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 .
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.
Claims 4 and 12 are 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.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the limitations "the rubber polymer" in line 3; and “the aromatic vinyl monomer” in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Additionally, the use of the phrase “the aromatic vinyl monomer” is unclear because it is used in reference to a polystyrene resin. Are there other vinyl monomers present within the polystyrene resin; or should the aromatic vinyl monomer simply be a styrene monomer? For the purpose of further examination, the rubber polymer will be interpreted as referring to “a rubber polymer;” and the aromatic vinyl monomer will be interpreted as referring to “a styrene monomer.”
Regarding claim 12, in lines 4 and 5, the phrase “major axis length: 120 mm, minor axis length: 34 mm” is enclosed in parentheses. It is unclear if these dimensions are meant to be part of the claim, or are simply suggested dimensions for the elliptical jig. For the purpose of further examination, they will be interpreted as defining the dimensions of the elliptical jig. However, appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 2018/0118914) in view of Park et al. (US 2008/0093578), Schips et al. (US 2011/0065819), Schulz et al. (WO 2020/020869), and Fujiwara et al. (JP 2007-056145). For convenience, the citations below for Fujiwara et al. are taken from an English language machine translation included herewith.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 15, Bae et al. teaches a thermoplastic resin composition and a molded article made therefrom (¶2) comprising about 100 parts by weight of a thermoplastic resin (¶9), wherein the thermoplastic resin is a rubber-modified vinyl-based copolymer resin comprises a rubber-modified vinyl graft copolymer and an aromatic vinyl copolymer resin (¶37). The rubber-modified vinyl graft copolymer may be prepared by graft polymerization of an aromatic vinyl monomer and a monomer copolymerizable with the aromatic vinyl monomer, such as acrylonitrile (¶48) (a vinyl cyanide), to a rubber polymer (¶39).
Bae et al. does not teach that the composition comprises from about 2 to about 23 parts by weight of a rubber-modified polystyrene resin that comprises about 3 to about 30% by weight of a rubber polymer and about 70 to about 97% by weight of styrene. However, Park et al. teaches a thermoplastic resin composition that is useful for making molded articles (¶8) comprising an acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene graft copolymer resin, a cyanide vinyl-aromatic vinyl copolymer, and from about 1 to about 20 parts by weight of a styrenic copolymer comprising about 5 to about 20% by weight of a rubber polymer and about 80 to about 95% by weight of styrene (¶9, 35). Bae et al. and Park et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of thermoplastic resin compositions used for molded articles. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 1 to 20 parts by weight of a rubber-modified polystyrene resin, as taught by Park et al., to the composition, as taught by Bae et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain sufficient crack resistance of molded articles made therefrom (¶23).
Bae et al. does not teach that the composition comprises from about 2 to about 23 parts by weight of a polyolefin resin, or from about 1 to about 13 parts by weight of a styrene-butadiene rubber polymer; wherein the polyolefin resin comprises at least one of polypropylene, polyethylene, and a propylene-ethylene copolymer; and wherein the styrene-butadiene rubber polymer is a polymer of a monomer mixture comprising about 25 to about 45% by weight of styrene and about 55 to about 75% by weight of butadiene. However, Schips et al. teaches a thermoplastic material used for molded articles (¶1) that comprises a styrene polymer such as styrene-acrylonitrile copolymers (SAN), acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymers (ABS), or a mixture thereof (¶31), from 1 to 45% by weight of a polyolefin that can be polyethylene, polypropylene, or a propylene-ethylene copolymer (¶34), and from 0.1 to 25% by weight of a styrene-butadiene block copolymer (¶51) comprising 20 to 60% by weight of butadiene and 40 to 80% by weight of styrene (¶52). Bae et al. and Schips et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of thermoplastic resin compositions used for molded articles. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 1 to 45% by weight of a polyolefin and from 0.1 to 25% by weight of a styrene-butadiene block copolymer, as taught by Schips et al., to the composition, as taught by Bae et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to improve processability of the composition (¶36) and to improve the compatibility between polyolefin-rich and styrene polymer-rich phases in a composition (¶41).
Bae et al. does not teach that the composition comprises from about 1 to about 13 parts by weight of a saturated fatty acid bis-amide that is at least one of methylene bis-stearamide, methylene bis-oleamide, ethylene bis-stearamide, ethylene bis-oleamide, hexamethylene bis-stearamide, and hexamethylene bis-oleamide. However, Schulz et al. teaches a thermoplastic composition for molded articles comprising a styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer (Page 26, lines 13-33; Page 36, lines 1-2) and an acrylonitrile-styrene-butadiene graft copolymer (Page 3, line 15 to Page 5, line 2; Page 26, lines 35-37), and from 0.05 to 5% by weight of a lubricant that is ethylene bis(stearamide) (Page 34, line 38 to Page 35, line 12). Bae et al. and Schulz et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of thermoplastic resin compositions used for molded articles. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 0.05 to 5% by weight of ethylene bis(stearamide), as taught by Schulz et al., to the composition, as taught by Bae et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to help the processability of the composition and to increase the ability of the molded article to be released from its mold.
Bae et al. does not teach that the composition comprises from about 1 to about 13 parts by weight of an ethylene-α-olefin rubber polymer that comprises a monomer mixture comprising about 25 to about 55% by weight of ethylene and about 45 to about 75% by weight of α-olefin. However, Fujiwara et al. teaches a thermoplastic resin composition (¶7) used for molded articles (¶53) comprising styrene-based resins such as rubber-reinforced polystyrene, acrylonitrile-styrene copolymers, and acrylonitrile-styrene-butadiene copolymers (¶8); and 2 to 50 parts by weight of an ethylene-octene copolymer (¶41-42). The ethylene-octene copolymer used in Fujiwara et al. is Engage 8150 (¶61), which is the same as that used in the instant invention and therefore should possess the claimed ethylene and octene contents (see, ¶107 of instant PG-PUB). Bae et al. and Fujiwara et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely that of thermoplastic resin compositions used for molded articles. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 2 to 50 parts by weight of an ethylene-octene copolymer, as taught by Fujiwara et al., to the composition, as taught by Bae et al., and would have been motivated to do so to help the brittleness and rigidity of the composition (¶41).
Regarding claim 9, as taught above, the rubber-modified polystyrene resin is included in the composition in an amount of 1 to 20 parts by weight and the polyolefin resin is included in an amount of 1 to 45% by weight1. Therefore, the weight ratio of the rubber-modified polystyrene resin to the polyolefin resin ranges from 1:0.05 to 1:45 (calculated by Examiner; 1/20 = x/1, x=0.05 and 1/1 = x/45, x=45).
Regarding claim 10, as taught above, the saturated fatty acid bis-amide is included in the composition in an amount of 0.05 to 5% by weight and the styrene-butadiene rubber polymer is included in an amount of 0.1 to 25% by weight. Therefore, the weight ratio of the saturated fatty acid bis-amide to the styrene-butadiene rubber polymer ranges from 1:0.02 to 1:500 (calculated by Examiner; 1/5 = x/0.1, x=0.02 and 1/0.05 = x/25, x=500).
Regarding claim 11, as taught above, the styrene-butadiene rubber polymer is included in the composition in an amount of 0.1 to 25% by weight and the ethylene-α-olefin rubber polymer is included in 2 to 50 parts by weight. Therefore, the weight ratio of the styrene-butadiene rubber polymer to the ethylene-α-olefin rubber polymer ranges from 1:0.08 to 1:500 (calculated by Examiner; 1/25 = x/2, x=0.08 and 1/0.1 = x/50, x=500).
Regarding claim 12, Bae et al., Park et al., Schips et al., Schulz et al., and Fujiwara et al. do not teach that the composition has a crack generation strain (ε) of about 1.0 to about 1.4%. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the references. However, the references teach all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e., a crack generation strain (ε) of about 1.0 to about 1.4%, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding claim 13, Bae et al., Park et al., Schips et al., Schulz et al., and Fujiwara et al. do not teach that the composition has a spiral flow length of about 210 to about 280 mm. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the references. However, the references teach all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e., a spiral flow length of about 210 to about 280 mm, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding claims 14, Bae et al., Park et al., Schips et al., Schulz et al., and Fujiwara et al. do not teach that the composition has a notched Izod impact strength of about 12 to about 30 kgf·cm/cm. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the references. However, the references teach all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e., a notched Izod impact strength of about 12 to about 30 kgf·cm/cm, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, EST.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
1 For calculation purposes, the percentage by weight is being taken as parts by weight. This is done to simplify the calculations since the percent by weight and parts by weight ranges generally substantially overlap. This is done for the calculations for claims 10 and 11 as well.