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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/11/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2004/0166323) in view of Seidel et al. (US 2019/0119491).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a multilayer article comprising a coating layer comprising a block copolyestercarbonate (“a film consisting essentially of at least one of polycarbonate and copolycarbonate”), a second layer comprising a polymer having carbonate structural units, and a substrate layer (“a carrier layer”) (Paragraph [0008]). The second layer may further contain a colorant and an adhesive layer may be present between the second layer and the substrate layer wherein the adhesive layer has the same color as the second layer (“one layer consisting of a colorant or a colorant composition in contact with the carrier layer and applied a film”) (Paragraphs [0035]-[0036]). The substrate layer may be formed from a blend of materials including a PC/ABS blend (“a carrier layer composed of a thermoplastic molding compound”) (Paragraphs [0042]-[0047]).
Wang is silent with respect to the PC/ABS blend of the substrate layer being the thermoplastic moulding compound required by claim 1.
Seidel teaches a light-stable moulding compound which are anti-static and has a low-temperature toughness (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0001]). The compositions comprise (A) 50% to 90% of an aromatic polycarbonate and (B) 5% to 40% of a polymer containing at least one rubber-modified vinyl (co)polymer (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0021]-[0024]). The vinyl copolymer is formed from 80% to 95% of at least one vinyl monomer (“B.1”) and 5% to 20% by weight of an elastomeric polybutadiene graft base, which further has a glass transition point of less than 50 degrees (“B.2”) (Pg. 2, Paragraphs [0025]-[0026; Pg. 6, Paragraph [0137]). The vinyl copolymer also contains polybutadiene-containing rubber particles which have been grafted with the vinyl monomers above and contains inclusions of the vinyl copolymer consisting of the vinyl monomers above (“disperse phase i.1 and i.2”) (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0028]). The copolymer additionally includes a vinyl (co)polymer matrix consisting of the vinyl monomers above which is not bound to the rubber particles (“ii”) (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0029]). The copolymer additionally has a D50 of 0.3 to 10 microns measured by ultracentrifugation (Pg. 6, Paragraph [0132]). The composition may further include 0% to 20% of one or more additives (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0035]). The composition further includes no other rubber-modified vinyl copolymers (“wherein the thermoplastic molding compound contains less than 2% by weight of rubber-based graft polymers distinct from B)”) (Pg. 7, Paragraph [0148]). The polybutadiene content in each of the components is preferably 1.5% to 4.0% by weight (“the thermoplastic molding compound has a rubber content of at least 1.5% by weight”) (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the PC/ABS blend substrate layer of Wang from the compositions of Seidel which teaches compositions containing polycarbonate and a vinyl copolymer and provides anti-static and has a low-temperature toughness.
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches the articles as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Wang aims to provide the articles which long term color stability by providing transparency and attractiveness (“wherein the film is transilluminable”) (Paragraphs [0003]; [0031]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches the articles as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The coating layer may further include art-recognized additives (Paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the articles as discussed above with respect to claim 1.The coating layer may have a thickness of 2 to 2500 microns (2 microns to 2.5 mm) (Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches the articles as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Wang is silent with respect to the second layer having a visual transmittance of at most 10% as determined according to DIN/ISO 13468-2, 2006 Version, with a D65 light source and an angle to the observer of 10°.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the colorant and/or the colorant composition such that compounds or compositions which are significantly identical cannot have different properties. MPEP 2112.01: "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).
In the instant case, applicant’s specification describes these subregions having the colorant compositions formed from a binder, including thermoplastic polycarbonates, and an organic and/or an inorganic dye or pigment (PGPUB, Pg. 7, Paragraphs [0131]-[0150]).
As discussed above, Wang teaches the second layer being formed from polycarbonate structural units and a suitable colorant.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the significantly identical compositions between the second layer of Wang and that of applicant’s invention would have significantly identical properties, including, but not limited to having a visual transmittance of at most 10% as determined according to DIN/ISO 13468-2, 2006 Version, with a D65 light source and an angle to the observer of 10°.
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches the articles as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the compositions comprise (A) 50% to 90% of an aromatic polycarbonate and (B) 5% to 40% of a polymer containing at least one rubber-modified vinyl (co)polymer, which respectively correspond to components A and B of claim 1. Additionally, the compositions comprise components (C)-(E) which total to 3% to 47% by weight of the compositions (Pg. 2, Paragraphs [0033]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the articles as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, Seidel teaches the polybutadiene content in each of the components is preferably 1.5% to 4.0% by weight.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2004/0166323) in view of Seidel et al. (US 2019/0119491) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hermans et al. (WO 2018/046697).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the articles as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Wang further teaches the articles being utilize for automobiles (Paragraph [0061]). The substrate layer may also have any suitable thickness provided the articles can be processed into a final desired form (Paragraph [0042]).
Wang is silent with respect to the substrate having a thickness of 1 to 5 mm.
Hermans teaches a substrate comprising a polycarbonate and ABS blend (Paragraph [011]). The substrate may be used in the automotive field and has a thickness of 1 to 8 mm (Paragraph [02]; [087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the substrates of Wang, which are used in the automotive industry, with a thickness of 1 to 8 mm as taught by Hermans, which also teaches a PC/ABS blend for a substrate in the automotive field.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2004/0166323) in view of Seidel et al. (WO 2019/170569) with (US 2020/0407547) as an English language translation.
Regarding claim 16, Wang teaches a multilayer article comprising a coating layer comprising a block copolyestercarbonate (“a film consisting essentially of at least one of polycarbonate and copolycarbonate”), a second layer comprising a polymer having carbonate structural units, and a substrate layer (“a carrier layer”) (Paragraph [0008]). The second layer may further contain a colorant and an adhesive layer may be present between the second layer and the substrate layer wherein the adhesive layer has the same color as the second layer (“one layer consisting of a colorant or a colorant composition in contact with the carrier layer and applied a film”) (Paragraphs [0035]-[0036]). The substrate layer may be formed from a blend of materials including a PC/ABS blend (“a carrier layer composed of a thermoplastic molding compound”) (Paragraphs [0042]-[0047]).
Wang is silent with respect to the PC/ABS blend of the substrate layer being the thermoplastic moulding compound required by claim 16.
Seidel teaches compositions which has improvements over compositions of pure polycarbonate including melt flowability, stress cracking, toughness, stiffness and heat resistance (Pg. 1, Paragraphs [0004]-[0007]). The compositions include an aromatic polycarbonate and a rubber-modified vinyl copolymer (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0032]-[0033]). The vinyl copolymer is formed from 80% to 95% of at least one vinyl monomer (“B.1”) and 5% to 20% by weight of an elastomeric polybutadiene graft base, which further has a glass transition point of less than 50 degrees and contains at least 50% by weight base on B.2 of structural units derived from 1,3 butadiene (“B.2”) (Pg. 3, Paragraphs [0034]-[0035]). The rubber-modified vinyl (co)polymer B contains a disperse phase of rubber particles grafted with vinyl (co)polymer composite of structural units B.1 and vinyl (co)polymer likewise composed of structural units of B.1 enclosed in the rubber particles as a separate disperse phase (“i.1 and i.2”) (Pg. 3, Paragraphs [0036]-[0039]). The copolymer additionally includes a rubber-free vinyl (co)polymer matrix consisting of structural units of B.1 which is not bonded to the rubber particles and is not enclosed in these rubber particles (“ii”) (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0040]). The disperse phase of (i) has a median diameter D50 measured by ultracentrifugation of 0.3 to 2.0 μm and optionally at least one further component selected from polymer additives and polymeric blend partners (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0041]-[0042]). The component B has a polybutadiene content of 5 to 18% by weight and includes no other graft polymers other than B.1 and B.2 (Pg. 6, Paragraphs [0106]; [0109]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the PC/ABS blend of the susbtrate layer of Wang from the compositions of Seidel which teaches improvements over compositions of pure polycarbonate including melt flowability, stress cracking, toughness, stiffness and heat resistance.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2004/0166323) in view of Seidel et al. (WO 2019/170569) with (US 2020/0407547) as an English language translation.
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches a multilayer article comprising a coating layer comprising a block copolyestercarbonate (“a film consisting essentially of at least one of polycarbonate and copolycarbonate”), a second layer comprising a polymer having carbonate structural units, and a substrate layer (“a carrier layer”) (Paragraph [0008]). The second layer may further contain a colorant and an adhesive layer may be present between the second layer and the substrate layer wherein the adhesive layer has the same color as the second layer (“one layer consisting of a colorant or a colorant composition in contact with the carrier layer and applied a film”) (Paragraphs [0035]-[0036]). The substrate layer may be formed from a blend of materials including a PC/ABS blend (“a carrier layer composed of a thermoplastic molding compound”) (Paragraphs [0042]-[0047]).
Wang is silent with respect to the PC/ABS blend of the substrate layer being the thermoplastic moulding compound required by claim 17.
Seidel teaches compositions which has improvements over compositions of pure polycarbonate including melt flowability, stress cracking, toughness, stiffness and heat resistance (Pg. 1, Paragraphs [0004]-[0007]). The compositions include an aromatic polycarbonate and a rubber-modified vinyl copolymer (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0032]-[0033]). The vinyl copolymer is formed from 80% to 95% of at least one vinyl monomer (“B.1”) and 5% to 20% by weight of an elastomeric polybutadiene graft base, which further has a glass transition point of less than 50 degrees and contains at least 50% by weight base on B.2 of structural units derived from 1,3 butadiene (“B.2”) (Pg. 3, Paragraphs [0034]-[0035]). The rubber-modified vinyl (co)polymer B contains a disperse phase of rubber particles grafted with vinyl (co)polymer composite of structural units B.1 and vinyl (co)polymer likewise composed of structural units of B.1 enclosed in the rubber particles as a separate disperse phase (“i.1 and i.2”) (Pg. 3, Paragraphs [0036]-[0039]). The copolymer additionally includes a rubber-free vinyl (co)polymer matrix consisting of structural units of B.1 which is not bonded to the rubber particles and is not enclosed in these rubber particles (“ii”) (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0040]). The disperse phase of (i) has a median diameter D50 measured by ultracentrifugation of 0.3 to 2.0 μm and optionally at least one further component selected from polymer additives and polymeric blend partners (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0041]-[0042]). The component B has a polybutadiene content of 5 to 18% by weight and includes no other graft polymers other than B.1 and B.2 (Pg. 6, Paragraphs [0106]; [0109]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the PC/ABS blend of the susbtrate layer of Wang from the compositions of Seidel which teaches improvements over compositions of pure polycarbonate including melt flowability, stress cracking, toughness, stiffness and heat resistance.
In addition to the rejection above, Claims 1-2, 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 2007/0231576) in view of Seidel et al. (US 2019/0119491).
Regarding claim 1, Davis teaches multilayer films which may be three-layer films including a substrate layer, a tie layer, and a superstrate/surface layer (“a film”) (Paragraphs [0001]; [0114]; Fig. 1). The substrate layer may be formed from a PC/ABS resin (“a carrier layer composed of a thermoplastic molding compound”) (Paragraph [0124]). The tie layer may be formed with a colorant and the superstrate layer may be a polycarbonate layer (“one layer consisting of a colorant or a colorant composition in contact with the carrier layer comprising at least one of polycarbonate and copolycarbonates” & “the film, wherein the film has a polycarbonate content of at least 90% by weight”) (Paragraphs [0129]; [0153]).
Davis is silent with respect to the PC/ABS blend of the substrate layer being the thermoplastic moulding compound required by claim 1.
Seidel teaches a light-stable moulding compound which are anti-static and has a low-temperature toughness (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0001]). The compositions comprise (A) 50% to 90% of an aromatic polycarbonate and (B) 5% to 40% of a polymer containing at least one rubber-modified vinyl (co)polymer (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0021]-[0024]). The vinyl copolymer is formed from 80% to 95% of at least one vinyl monomer (“B.1”) and 5% to 20% by weight of an elastomeric polybutadiene graft base, which further has a glass transition point of less than 50 degrees (“B.2”) (Pg. 2, Paragraphs [0025]-[0026; Pg. 6, Paragraph [0137]). The vinyl copolymer also contains polybutadiene-containing rubber particles which have been grafted with the vinyl monomers above and contains inclusions of the vinyl copolymer consisting of the vinyl monomers above (“disperse phase i.1 and i.2”) (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0028]). The copolymer additionally includes a vinyl (co)polymer matrix consisting of the vinyl monomers above which is not bound to the rubber particles (“ii”) (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0029]). The copolymer additionally has a D50 of 0.3 to 10 microns measured by ultracentrifugation (Pg. 6, Paragraph [0132]). The composition may further include 0% to 20% of one or more additives (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0035]). The composition further includes no other rubber-modified vinyl copolymers (“wherein the thermoplastic molding compound contains less than 2% by weight of rubber-based graft polymers distinct from B)”) (Pg. 7, Paragraph [0148]). The polybutadiene content in each of the components is preferably 1.5% to 4.0% by weight (“the thermoplastic molding compound has a rubber content of at least 1.5% by weight”) (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the PC/ABS blend substrate layer of Davis from the compositions of Seidel which teaches compositions containing polycarbonate and a vinyl copolymer and provides anti-static and has a low-temperature toughness.
Regarding claim 2, Davis teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Davis further teaches the surface layer being transparent and the colorant of the tie layer providing optical effects (“transilluminable”) (Paragraphs [0129]; [0153]).
Regarding claim 6, Davis teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Davis further teaches the surface layer having a thickness from 76 to 762 microns (Paragraph [0141]).
Regarding claim 8, Davis teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Davis is silent with respect to the second layer having a visual transmittance of at most 10% as determined according to DIN/ISO 13468-2, 2006 Version, with a D65 light source and an angle to the observer of 10°.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the colorant and/or the colorant composition such that compounds or compositions which are significantly identical cannot have different properties. MPEP 2112.01: "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).
In the instant case, applicant’s specification describes these subregions having the colorant compositions formed from a binder, including thermoplastic polycarbonates, and an organic and/or an inorganic dye or pigment (PGPUB, Pg. 7, Paragraphs [0131]-[0150]).
As discussed above, Davis teaches the tie layers with the colorants. Davis further teaches the tie layer being formed from a composition comprising a polycarbonate (Paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the significantly identical compositions between the tie layer of Davis and that of applicant’s invention would have significantly identical properties, including, but not limited to having a visual transmittance of at most 10% as determined according to DIN/ISO 13468-2, 2006 Version, with a D65 light source and an angle to the observer of 10°.
Regarding claim 9, Davis teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the compositions comprise (A) 50% to 90% of an aromatic polycarbonate and (B) 5% to 40% of a polymer containing at least one rubber-modified vinyl (co)polymer, which respectively correspond to components A and B of claim 1. Additionally, the compositions comprise components (C)-(E) which total to 3% to 47% by weight of the compositions (Pg. 2, Paragraphs [0033]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 10, Davis teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, Seidel teaches the polybutadiene content in each of the components is preferably 1.5% to 4.0% by weight.
In addition to the rejection above, Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 2007/0231576) in view of Seidel et al. (US 2019/0119491) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wang (US 2004/0166323).
Regarding claim 3, Davis teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Davis is silent with respect to the surface layer containing one or more additives.
Wang teaches a multilayer article comprising a coating layer which protects other layers from weatherability comprising a block copolyestercarbonate (Paragraph [0008]). The coating layer may further contain additives such as UV screeners and UV absorbers (Paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the surface layers of Davis to further include additives such as UV screeners and UV absorbers in order to protect the layers from weatherability such as UV rays as taught by Wang.
In addition to the rejection above, Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 2007/0231576) in view of Seidel et al. (US 2019/0119491) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hermans et al. (WO 2018/046697).
Regarding claim 7, Davis teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Davis further teaches the substrates having any suitable thickness and being used in the automotive industry (Paragraphs [0117]; [0172]).
Davis is silent with respect to the substrate having a thickness of 1 to 5 mm.
Hermans teaches a substrate comprising a polycarbonate and ABS blend (Paragraph [011]). The substrate may be used in the automotive field and has a thickness of 1 to 8 mm (Paragraph [02]; [087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the substrates of Wang, which are used in the automotive industry, with a thickness of 1 to 8 mm as taught by Hermans, which also teaches a PC/ABS blend for a substrate in the automotive field.
In addition to the rejection above, Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 2007/0231576) in view of Seidel et al. (WO 2019/170569) with (US 2020/0407547) as an English language translation.
Regarding claim 16, Davis teaches multilayer films which may be three-layer films including a substrate layer, a tie layer, and a superstrate/surface layer (“a film”) (Paragraphs [0001]; [0114]; Fig. 1). The substrate layer may be formed from a PC/ABS resin (“a carrier layer composed of a thermoplastic molding compound”) (Paragraph [0124]). The tie layer may be formed with a colorant and the superstrate layer may be a polycarbonate layer (“one layer consisting of a colorant or a colorant composition in contact with the carrier layer comprising at least one of polycarbonate and copolycarbonates” & “the film, wherein the film has a polycarbonate content of at least 90% by weight”) (Paragraphs [0129]; [0153]).
Davis is silent with respect to the PC/ABS blend of the substrate layer being the thermoplastic moulding compound required by claim 16.
Seidel teaches compositions which has improvements over compositions of pure polycarbonate including melt flowability, stress cracking, toughness, stiffness and heat resistance (Pg. 1, Paragraphs [0004]-[0007]). The compositions include an aromatic polycarbonate and a rubber-modified vinyl copolymer (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0032]-[0033]). The vinyl copolymer is formed from 80% to 95% of at least one vinyl monomer (“B.1”) and 5% to 20% by weight of an elastomeric polybutadiene graft base, which further has a glass transition point of less than 50 degrees and contains at least 50% by weight base on B.2 of structural units derived from 1,3 butadiene (“B.2”) (Pg. 3, Paragraphs [0034]-[0035]). The rubber-modified vinyl (co)polymer B contains a disperse phase of rubber particles grafted with vinyl (co)polymer composite of structural units B.1 and vinyl (co)polymer likewise composed of structural units of B.1 enclosed in the rubber particles as a separate disperse phase (“i.1 and i.2”) (Pg. 3, Paragraphs [0036]-[0039]). The copolymer additionally includes a rubber-free vinyl (co)polymer matrix consisting of structural units of B.1 which is not bonded to the rubber particles and is not enclosed in these rubber particles (“ii”) (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0040]). The disperse phase of (i) has a median diameter D50 measured by ultracentrifugation of 0.3 to 2.0 μm and optionally at least one further component selected from polymer additives and polymeric blend partners (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0041]-[0042]). The component B has a polybutadiene content of 5 to 18% by weight and includes no other graft polymers other than B.1 and B.2 (Pg. 6, Paragraphs [0106]; [0109]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the PC/ABS blend of the susbtrate layer of Davis from the compositions of Seidel which teaches improvements over compositions of pure polycarbonate including melt flowability, stress cracking, toughness, stiffness and heat resistance.
In addition to the rejection above, Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 2007/0231576) in view of Seidel et al. (WO 2019/170569) with (US 2020/0407547) as an English language translation.
Regarding claim 17, Davis teaches multilayer films which may be three-layer films including a substrate layer, a tie layer, and a superstrate/surface layer (“a film”) (Paragraphs [0001]; [0114]; Fig. 1). The substrate layer may be formed from a PC/ABS resin (“a carrier layer composed of a thermoplastic molding compound”) (Paragraph [0124]). The tie layer may be formed with a colorant and the superstrate layer may be a polycarbonate layer (“one layer consisting of a colorant or a colorant composition in contact with the carrier layer comprising at least one of polycarbonate and copolycarbonates” & “the film, wherein the film has a polycarbonate content of at least 90% by weight”) (Paragraphs [0129]; [0153]).
Davis is silent with respect to the PC/ABS blend of the substrate layer being the thermoplastic moulding compound required by claim 17.
Seidel teaches compositions which has improvements over compositions of pure polycarbonate including melt flowability, stress cracking, toughness, stiffness and heat resistance (Pg. 1, Paragraphs [0004]-[0007]). The compositions include an aromatic polycarbonate and a rubber-modified vinyl copolymer (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0032]-[0033]). The vinyl copolymer is formed from 80% to 95% of at least one vinyl monomer (“B.1”) and 5% to 20% by weight of an elastomeric polybutadiene graft base, which further has a glass transition point of less than 50 degrees and contains at least 50% by weight base on B.2 of structural units derived from 1,3 butadiene (“B.2”) (Pg. 3, Paragraphs [0034]-[0035]). The rubber-modified vinyl (co)polymer B contains a disperse phase of rubber particles grafted with vinyl (co)polymer composite of structural units B.1 and vinyl (co)polymer likewise composed of structural units of B.1 enclosed in the rubber particles as a separate disperse phase (“i.1 and i.2”) (Pg. 3, Paragraphs [0036]-[0039]). The copolymer additionally includes a rubber-free vinyl (co)polymer matrix consisting of structural units of B.1 which is not bonded to the rubber particles and is not enclosed in these rubber particles (“ii”) (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0040]). The disperse phase of (i) has a median diameter D50 measured by ultracentrifugation of 0.3 to 2.0 μm and optionally at least one further component selected from polymer additives and polymeric blend partners (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0041]-[0042]). The component B has a polybutadiene content of 5 to 18% by weight and includes no other graft polymers other than B.1 and B.2 (Pg. 6, Paragraphs [0106]; [0109]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the PC/ABS blend of the susbtrate layer of Davis from the compositions of Seidel which teaches improvements over compositions of pure polycarbonate including melt flowability, stress cracking, toughness, stiffness and heat resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8, applicant argues that the amendment to claims 1, 16 and 17 overcomes the teachings of Wang such that the claim now requires one layer consisting of a colorant or colorant composition and applied to the film layer. Applicant argues that this requires contact between the colorant layer and the film layer and Wang teaches an adhesive layer between these two layers.
The examiner is unpersuaded by applicant’s arguments such that the Response to Arguments dated 02/10/2026 on pages 10-11 indicates that the claim does not require direct contact and only contact. The term applied to indicates the same such that the colorant layer does not need to be directly applied to the film layer. Furthermore, the claims include comprising language such that adhesive layers may be present. As such, the examiner contends that the teachings of Wang are still applicable and teach “one layer consisting of a colorant or a colorant composition in contact with the carrier layer and applied a film” as required by the claims.
Additionally, in view of the amendments and consideration that the claims require direct contact, an additional rejection is made in view of Davis as discussed above with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections such that Davis teaches a three-layer structure having a substrate layer (“carrier layer”), a tie layer (“colorant layer”), and a surface layer (“film”).
The current rejection is made FINAL in view of the amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights