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 .
Response to Amendment
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on December 30, 2025. In particular, claim 1 which has been amended to limit the type of the polymeric units and to narrow the glass transition temperature of the copolymer. This combination of limitations was not present at the time of the previous office action. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
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 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, there are some internal inconsistencies within the claim itself. The following two sections differ in the glass transition temperature as well as the mixture of the (meth)acrylic copolymer. The examiner suggests deleting the 2nd paragraph below and modifying the first paragraph’s glass transition temperature to read between 65 and 100 C.
Section 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
114
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Section 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
98
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10 the examiner believes that this should read “P1a”:
PNG
media_image3.png
284
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, this claim restates the same newly amended glass transition of the methacrylic copolymers and can be deleted.
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent upon a previously rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavallee (US 2012/0189837) in view of Wills et al (US 2002/0072552).
Regarding claim 12, Lavallee 2012 teaches an article such as a pipe or sheets ([0031]) made from a composition which comprises:
50 to 99 % wt. PVC (claim 1)
1 to 15 % wt. of acrylic polymer which has a glass transition temperature of less than 90C (claim 1). The acrylic copolymer comprises from 50 to 79 weight percent methyl methacrylate units (claim 1).
0 to 25 wt. % of a filler (claim 1)
And other adjuvants (abstract) such as an impact modifier ([0021])
It is noted that the mixing order limitations are considered product-by-process limitation and do not carry much patentable weight.
However, Lavallee 2012 fails to teach the amount of the impact modifier and also fails to teach that the impact modifier is a core/shell impact modifier.
Wills teaches a PVC material ([0119]) which can be in foam form ([0065]), which incorporates a core/shell impact modifier ([0067], [0115]) in an amount of 4 to 20 parts per hundred resin ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the core/shell impact modifier in the amount as taught by Wills as an additive to the Lavallee 2012 composition. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of increasing the impact strength of the matrix resin (Wills, Abstract).
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavallee (US 2012/0189837) in view of Wills et al (US 2002/0072552) and Reardon (US 4,329,278).
The discussion regarding Lavallee 2012 and Wills in paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 11, please refer to the rejection of claim 12 for the compositional components of the claim.
Lavallee 2012 teaches that all the components are blended together (Examples), however, fails to teaches the various compositions P1a, P1b, P1b and P2b.
Reardon teaches a composition which is a blend of PVC, acrylates and filler (Abstract) and teaches that the components can be prepared by mixing the ingredients in any combination (col. 3, lines15-20) and various ingredients can be preblended (col. 3, lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the ingredients of Lavallee to be preblended or blended in any combination as taught by Reardon. It would have been nothing more than mixing known components in typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rachwal (WO 2010/099160) in view of Lavallee et al (US 2009/0111915).
Regarding claim 12-13, Rachwal teaches an article such as a pipe (page 9, lines 10-20) comprising:
a (meth)acrylic copolymer having 1 to 90 percent by weight methy methacrylate units (page 5, lines 5-10)
a filler (page 5) present in the amount from 1 to 45 percent by weight (page 9)
a thermoplastic resin such as polyvinyl chloride which contains the halogen chloride (Abstract and Examples)
0 to 7 weight percent of an impact modifier (page 9) which can be a core/shell impact modifier (page 6, lines 30-35)
It is noted that the mixing order limitations are considered product-by-process limitation and do not carry much patentable weight.
However, Rachwal fails to teach the glass transition temperature of the (meth)acrylic copolymer.
Lavallee 2009 teaches an acrylic copolymer additive which contusing from 50 to 79 weight percent of methyl methacrylate units with a glass transition of less than 90 C (Abstract). The additive is useful in PVC compositions (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the (meth)acrylic copolymer of Rachwal have the glass transition temperature as taught by Lavallee 2009. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of having a process aid (Lavallee 2009, Abstract) for faster fusion and lower time to band (Lavallee 2009, [0005]).
Regarding claim 1 and 11, please refer to the rejection of claim 11 for the compositional elements of the claim.
Rachwal teaches blending a composition P1a with the halogen containing polymer and the filler (page 12, Table 2) wherein the composition P1a contains the methacrylic copolymer (Platistrength 530), the impact modifier (Durastrength 3) and filler (calcium carbonate) (page 10, Modifier C).
Regarding claim 2, Rachwal teaches blending a composition P1b with the halogen containing polymer and the filler (page 12, Table 2) wherein the composition P1b contains the methacrylic copolymer (Platistrength 530) and filler (calcium carbonate) (page 10, Modifier C).
However, Rachwal teaches that the impact modifier is included in P1b rather than in the blend with the halogen containing polymer.
Rachwal teaches that the impact modifier can be included in the composite (modifier) or can be added separately (page 6, lines 30-35).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the impact modifier from the composition of Modifier C and place it with the halogen containing polymer as taught by Rachwal because while the process is not explicitly exemplified, the teachings within the specification teach that the impact modifier can be added at different points without changing the essence of the invention and therefore, the teachings of Rachwal read on the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 5-8, Rachwal teaches that that the composition P1b and P1b is obtained by a manufacturing method comprising the steps of:
Mixing the methacrylic copolymer (Plasticstrength 530) with a filler (CaCo3) and the impact modifier (Durastrength 320) (page 10, Modifier C) and water forming a dispersion in an aqueous phase (page 10, modifier C), and recovering the mixture and drying the recovered mixture (spray drying).
Regarding claim 9, Rachwal teaches (Table 2, Example 3) that the filler is 15 phr of the calcium carbonate in the composition, and the modifier C (which reads on either P1b or P1a) is present in the amount of 4 phr. Modifier C contains 45% calcium carbonate and therefore, can be calculated to be 1.8 phr of the total composition. Therefore, P1a contains 10 % of the total filler in the composition.
Regarding claim 10, Rachwal teaches that P1a is blended in the aqueous dispersion until it is homogenous (Page 10, modifier C) and then spray dried. As it was a homogenous dispersion, then it would be a homogenous powder with no important variation and therefore an inherently would have a variaton of less than 30% relative to the global composition of P1a.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below:
Applicant’s argument: Lavallee 2012 describes a glass transition temperature of the acrylic polymer of less than 90C, an even a glass transition temperature of less than 60C which is an upper limit well below the lower limit in amended Claim 1. And therefore, Lavallee 2012 fails to teach that the glass transition temperature of the (meth)acrylic polymer is between 65 and 100 C.
Examiner’s response: While Lavallee 2012 does state a preference for a glass transition temperature of less than 60C, it does not obviate the more general teaching in Lavallee 2012 that states that acrylic polymers with glass transition temperatures of less than 90 C are, also, appropriate for use in composition.
Applicant’s argument: No impact modifier is used in Lavallee 2012.
Examiner’s response: While no impact modifier is exemplified, it does not obviate the teaching within the specification of Lavallee 2012 in paragraph [0021] that impact modifiers can be added to the composition. A secondary reference, Wills, teaches the amount and type of impact modifier and the Wills reference also provides a motivation to combine the references.
Applicant’s argument: Rearson does not disclose a core-shell impact modifier.
Examiner’s response: This is remedied by the secondary reference, Wills.
Applicant’s argument: The objective of Lavallee 2012 is significantly different than that of the presently claimed invention.
Examiner’s response: The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). MPEP 2145 II.
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 DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764