DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/19/2023 and 8/3/2023 were filed timely. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 1/9/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-13 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2019/0366621 A1) to Achten et al. (hereinafter Achten).
Achten is directed toward a polycarbonate composition containing a flame retardant. Achten discloses at paragraph [0013] that the composition contains 20% to 99% of an aromatic polycarbonate, which reads on Applicants range of 50% to 90.38%. Achten discloses at paragraph [0128] that titanium dioxide fillers in common amounts are added. Achten discloses at paragraph [0150] that fillers may be added at 0.00% to 10% by weight, which reads on Applicants 5 to 20% by weight of titanium dioxide. Achten discloses at paragraph [0018] that 0.0% to 5% of at lease one anti dripping agent may be added, which reads on Applicants range of 0.1 to 0.8%. Achten discloses at paragraph [0015] that 0.0 to 1.0% by weight of a flame retarder is present, which reads on Applicants range of 0.02% to 0.15%. Achten discloses at paragraph [0143] that flame retardant compounds reading on Applicants sulfonate compounds. Achten discloses at paragraph [0016] that 0 to 50% of impact modifiers are present. Achten discloses at paragraph [0092] that impact modifiers comprises one or more graft copolymers. Achten discloses at paragraph [0094] that the graft base is an acrylate rubber. Achten discloses at paragraph [0096] that the graft is a C1-C8 methacrylate. Achten discloses at paragraph [0128] that additives such as UV absorbers are added. Achten discloses at paragraph [0124] that the antidrip is a PTFE polymer. Achten discloses at paragraph [0102] that graft polymer has a core shell structure. It has been held that the mere fact that a reference suggest a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of these combinations less obvious, citing Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989). It would be obvious for One skilled in the art would select Applicants composition from the list.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the disclosure of Achten to select from the list disclosed the Applicants composition that would form a prime facie case of obviousness from claims 1-9.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D WASHVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
/JEFFREY D WASHVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights