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 must update the status of the parent application at the beginning of the specification.
The lined out IDS item was not provided in the instant application or parent.
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.
Claims 2,3,6-8 and 10-20 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.
Claim 1’s “have melting points above the processing temperature above the processing temperature of the one or more polycarbonates” is indefinite. Firstly, the processing temperature of polycarbonate is a range of temperatures. Must the melting point of the coating be higher than the maximum processing temperature possible for polycarbonate? Merely above the minimum processing temperature? Secondly, there is no precise agreement on what the processing temperature range is for polycarbonates. See the Yeh article’s 260-3400C and the Makrolon brochure’s 280-3200C (page 7). The molding technique may also play a role in the processing temperature.
Reference to an object (or in this case a temperature) that is variable has been held to be indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b) II.).
Furthermore, many of claim 8’s preferred coatings do not appear to have any melting point at all. Most are thermoset polymers. See for instance the Epotek article regarding epoxies.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Graphite is neither metal, mineral, ceramic or glass. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 2,3,6-8 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2009120637.
The reference exemplifies (paragraph 30) blending polycarbonate (ie applicant’s “a”), 0.5% synthetic mica powder and 22% filler. The size of the example’s synthetic mica is not reported, but is preferably (paragraph 20) 0.2-10mm (ie 200-10,000µ). The synthetic mica powder is surface coated with resin containing coloring agent (abstract). This resin is acrylic, epoxy or urethane (claim 2 of reference). These are applicant’s preferred “coating polymers” (see applicant’s claim 8) and therefore the reference’s surface coated mica qualifies as applicant’s “d”.
This example’s amount of “d” is 0.5% instead of applicant’s 0.3% maximum and lacks flame retardant and first colorant.
However, the reference (paragraph 25) suggests flame retardants and colorants may be added and would have been obvious additions. The amount of the coated mica can be as low as 0.01% (paragraph 21). It would have been obvious to include suggested additives to the cited example as well as lessen the amount of coated mica anywhere within the reference’s general teachings.
The reference (claims 4-6; paragraph 4) states a “grained” or “pebble-like” or “stone-like” appearance can be obtained which is indistinguishable from applicant’s “flecked” appearance. The surface coated mica would provide a flecked appearance to the polycarbonate in the same manner surface coated mica does for applicant.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Epoxies are considered crosslinking thermosetting materials (see the Epotek article). Epoxy coatings would therefore inherently meet applicant’s claim 3.
Sufficient flame retardant would be expected to provide a VO or V1 rating to meet applicant’s claim 12.
An impact modifier may be included – meeting applicant’s claim 16 (paragraph 25).
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2009120637 in view of JP02115271.
JP2009120637 applies as explained above. The reference does not provide details regarding the epoxy coating on the mica.
JP02115271 teaches obtaining a molding having vivid specks by adding particles of a thermosetting novolak epoxy/phenol aldehyde resin mixed with pigment to a polycarbonate matrix (abstract; example 1). Because the epoxy coating is considered thermosetting, crosslinking must occur.
It would have been obvious to use any epoxy coating on JP2009120637’s mica – especially epoxy coatings previously known for coating speckling pigments such as the crosslinked epoxy of JP02115271.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2009120637 in view of Nakagawa 2007/0257401.
JP2009120637 applies as explained above. Recycled polycarbonate is not suggested.
Polycarbonate is well known to be recyclable. Nakagawa (paragraph 109) suggests not only virgin polycarbonate but also reclaimed polycarbonate can be used to make flame retarded mica filled polycarbonate compositions (table 1).
It would have been obvious to use reclaimed polycarbonate as the source of JP2009120637’s polycarbonate as a cost savings measure.
Claims 2,6-8,11-16,18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP09136990.
The reference exemplifies (#1) blending 29.95 parts polycarbonate (ie applicant’s “a”), 29.95 parts polyester, 0.1 parts acrylic + carbon black coated mica powder (paragraph 17) and 40 parts BaSO4. The size (paragraph 17) of this example’s coated mica is 1mm (ie 1000µ) instead of applicant’s 700µ maximum. However, the reference more generally teaches (paragraph 9) 0.2-10mm (ie 200-10,000µ).
The acrylic coating corresponds to applicant’s polyacrylate of claim 8 and therefore the reference’s surface coated mica qualifies as applicant’s “d”.
This example lacks flame retardants and first colorant.
However, the reference (paragraph 14) suggests flame retardants and colorants may be added and would have been obvious additions.
The reference (paragraph 9) terms the visual effect as “stone-like” which is indistinguishable from applicant’s “speckled” appearance. The surface coated mica would provide a flecked appearance to the polycarbonate in the same manner surface coated mica does for applicant.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
The mica’s coating may also be epoxy or urethane (claim 2 of reference) – meeting applicant’s claim 8.
Sufficient flame retardant would be expected to provide a VO or V1 rating to meet applicant’s claim 12.
An impact modifier may be included (paragraph 14) which meets applicant’s claim 16.
The composition my be pelletized and injection molded (paragraph 15) – meeting applicant’s claims 18 and 19.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2009120637 or JP09136990 in view of Volkers 2008/0004373.
JP2009120637 or JP09136990 apply as explained above. Both suggest the inclusion of impact modifiers, but do not provide amounts thereof.
Volkers (abstract) teaches 0.5-20% impact modifier for filled polycarbonate compositions.
It would have been obvious to utilize a conventional amount of impact modifier in either primary reference.
Claims 18 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2009120637 or JP09136990 in view of the Brightly blog.
JP2009120637 or JP09136990 apply as explained above. Both suggest injection molding, but not full details.
Pelletizing, injecting, cooling and ejecting are the standard procedure for injection molding. See the Brightly blog.
It would have been obvious to go through these conventional steps in order to injection mold the primary reference’s compositions.
Claims 2,3,6-8,10-16,18 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2009120637 or JP09136990 in view of Clark 5510398.
JP2009120637 or JP09136990 apply as explained above. Neither term their compositions as being “speckled”, but instead are described as “grained” or “pebble-like” or “stone-like” in appearance.
Clark (col 1 line 21-24) considers thermoplastics with a sufficient quantity of non-dispersing pigment can be considered as “speckled/flecked”. Note that Clark considers non-dispersing pigments to include micas coated with organic coatings such as dyes (col 10 line 54-59) and are added in combination with other colorants (ie applicant’s 1st colorant). Much like JP2009120637 or JP09136990 the coated micas are added in small quantities (col 10 line 61-65).
For this reason, the JP2009120637 and JP09136990 disclosures are considered to read on or render obvious a “flecked” appearance.
In regards to applicant’s claim 10, it is immediately evident the color of the coated mica must be different from the color provided by the first pigment. If not, a uniform (not a “flecked”) coloration would result.
Claims 2,3,6-8 and 10-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micciche 2020/0199355 in view of JP2009120637.
Micciche 2020/0199355 exemplifies (table 5) blends of polycarbonate(s) (applicant’s “a”), glass fiber, Rimar salt (applicant’s “c”), TiO2 (applicant’s “b”), small amounts of other colorants and various additives. These examples lack applicant’s flecking agent “d”.
For some end uses, a pebbled appearance is desirable. JP2009120637 teaches that mica powder coated with a colorant containing resin can provide polycarbonate compositions with a “pebbled” appearance.
The size of the synthetic mica is preferably (paragraph 20) 0.2-10mm (ie 200-10,000µ). The synthetic mica powder is surface coated with resin containing a coloring agent (abstract). This resin is acrylic, epoxy or urethane (claim 2 of reference). These are applicant’s preferred “coating polymers” (see applicant’s claim 8) and therefore the reference’s surface coated mica qualifies as applicant’s “d”.
It would have been obvious to add (or substitute for a present colorant) JP2009120637’s coated mica into Micciche’s composition for the expected “pebbling” effect.
The surface coated mica would provide a flecked appearance to the polycarbonate in the same manner surface coated mica does for applicant.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Epoxies are considered crosslinking thermosetting materials (see the Epotek article). Epoxy coated mica would therefore inherently meet applicant’s claim 3.
The 0.4-0.6% Rimar flame retardant would be expected to provide a VO or V1 rating to meet applicant’s claim 12 as these are the same amounts taught by applicant.
An impact modifier may be included in amounts up to 10% – meeting applicant’s claim 16 and 17 (Micciche’s paragraph 48,49).
Micciche pelletizes and injection molds his composition – meeting applicant’s claims 18 and 19.
Hardouin-Dupare 2011/0241254 is cited for its naming of pigments, flakes etc as “speckling agents” (abstract) as well as equating “flecking” with “marbling” and “speckling” (paragraph 57). Clark 6046265 is cited for its teachings of not thoroughly dispersing color granulates into a base resin to achieve a marbled etc look.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BUTTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1084. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays from 9 to 3pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Kelley, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-1831. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/DAVID J BUTTNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765 10/17/25