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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN103740082A in view of CN101709142A further in view of JP4810212B2.
Claim 1 is directed to a polymeric composition comprising:10 wt. % to 70 wt. % of post-consumer recycled information technology and telecommunications equipment (ITE) waste derived polycarbonate/acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (PC/ABS) blend;5 wt. % to 30 wt. % of a filler; and5 wt. % to 30 wt. % of a flame retardant.
CN103740082A discloses a polymeric composition comprising:
A polycarbonate (PC) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) blend, PC/ABS,
a flame retardant (abstract and page 2 lines 16-37)
a filler carbon fiber (page 2 line 26, page 3 line 13)
wherein the components are present in weight percent ranges, including:
50-80wt% polycarbonate (page 6 line 8)
10-30wt% ABS (page 6 line 7-29)
5-10wt% flame retardant (abstract and page 2 lines 16-37)
5-20wt% carbon fiber (page 2, line 26)
wherein the components are present in weight percent ranges, including:
50-80wt% polycarbonate (see page 2 line 5)
10-30wt% ABS (see page 2 line 5)
5-10wt% flame retardant(page 2 line 26, page 3 line 13)
5-20wt% carbonate fiber( filler) (page 2 line 26, page 3 line 13)
Thus, CN103740082A discloses a polymeric composition comprising polycarbonate/ acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, or PC/ABS, a flame retardant and a filler within the ranges overlapping those recited in applicants’ claim 1.
The CN103740082A reference does not disclose that the polycarbonate or PC/ABS material is post-consumer or recycled material or that the materials comes from electronic devices.
CN101709142A discloses polymer compositions comprising recycled polycarbonate material including :
Using the recycled polycarbonate as a matrix resin (abstract, pages 1 and 2)
Incorporating flame retardants and other additives (page 4 lines 13, 31-32)
Processing recycled materials using melt blending and extruding. (abstract, page 3 line 14 and 26, page 5 line 10)
Thus, CN101709142A teaches recycled polymer materials may be used in forming polymer compositions having suitable mechanical and flame retardant properties.
JP4810212B2 teaches that thermoplastic materials are recovered from electronic devices including:
Copiers, printers and other electronic equipment. (abstract, page 4 line 38 and particularly lines 45-46.) Materials that are collected post-consumer
Processing steps including crushing, pulverizing and reusing recovered plastics. ( page 3 line 8 and 31).
Thus JP4810212B2 teaches that polycarbonate materials may be derived from post-consumer electronic equipment and reused in molded articles.
Consequently, in view of the above references, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of CN103740082A to include the recycled polymer material as taught in CN101709142A since CN101709142A shows that recycled polycarbonate compositions may be used in making plastics. Further, it would have been obvious to use the recycled materials from electronic devices as taught in JP4810212B2 since the reference shows that thermoplastic materials from post-consumer electronic equipment may be reused in molded plastic products.
Claim 2 is directed to the polymeric composition of claim 1, further comprising: non-ITE derived post-consumer recycled resin; polycarbonate/acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (PC/ABS) virgin blend; and/or polycarbonate (PC) resin derived from a renewable source.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include additional recycled resin or virgin PC/ABS material since CN101709142A discloses blending recycled polymer with other resins to adjust properties. See abstract in CN101709142A Note also page 3 line 9 of JP4810212B2 discloses recovering post-consumer thermoplastic materials from computer type equipment including copiers and printers, page 3 lines 28-31 and distinguished these materials from virgin materials. See page 3 lines 9-10.
Claim 3 is directed to the polymeric composition of claim 2 comprising:15 wt. % to 25 wt. % of the post-consumer recycled ITE waste derived PC/ABS blend; 45 wt. % to 55 wt. % of non-ITE derived post-consumer recycled resin; 20 wt. % to 30 wt. % of a combination of flame retardant and filler; and 2 wt. % to 5 wt. % of PC/ABS virgin blend. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed weight percentages since the ranges overlap with CN103740082A and adjusting amounts is a matter of routine optimization and it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971). CN103740082A page 1 lines 9-10.
Claim 4 is directed to the polymeric composition of claim 3, comprising any one of, a combination of, or all of the following properties: a tensile modulus equal to or greater than 3800 MPa at 23oC, as measured in accordance with ASTM D638; a tensile strength at break equal to or greater than 45 MPa at 23 *C, as measured in accordance with ASTM D638; a tensile elongation at break equal to or greater than 8 %, at 23 oC, as measured in accordance with ASTM D638; and/or a Notched Izod Impact strength greater than 4 kJ/m2 at 23 oC, as measured in accordance with ASTM D256. See CN103740082A Table 2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the various parameters as claimed since adjusting the parameters is a matter of routine optimization and it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
Claim 5 is directed to the polymeric composition of claim 2, wherein the renewable source of the polycarbonate resin derived from a renewable source is tall oil, caster beans, sugar, waste carbon dioxide (CO2), or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use renewable polycarbonate, since biobased polymers are known substitutes in the art.
Claim 6 is directed to the polymeric composition of claim 2, wherein the polymeric composition comprises no more than 60 wt. % of the post-consumer recycled resin that is not ITE-derived.
It would have been obvious to select the claimed amount of recycled resin since selection of proportions of the post-consumer resin is a matter of routine optimization and it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
Claim 7 is directed to the polymeric composition of claim 2, wherein the polymeric composition comprises no more than 50 wt. % of the PC resin derived from a renewable source.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to limit the amount of renewable polycarbonate, since adjusting component amounts to balance properties is routine.
Claim 8 is directed to the polymeric composition of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the filler is obtained from an ITE waste derived post-consumer recycled source.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use filler obtained from electronic waste, since JP4810212B2 teaches recovering thermoplastics from electronic equipment. See page 3 lines 28-31.
Claim 9 is directed to the polymeric composition of claim 1, wherein the filler comprises talc, glass, mineral, carbon, or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use talc, glass, mineral, carbon, or a combinations since such fillers are well known equivalents in polymer compositions. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended purpose. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (Selection of solvent having boiling point and vapor pressure properties recognized as being ideal for printing inks into printing ink compositions found obvious on its face). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (Selection of a known plastic to make a plastic container found obvious on its face). See also page 6 line 28 of CN103740082A.
Claim 10 is directed to the polymeric composition of claim 1, wherein the flame retardant comprises a flame retardant obtained from a renewable source.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use renewable flame retardants since biobased additives are known substitutes. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability
for its intended purpose. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (Selection of solvent having boiling point and vapor pressure properties recognized as being ideal for printing inks into printing ink compositions found obvious on its face). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (Selection of a known plastic to make a plastic container found obvious on its face).
Claim 11 is directed to the polymeric composition of claim 10, wherein the flame retardant is a non- halogenated phosphorus containing flame retardant obtained from bio-based chemicals.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use non- halogenated phosphorus containing flame retardants since there are known alternatives in the art.
Claim 12 is directed to the polymeric composition of claim 1, wherein the post-consumer recycled ITE waste derived PC/ABS blend comprises additives.
CN101709142A teaches the use of additives in recycled polymer compositions.
Claim 13 is directed to the polymeric composition of claim 1, further comprising an additive, wherein the additive is a pigment, a plasticizer, an antioxidant, an UV-stabilizer, a heat stabilizer, a dye enhancing agent, a lubricant, a mold release agent, a crystal nucleating agent, a fluid ability-improving agent, an antistatic agent, a compatibilizer, an anti-drip agent, or any combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include additives such as those claims since these are commonly used in the art of polymer compositions.
Claim 14 is directed to the polymeric composition of claim 1, wherein the composition is comprised in a film, a layer, or a sheet.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the composition into a film , layer or sheet since these forms are standard in polymer processing.
Claim 15 is directed to the polymeric composition of claim 1, wherein the composition is an extruded, blow- molded, injection-molded, rotational molded, compression molded, 3-D printed, and/or thermoformed composition.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a n extruded, blow- molded, injection-molded, rotational molded, compression molded, 3-D printed, and/or thermoformed composition since these are standard manufacturing methods.
Claim 16 is directed to a computer chassis, monitor chassis, and/or computer peripheral chassis comprising the polymeric composition of claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the composition in computer chassis, monitor chassis, and/or computer peripheral chassis since these are known applications of these electronic materials.
Claim 17 is directed to the computer chassis, monitor chassis, and/or computer peripheral chassis of the computer chassis, monitor chassis, and/or computer peripheral chassis of wherein the computer chassis is a desktop computer chassis, a laptop computer chassis, or a computer tablet chassis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the composition in desktop, laptop or tablets chassis etc. since these are known application of polymers material.
Claim 18 is directed to a method of making a computer chassis, monitor chassis, and/or computer peripheral chassis, the method comprising forming at least a portion of the computer chassis, computer screen chassis, and/or computer peripheral with the polymeric composition of claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a chassis using the claimed composition since forming parts from polymer materials is routine.
Claim 19 is directed to the method of claim 18, wherein at least 70 wt. % of the computer chassis, computer screen chassis, and/or computer peripheral chassis, and/or a part thereof, comprises the polymeric composition.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed percentage of composition in the final product since generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended purpose. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (Selection of solvent having boiling point and vapor pressure properties recognized as being ideal for printing inks into printing ink compositions found obvious on its face). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (Selection of a known plastic to make a plastic container found obvious on its face).
Claim 20 is directed to the method of claim 18, wherein the polymeric composition further comprises: non-ITE derived post-consumer recycled resin; polycarbonate/acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (PC/ABS) virgin blend; and/or polycarbonate resin derived from a renewable source.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include recycled resin, virgin blend, or renewable polycarbonate as recited, since these components are taught by CN101709142A and are known to be used together. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended purpose. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (Selection of solvent having boiling point and vapor pressure properties recognized as being ideal for printing inks into printing ink compositions found obvious on its face). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (Selection of a known plastic to make a plastic container found obvious on its face).
In conclusion, in view of the above, there appears to be no significant difference between the reference(s) and that which is claimed by applicant(s). Any differences not specifically mentioned appear to be conventional. Consequently, the claimed invention cannot be deemed as unobvious and accordingly is unpatentable
Information Disclosure Statement
Note that any future and/or present information disclosure statements must comply with 37 CFR § 1.98(b), which requires a list of the publications to include: the author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date and place of publication to be submitted for consideration by the Office.
Improper Claim Dependency
Prior to allowance, any dependent claims should be rechecked for proper dependency if independent claims are cancelled.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRESSA M BOYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5:30.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 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 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.
/Terressa Boykin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights