected results given that 1) in this case, Choi teaches the thermoplastic resin composition has better scratch resistance than ABS. It is held that although the record may establish evidence of secondary considerations which are indicia of nonobviousness, the record may also establish such a strong case of obviousness that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence of obviousness. Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 769, 9 USPQ2d 1417, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 (1989); Richardson-Vicks, Inc., v. The Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1484, 44 USPQ2d 1181, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 2) the data is not reasonably commensurate in scope with the scope of claims. The inventive data only contains a specific amount and a specific compound of each component. Case law holds that evidence is insufficient to rebut a prima facie case if not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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, 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.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763