Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/086,984

THERMOPLASTIC RESIN COMPOSITION FOR LOW GLOSS NON-PAINTING, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING MOLDED ARTICLE USING SAME, AND MOLDED ARTICLE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 22, 2022
Examiner
REUTHER, ARRIE L
Art Unit
1764
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samyang Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
469 granted / 663 resolved
+5.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
675
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
49.0%
+9.0% vs TC avg
§102
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
§112
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 663 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 9/12/2025. Claims 10-11 were canceled. Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are now pending in the application. 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. Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0332235 A1) in view of Sohn, et al. (KR 0170020129 A; English Machine Translation incorporated herewith). Regarding claim 1, Yi et al. teach a thermoplastic resin composition comprising a polycarbonate, a polysiloxane-polycarbonate copolymer, a polyester, a master-batched carbon black and additives (claims 1-3, Abstract). Yi et al. do not specifically teach the heat resistance improver and are further silent on the amount of N-phenylmaleimide compound, the amount of vinyl aromatic (styrene), the amount of maleic anhydride in the heat resistance improver and further silent still on the Tg, Mw and flowability of the heat resistance improver. Sohn et al. teach polymer resin compositions comprising copolymers combined with a compatiblizer (heat resistance improver) comprising a copolymer that is copolymerized with N-phenylmaleimide, styrene, and maleic anhydride that is commercially available under the MS-CP Denka trade name [0017-0018]. The MS-CP from Denka is the same heat resistance improver used in the instant specification examples (p. 19 line 10; component E) and is therefore considered to meet the amount of N-phenylmaleimide compound, the amount of vinyl aromatic (styrene), the amount of maleic anhydride as required by the instant claim, and further meet the required Tg, Mw and flowability of the heat resistance improver as recited in claim 1. Sohn et al. offers the motivation of choosing this particular compatiblizer (heat resistance improver) due to its ability to improve mechanical strength [0018]. In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the MS-CP Denka (compatibilizer/heat resistance improver) taught by Sohn et al. in the thermoplastic resin composition of Yi et al. thereby arriving at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 2, Yi et al. teach the polycarbonate comprises a thermoplastic aromatic polycarbonate having a viscosity average molecular weight of about 15,000 to about 40,000 (claim 4). Regarding claim 3, Yi et al. teach the polycarbonate comprises a polymer having the formula: PNG media_image1.png 146 389 media_image1.png Greyscale Wherein X is a straight, branched or cyclic alkylene group, R1 and R2 are each hydrogen, halogen or alkyl group, and n and m each comprise an integer from 0 to 4 (claim 5) thereby reading on the claimed Chemical Formula I. Regarding claim 4, Yi et al. teach the polysiloxane-polycarbonate copolymer having a viscosity average molecular weight of about 15,000 to about 200,000 and comprises hydroxy-terminated siloxane and polycarbonate at a weight ratio of about 50:50 to 99:1 (claim 6). Regarding claim 5, Yi et al. teach the polysiloxane-polycarbonate copolymer having the Chemical Formulae 2 and 3 (claim 7): PNG media_image2.png 159 600 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 120 376 media_image3.png Greyscale thereby reading on the claimed Chemical Formulas 2 and 3. Regarding claim 6, Yi et al. teach the polyester has a melting temperature of about 215 to 235 C and an intrinsic viscosity of about 0.45 dl/g to 1.6 dl/g (claim 8). Regarding claim 7, Yi et al. teach the polyester is polyethylene terephthalate, polypropylene terephthalate and polybutylene terephthalate (claim 9). Regarding claim 8, Yi et al. teach the master back comprises the carbon black and a polycarbonate (claim 10). Regarding claim 9, Yi et al. teach the masterbatch comprises an amount of about 10% by weight to 40% by weight of carbon black and an amount of about 60% by weight to 90% by weight of polycarbonate based on the total weight of the master batch (claim 11). Regarding claim 12, Yi et al. teach the additive is a gloss reducing agent and an impact modifier (claim 12). Regarding claim 13, Yi et al. teach the gloss reducing agent comprises an ASA based graft copolymer having a core-shell structure, the ASA based graft copolymer comprising an amount of about 30% by weight to 80% by weight of a core and an amount of about 20% to about 70% by weight of a shell, wherein the core of the ASA graft copolymer comprises an acrylic rubber and wherein the shell comprises a vinyl based graft copolymer (claim 13). Regarding claim 14, Yi et al. teach the impact modifier comprises an MBS graft copolymer having a core shell structure, wherein the core comprises polybutadiene, and wherein the shell comprises alkyl methacrylate, alkyl acrylate and combinations thereof (claim 14). Regarding claim 15, Yi et al. teach the composition is 10-65 wt% of polycarbonate thereby reading on an amount of about 13% to 63% by weight of the first polycarbonate, the polysiloxane-polycarbonate copolymer in an amount of 10-45 wt% thereby reading on the amount of about 10% to about 40% by weight, an amount of 10-45 wt% of polyester thereby reading on the claimed amount of about 10% to about 45% by weight of polyester, an amount of 1.5-8.5 wt% carbon black, thereby reading on the claimed amount of about 1.5% to about 8.5% by weight of carbon black in the master batch, an amount of 5 to 25 wt% gloss reducing agent thereby reading on the claimed range of about 5% by weight to about 25% by weight and comprises about 1 to 10 wt% of an impact modifier thereby reading on t he claimed range of about 1% to about 10% by weight of impact modifier (claim 15). Regarding claim 16, Yi et al. teach the additive further comprises an inorganic filler, lubricant, among others thereby reading on the auxiliary agent (claim 16). Regarding claim 17, Yi et al. teach the auxiliary agent in an amount of 0.1 parts by weight to 2 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the first polycarbonate (claim 17). Regarding claim 18, Yi et al. teach a method for manufacturing the molded article comprises forming a pellet by melting and extruding the thermoplastic resin and manufacturing a molded article by molding the pellets (claim 18). Regarding claim 19, Yi et al. teach a molded article wherein a 20 degree specular glossiness based on ISO 2813 is about 2.5 to 3.0 (claim 19). Regarding claim 20, Yi et al. teach a vehicle comprising the molded article (claim 20). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see p. 1-3, filed 9/12/2025, with respect to the rejection under Yi in view of Kawakubo have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, and in light of the amendment, a new ground of rejection is made over Yi in view of Sohn as set forth above. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LANEE REUTHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7026. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30. 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, Yvonne Eyler can be reached at 571-272-1200. 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. /ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 22, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 12, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 31, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12509611
Anaerobically Curable Compositions Containing Alpha-Methylene-Lactones
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12460063
RECOVERY AND REUSE OF ACID DIGESTED AMINE/EPOXY-BASED COMPOSITE MATRICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 04, 2025
Patent 12447672
THREE-DIMENSIONAL PRINTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 21, 2025
Patent 12441953
ISOMER MIXTURES OF UNSATURATED MACROCYCLIC MUSK COMPOUNDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 14, 2025
Patent 12428560
HYDROPHILIC CYCLODEXTRIN-CONTAINING SILICONE GELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+11.4%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 663 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month