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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/3/2026 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan (US 2020/0369875 A1) in view of Lee (KR 20190079519A), Akiba (US 2017/0152368 A1), and Ziegler (WO 2020/148723 A1). As the cited KR publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Shan teaches polycarbonate resin compositions comprising polycarbonate polymer(s) and poly(carbonate-siloxane) copolymer (Abstract). Shan teaches the polycarbonate polymer is preferably first bisphenol A polycarbonate with a molecular weight spanning 15,000-25,000 and a second bisphenol A polycarbonate with a molecular weight spanning 26,000-40,000; the ratio between the two being 10:1 and 1:10 and the total content ranging from 10-95 wt% (¶ 12). Shan teaches the poly(carbonate-siloxane) copolymer is present at 5-25 wt% (¶ 30). Phosphorus flame retardants can be included, such as phosphazenes and phosphates (¶ 46, 49-52). Shan teaches Izod impact strength of at least 680 J/m at 23 degrees C and at least 600 J/m at -30 degrees C (¶ 67), equivalent to at least 69.2 kgfcm/cm and at least 61.1 kgfcm/cm respectively.
While not describing polycarbonates in terms of MFR, Shan describes substantially the same molecular weights as indicated within the specification; where the polycarbonate with a MFR of 5-15 g/10 min exhibits a molecular weight of roughly 28,000-37,000 (Page 18) and the polycarbonate with a MFR of 15-25 exhibits a molecular weight of roughly 20,000-27,000 (Page 24). Since MFR is an indirect measure of molecular weight and Shan describes overlapping molecular weight values, the position is taken that the disclosure of Shan encompasses polycarbonate MFRs that overlap the values claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Shan suggests the claimed ranges. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Shan. See MPEP 2123.
Although Shan does not provide quantitative measurement of siloxane domain size, Lee teaches it was known in the art PC-PDMS block copolymers with domain sizes ranging from 20-60 nm procures favorable properties in terms of impact strength and chemical resistance (Pages 3 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize PC-PDMS block copolymers with domain sizes spanning 20-60 nm because doing so would procure favorable impact strength and chemical resistance characteristics as taught by Lee.
Shan also differs from the subject matter claimed in that specified proportions of a phosphazene / room-temperature liquid phosphorus flame retardant is not described. Akiba teaches it was known combinations of phosphazene and phosphoric acid ester flame retardants are useful for polycarbonate compositions, whereby synergism between the two flame retardants provide excellent flame retardancy, impact resistance, and heat deformation characteristics (¶ 41-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the flame retardant combinations of Akiba within the polycarbonate compositions of Shan because doing so would provide excellent flame retardancy, impact resistance, and heat deformation characteristics as taught by Akiba. Akiba teaches 0.1-3 wt% of phosphazene (¶ 92) and 5-14 wt% of phosphate ester (¶ 102-103). Examples are taught where triphenyl phosphate or bisphenol bis(diphenyl phosphate) is used (¶ 247-248), which are room temperature liquids. See also ¶ 95, which teaches the melting point of phosphate can span -40 deg C or higher, which overlaps room-temperature liquids. Akiba teaches overlapping ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Akiba suggests the claimed ranges. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Akiba. See MPEP 2123. Akiba teaches embodiments where the phosphate:phosphazene ratio falls within the scope of the claims (Table 2). For instance, Example 7 uses 0.8:0.3 phosphate:phosphazene, equivalent to 2.67:1 phosphate:phosphazene.
Shan also differs from the subject matter claimed in that polycarbonate B is not described as post-consumer recycled (PCR) polycarbonate. Ziegler teaches it was known in the art PCR polycarbonate resins can be used within polycarbonate compositions, either alone or in combination with virgin polycarbonate materials (¶ 30-34). Ziegler teaches the PCR polycarbonates recovered can be similar or identical to corresponding virgin polycarbonates, potentially including impurities that do not appreciably affect composition properties (¶ 31-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize PCR polycarbonate as polycarbonate B within the compositions of Shan because doing so would facilitate re-use of waste products and increase sustainability without sacrificing properties of the resulting compositions.
Regarding Claim 3, Shan teaches embodiments where copolymer is derived from polysiloxane precursor, phosgene (carbonate precursor), and bisphenol diol compound (¶ 25), such as bisphenol A (Table 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Akiba teaches embodiments where cyclic phosphazenes are used (¶ 80).
Regarding Claim 9, Shan teaches various additives, such as heat stabilizers (¶ 39).
Regarding Claim 11, Shan teaches heat deflection temperatures in excess of 120 degrees C (¶ 70).
Regarding Claim 12, Shan teaches V-0 flame retardancy (¶ 66). Akiba also indicates the flame retardants work synergistically to give V-0 flame retardancy (¶ 39).
Regarding Claim 14, Shan teaches molded articles (¶ 4-5).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 2020/0010641 A1) in view of Akiba (US 2017/0152368 A1) and Ziegler (WO 2020/148723 A1) as evidenced by Idemitsu (Tarflon Brochure) and WeeklyPellet (Izod Impact: ISO vs ASTM).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Ishikawa teaches polycarbonate resin compositions comprising polycarbonate based resins, polycarbonate-polysiloxane copolymer, and flame retardants (Abstract). Ishikawa describes an embodiment in Example 28 comprising roughly 60.8 wt% of polycarbonate FN1700, 20 wt% of polycarbonate FN2200, 19.2 wt% of PC-Si copolymer, and 6.4 wt% of phosphorus based flame retardant bisphenol A bisdiphenyl phosphate (Table 2; ¶ 281-296). As evidencd by Idemitsu, FN1700 has a MFR of about 26 g/10min and FN2200 has a MFR of about 11 g/10min (Page 5). Example 28 is reported to have siloxane domains (dC) of average sectional area of 2,364 nm2 (Table 7), corresponding to average domain sizes of roughly 55 nm based on circular domains. Bisphenol A bisdiphenyl phosphate is a room temperature liquid.
Izod impact strengths of 89 kJ/m2 and 63 kJ/m2 are reported for 23 degrees C and -30 degrees C respectively (Table 7). Although apparently measured using ISO rather than ASTMD256, in the context of polycarbonate compositions, an ISO impact strength of 69 kJ/m2 roughly corresponds to an ASTM impact strength of roughly 15 ft lb/in (see Page 3 of WeeklyPellet), the latter being equivalent to 81.6 kgfcm / cm. Thus, Ishikawa is seen to suggest ASTM impact strengths well within the ranges claimed absent evidence to the contrary.
The particular embodiment of Ishikawa differs from the subject matter claimed in that a slightly different MFR for polycarbonate B is used (26 vs 15-25), 20 wt% of polycarbonate A is used instead of 11-15 wt%, polycarbonate B is not a PCR polycarbonate, and 1.5-5.5 wt% of phosphazene flame retardant is not included.
With respect to MFR of B and concentration of polycarbonate A, Ishikawa generally teaches mixtures of high molecular weight and low molecular weight polycarbonates can be used (Examples) whereby the range of overall viscosity average molecular weight of the polycarbonate blend may range widely from 9,000 to 50,000 (¶ 101). Ishikawa teaches it was known selection of proper molecular weights allows for sufficient strength in the molded article while avoiding heat deterioration in injection/extrusion molding (¶ 101). MFR is an indirect measure of molecular weight and the relative proportions of low molecular weight and high molecular weight polycarbonates would clearly influence the overall viscosity average molecular weight of the resulting blend. Therefore, Ishikawa indicates the MFRs and concentrations of the polycarbonate resins used are result effective variables because changing them will clearly affect the type of product obtained. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover optimal/workable polycarbonate MFRs and concentrations within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desired end results.
With respect to the use of PCR resin, Ziegler teaches it was known in the art PCR polycarbonate resins can be used within polycarbonate compositions, either alone or in combination with virgin polycarbonate materials (¶ 30-34). Ziegler teaches the PCR polycarbonates recovered can be similar or identical to corresponding virgin polycarbonates, potentially including impurities that do not appreciably affect composition properties (¶ 31-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize PCR polycarbonate as polycarbonate B within the compositions of Ishikawa because doing so would facilitate re-use of waste products and increase sustainability without sacrificing properties of the resulting compositions.
With respect to phosphazene, Akiba teaches it was known combinations of phosphazene and phosphoric acid ester flame retardants are useful for polycarbonate compositions, whereby synergism between the two flame retardants provide excellent flame retardancy, impact resistance, and heat deformation characteristics (¶ 41-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the flame retardant combinations of Akiba within the polycarbonate compositions of Ishikawa because doing so would provide excellent flame retardancy, impact resistance, and heat deformation characteristics as taught by Akiba. Akiba teaches 0.1-3 wt% of phosphazene (¶ 92) and 5-14 wt% of phosphate ester (¶ 102-103). Examples are taught where triphenyl phosphate or bisphenol bis(diphenyl phosphate) is used (¶ 247-248), which are room temperature liquids. See also ¶ 95, which teaches the melting point of phosphate can span -40 deg C or higher, which overlaps room-temperature liquids. Akiba teaches overlapping ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Akiba suggests the claimed ranges. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Akiba. See MPEP 2123. Akiba teaches embodiments where the phosphate:phosphazene ratio falls within the scope of the claims (Table 2). For instance, Example 7 uses 0.8:0.3 phosphate:phosphazene, equivalent to 2.67:1 phosphate:phosphazene.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Ishikawa teaches the copolymers are produced via introducing polysiloxane into polycarbonate produced via polymerizing aromatic diol (bisphenol A) and carbonate precursor (¶ 147, 173). Bisphenol A would result in repeat units of Formula 1 where R1 through R4 is H and Z is C3 alkylene. Ishikawa teaches embodiments where moieties of Formula 2 are additionally present (¶ 156) such as those derived from alcohol:
PNG
media_image1.png
150
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where n is preferably 30-120 (¶ 162, 142), which is consistent with Formula 2 whereby Y1=Y2=H, X1=X2=C5 alkylene, R5=R6=C1 alkyl, and n2 is 30-120.
Regarding Claim 7, Akiba teaches embodiments where cyclic phosphazenes are used (¶ 80).
Regarding Claim 9, Ishikawa teaches further additives such as fillers (¶ 207).
Regarding Claim 11, Ishikawa indicates Example 27 has a heat deflection temperature of 109 degrees C (Table 7).
Regarding Claim 12, Ishikawa indicates Example 27 achieves V-0 flame retardancy (Table 7). Akiba also indicates the flame retardants work synergistically to give V-0 flame retardancy (¶ 39).
Regarding Claim 14, Ishikawa teaches molded articles (¶ 212-213).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant generally argues the data within the specification illustrates within comp. examples 5 and 7 that deviating in amounts corresponding to polycarbonate A leads to poor flame retardancy and HDT. This is not found persuasive. The comparative examples at issue differ significantly with respect to phoshazene/phosphate flame retardants. It was already well known in the art flame retardancy / HDT characteristics observed depend heavily on the relative quantities of the relevant flame retardants. See Akiba. The examiner finds little evidence of record showing the 11-15 wt% range alone to be critical.
Applicant generally argues Shan teaches examples using 3-14.8 wt% of PC-Si copolymer and uses sulfonate salt as flame retardant. This is not found persuasive. Shan teaches 5-25 wt% poly(carbonate-siloxane) copolymer can be used (¶ 30) and phosphazene/phosphate flame retardants can be used (¶ 48-52).
Applicant argues Akiba does not describe PC-Si copolymers. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues Shan/Ishikawa do not utilize PCR polycarbonates. Applicant reasons PCR polycarbonates may exhibit inferior properties and urges Ziegler states “recycled PC cannot be used in all examples”. This is not found persuasive.
While PCR-PC may contain various impurities, this does not necessarily affect the resulting properties. See ¶ 32 of Ziegler: “The impurities, if present, do not appreciably affect the properties of the compositions described herein”. The Examiner fails to find any mention of “recycled PC cannot be used in all examples” within the Ziegler reference alluded to by Applicant. Rather, Ziegler states “virgin PC was used in all examples due to unavailability of PCR-PC; it is expected that compositions including PCR-PC will have the same properties as those including the same amount of virgin PC” at ¶ 78. Thus, Ziegler teaches PCR PC’s were known in the art that can be used in such compositions and are sufficiently pure so as to exhibit the same properties as virgin materials. While there may be other PCR-PCs with high impurity levels that would be unsuitable for such purposes, the use of PCR-PCs of sufficient purity would have been obvious in view of Ziegler with an expectation they would possess the same properties and characteristics as virgin materials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights