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 .
Applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 17 May 2023 is acknowledged. Claims 1-15 as amended are pending.
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 13 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “an oligomeric phosphate ester”, and the claim also recites “preferably wherein the oligomeric phosphate ester is a solid at room temperature,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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) 1-6, 8, 10-12, 14,and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0317142 (“Chen”) in view of WO 2019/123029 A1 (“Shan”).
As to claim 1, Chen teaches a polycarbonate composition. Chen teaches from 10 to 75 weight percent of a polycarbonate, specifically exemplifying a bisphenol a homopolymer (table 1).
Chen teaches 10 to 30 weight percent of a polyester (abstract) including polyethylene terephthalate and polybutylene terephthalate (para. 0014; table 1, exemplifying PBT and PET). Chen exemplifies PBT and PET in recited amounts (table 5).
Chen teaches a phosphazene flame retardant, thus organophosphorus, in amounts from 2.5 to 14 wt % (para. 0119), which substantially overlaps the recited range. Chen further exemplifies 9 wt % (table 5), and as such, this amount of organophosphorus flame retardant is an obvious modification suggested by Chen.
Chen teaches a polycarbonate-polysiloxane copolymer. While not exemplified, Chen teaches the amount of siloxane in such polymer ranging from 1 to 50 wt % (para. 0072), which includes copolymers in the recited range. Also while the amount of siloxane in the polycarbonate composition is not recited or exemplified, Chen teaches 10 to 40 wt % of the polysiloxane-polycarbonate (para. 0079), which would provide the recited amount of siloxane using a polysiloxane of the recited polysiloxane content. In addition, Shan teaches compositions of polycarbonate in combination with polycarbonate-siloxane, and teaches using polycarbonate siloxane in the range of 35 to 65 wt % to provide the recited siloxane content (abstract). Shan teaches that the use of such polycarbonate-siloxane provides improved chemical resistance (abstract, para. 0008). As such, it would be an obvious modification, given the broad range of siloxane contemplated by Chen and teaching of Shan, to modify the composition of Chen to include polycarbonate-siloxane copolymer having the recited siloxane content to provide improved chemical resistance.
As to claim 2, Chen teaches examples having the recited UL-94 rating and Izod notched impact strength as recited (table 5). While Chen does not teach the results using the polycarbonate-polysiloxane copolymer, and does not discuss the recited tensile elongation retention, Chen in view of Shan suggests the recited composition, which is presumed to inherently have these properties.
As to claim 3, Chen teaches the polycarbonate being a linear homopolymer of bisphenol A (para. 0030,, and teaches the recited weight average molecular weight (para. 0031, Table 1), and as such, the use of bisphenol A linear homopolymer of the recited weight average molecular weight is an obvious modification suggested by Chen.
As to claim 4, Chen suggests the recited structure having bisphenol A carbonate repeating units and polydimethysiloxane repeating units (para. 0073), thus the same is an obvious modification suggested by Chen.
As to claim 5, Chen generally teaches the use of polycarbonate-polysiloxane in a range of 5000 to 50000 daltons (g/mol) weight average molecular weight, which substantially overlaps the recited range, and as such, the use of polysiloxane-polycarbonate in the recited range is an obvious modification suggested by Chen. In addition, Shan teaches the use of polycarbonate-polysiloxane in the recited siloxane content and molecular weight range (para. 0027), and thus the recited range is an obvious modification of Chen suggested by Chen and Shan.
As to claim 6, Chen teaches the use of phosphazene as organophosphorus flame retardant.
As to claim 8, Chen exemplifies compositions having 0.8 parts of additives other than the aforementioned components (table 5).
As to claims 10 and 11, Chen teaches 10 to 75 weight percent of the polycarbonate, which may be bisphenol A polycarbonate homopolymer (para. 0064), which encompasses the recited range of 50 to 75 weight percent, 10 to 40 weight percent of polycarbonate-polysiloxane copolymer (para. 0079), which substantially overlaps the recite range of 5 to 20 weight percent, 20 to 40 weight percent of the polyester (para. 0020), that may be polyethylene terephthalate or polybutylene terephthalate as required by claims 10 and 11, which substantially overlaps the recited range, and 2.5 to 14 wt % of the phosphazenes (para. 0119), which substantially overlaps the recited range. It would be obvious to modify the composition of Chen in view of Shan within these ranges, given that Chen teaches these ranges provide the required characteristics.
As to claim 12, Chen teaches the polycarbonate being a linear homopolymer of bisphenol A (para. 0030,, and teaches the recited weight average molecular weight (para. 0031, Table 1), and as such, the use of bisphenol A linear homopolymer of the recited weight average molecular weight is an obvious modification suggested by Chen.
Chen suggests the recited structure having bisphenol A carbonate repeating units and polydimethysiloxane repeating units (para. 0073), thus the same is an obvious modification suggested by Chen.
Chen specifically exemplifies cyclic phosphazenes compounds (para. 0111; table 1, exemplifying FP-110).
Chen teaches examples having the recited UL-94 rating and Izod notched impact strength as recited (table 5). While Chen does not teach the results using the polycarbonate-polysiloxane copolymer, and does not discuss the recited tensile elongation retention, Chen in view of Shan suggests the recited composition, which is presumed to inherently have these properties.
As to claim 14, Chen teaches melt mixing the components in an extruder (para. 0126).
As to claim 15, Chen teaches forming articles (para. 0130).
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0317150 (“Wan”) in view of WO 2019/123029 A1 (“Shan”).
As to claim 1, Wan teaches a polycarbonate composition (abstract) comprising 21.7 to 81.3 wt T of a polycarbonate (para. 0009). Wan suggests bisphenol A polycarbonate homopolymer (para. 0017, 0068, Table 1, exemplifying bisphenol A polycarbonate CAS 11211-39-3).
Wan teaches 12 to 30 wt % of a polyester, more specifically polyethylene terephthalate or polybutylene terephthalate (para. 0049), and teaches ranges within the recited range (para. 0062).
Wan teaches an organophosphorus flame retardant (abstract), specifically teaching amounts in a preferred range of 1 to 20 wt % and preferred range of 8 to 12 wt % (para. 0090), exemplifying amounts in the recited range (Table 3). As such, the recited amount of organophosphorus flame retardant is an obvious modification for achieving flame retardant properties.
Wan teaches a polycarbonate-polysiloxane copolymer (abstract). While the siloxane content is not exemplified, Wan teaches the copolymer may comprise 1 to 50 wt % of siloxane units (para. 0078), and thus siloxane amounts in the recited range are contemplated. Further, Wan teaches the use of 30 to 50 wt % of polysiloxane-polycarbonate (para. 0082), which would provide the recited amounts of total siloxane content. In addition, Shan teaches compositions of polycarbonate in combination with polycarbonate-siloxane, and teaches using polycarbonate siloxane in the range of 35 to 65 wt % to provide the recited siloxane content (abstract). Shan teaches that the use of such polycarbonate-siloxane provides improved chemical resistance (abstract, para. 0008). As such, it would be an obvious modification, given the broad range of siloxane contemplated by Chen and teaching of Shan, to modify the composition of Wan to include polycarbonate-siloxane copolymer having the recited siloxane content to provide improved chemical resistance.
As to claim 2, Wan teaches examples having the recited UL-94 rating a (table 5). While Chen does not teach the results using the polycarbonate-polysiloxane copolymer, and does not discuss the recited tensile elongation retention, Wan in view of Shan suggests the recited composition, which is presumed to inherently have these properties. Wan does not exemplify the recited Izod notched impact strength, but approaches that threshold, and teaches that the compositions of Wan can include impact modifiers (para. 0098), and teaches the desirability of a notched Izod impact strength of greater than 400 J/m at 23 degrees C (para. 0126), which includes the recited range. As such, Wan provides the rationale and means for providing the recited Izod impact strength.
As to claim 3, Wan teaches linear polycarbonate homopolymer of bisphenol A (para. 0066), and teaches a weight average molecular weight preferably of 15000 to 35000 Daltons (para. 0068), and therefore Wan suggests the recited characteristics.
As to claim 4, Wan teaches the polycarbonate polysiloxane copolymer structure having the recited units (para. 0081).
As to claim 5, Wan teaches a weight average molecular weight of 5000 to 50000 Daltons (g/mol), which substantially overlaps the recited range. in addition, Shan teaches the use of polycarbonate-polysiloxane in the recited siloxane content and molecular weight range (para. 0027), and thus the recited range is an obvious modification of Wan suggested by Wan and Shan.
As to claim 6, Wan teaches monomeric or oligomeric phosphates (para. 0083).
As to claim 7, Wan teaches the use of PBT derived from recycled material or sourced from butanediol derived from cellulose (para. 0052), a biobased material; therefore, the use of such materials for the polyester is an obvious modification suggested by Wan.
As to claim 8, Wan teaches the use of additives in the recited range (para. 0105).
As to claims 10 and 11, Wan teaches 25 to 73.5 weight percent of the polycarbonate, which may be bisphenol A polycarbonate homopolymer (para. 0064), which encompasses the recited range of 50 to 75 weight percent (para. 0017), 5 to 30 weight percent of polycarbonate-polysiloxane copolymer (paras. 0017, 0082), which substantially overlaps the recite range, 20 to 25 weight percent of the polyester (para. 0016), that may be polyethylene terephthalate or polybutylene terephthalate as required by claims 10 and 11, which is within the recited range, and 4 to 16 wt % of the organophosphorus flame retardant (para. 0119), which encompasses the recited range. It would be obvious to modify the composition of Chen in view of Shan within these ranges, given that Chen teaches these ranges provide the required characteristics.
As to claim 13, Wan teaches linear polycarbonate homopolymer of bisphenol A (para. 0066), and teaches a weight average molecular weight preferably of 15000 to 35000 Daltons (para. 0068), and therefore Wan suggests linear polycarbonate in the recited molecular weight range.
Wan teaches the polycarbonate polysiloxane copolymer structure having the recited units (para. 0081). Wan teaches a weight average molecular weight of 5000 to 50000 Daltons (g/mol), which substantially overlaps the recited range. In addition, Shan teaches the use of polycarbonate-polysiloxane in the recited siloxane content and molecular weight range (para. 0027), and thus the recited range is an obvious modification of Wan suggested by Wan and Shan.
Wan teaches oligomeric phosphate flame retardant, preferably a bisphenol A flame retardant (para. 0087) having a phosphorus content in the recited range.
Wan teaches examples having the recited UL-94 rating a (table 5). While Chen does not teach the results using the polycarbonate-polysiloxane copolymer, and does not discuss the recited tensile elongation retention, Wan in view of Shan suggests the recited composition, which is presumed to inherently have these properties. Wan does not exemplify the recited Izod notched impact strength, but approaches that threshold, and teaches that the compositions of Wan can include impact modifiers (para. 0098), and teaches the desirability of a notched Izod impact strength of greater than 400 J/m at 23 degrees C (para. 0126), which includes the recited range. As such, Wan provides the rationale and means for providing the recited Izod impact strength.
As to claim 14, Wan teaches melt mixing the components (para. 0107).
As to claim 15, Wan teaches articles (claim 16).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0317142 (“Chen”) in view of WO 2019/123029 A1 (“Shan”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of US 2015/0237866 (“Goudswaard”).
As to claim 9, Chen teaches the use of additives (para. 0109), but does not discuss antimicrobial additives. Goudswaard teaches that polymer compositions including polycarbonate can be given antimicrobial properties by the addition of 0 to 5 wt % of a zinc additive and 0 to 5 wt % of an acid stabilizer (paras. 0119, 0122), which together roughly overlap the recited range. It is therefore presumed that these components are an antimicrobial additive, and it would be an obvious modification to employ the additives of Goudswaard to a polycarbonate composition such as that of Chen to provide antimicrobial characteristic.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0317150 (“Wan”) in view of WO 2019/123029 A1 (“Shan”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of US 2015/0237866 (“Goudswaard”).
As to claim 9, Wan teaches the use of additives, but does not discuss antimicrobial additives. Goudswaard teaches that polymer compositions including polycarbonate can be given antimicrobial properties by the addition of 0 to 5 wt % of a zinc additive and 0 to 5 wt % of an acid stabilizer (paras. 0119, 0122), which together roughly overlap the recited range. It is therefore presumed that these components are an antimicrobial additive, and it would be an obvious modification to employ the additives of Goudswaard to a polycarbonate composition such as that of Wan to provide antimicrobial characteristic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764