BogerdNotice 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 .
NOTE: that on the IDS submitted 5/19/2023, several references were not considered since they are in German. Applicants failed to meet their burden of supplying a translation, translated abstract, and/or a statement of relevancy.
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 3-6, 10,11 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.
Claims 3-5 recite a Markush grouping of flame retardant components, which contain improper Markush language since the language is still open ended. For a proper Markush grouping, the language must be closed, i.e. “selected from the group consisting of “. See MPEP 2173.05(h).
Claim 11, which depends from claim 10 which depends from 3, contains the limitation “wherein at least 0.1% by weight of anti-drip agent is present”. This is deemed indefinite since claim 3 contains at most 10% bw of component F. The “at least” limitation has no upper limit, hence it appears to be outside of the upper limit established by claim 3 of 10%.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected for depending upon the rejected claims above and fail to rectify the issues mentioned.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, obvious under 35 USC 103 by WO 2013152292-Flores et al.
Flores teaches a composition comprising:
1) 80-93 wt% [0142] of an aromatic polycarbonate, see 0021,
2) 7-20 wt% of titanium dioxide,
3) a plasticizer, such as epoxidized soybean oil (ESBO), see 0122,
4) 0-10 wt% of a flame retardant [0142].
5) 0.06 wt% (more generally 0.01-5) a heat stabilizer, such as Irgafos 168, see table 3
6) 0.1-10 pbw of a flame retardant, see [0108]
7) an anti-drip agent, see [0117]
The epoxidized soybean oil is not exemplified, nor is there an amount specifically disclosed. 0122 discloses related materials used in the composition, including epox. Soybean oil, another of those materials being pentaerythritol tetrastearate (PETS). The examples show PETS being present in an amount of 0.2 wt%. Therefore, since the PETS and epox soybean oil are disclosed as being equivalent with respect to them being additives, it is position of the examiner that one skilled in the art would have expected all of those additives to be used in a general amount of 0.2 wt%, the same as the exemplified PETS. Additionally, with respect to claims 7 and 8, is generally known and accepted (also admitted by applicants’’ page 13 of the present spec.), that epoxidized soybean oil IS known as a combination of triesters of glycerol with linolenic and other related acids; and also, would be expected to have most all of the C=C bonds epoxidized.
Flore further teaches that these compositions can be used in a number of fields: molded articles, reflective articles, specifically a reflector for an LED source, see [0148-0149].
Therefore, the claims are anticipated.
In the alternative, if the disclosure of Flores is considered to lack sufficient specificity for anticipation, then one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to combine the claimed elements in their respective amounts since the reference does disclose each of the claimed elements, some found in laundry lists, wherein their selections would be considered prima facie obvious since they are readily suggested by Flores.
The method claims 14-16 are considered anticipated/obvious since they merely claim the result of making the claimed composition, and if not specifically mentioned by the reference would be considered met since those results would be expected to naturally flow from the making of the composition.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flores et al -WO 201352292 in view of van den Bogerd et al- US 20140357765.
The disclosure of Flores as above, is repeated here as such. Flores fails to disclose, specifically a ESBO which is the CAS # 8013-07-8.
Van den Bogerd discloses a highly related polycarbonate composition which also contains ESBO. Van den Bogerd teaches the addition of such improves color stability of the composition, wherein 8013-07-8 is exemplified in table 1, see 0067-0068.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the composition as disclosed by Flores and to select the ESBO 8013-07-8 as the additive, so one can improve the color stability of the composition, as taught by van den Bogerd.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY P GULAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1302. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4pm.
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, Randy P 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.
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.
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766