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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claim 5 is 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. In claim 5, the use of the term “ Teflon”, which is a trade name or a mark, is indefinite. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term . Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1, 2, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) and (a2) as being US 2021/0032409 (Baba) . As to claim 1, Baba expressly sets forth (Tables 1-2) thermoplastic resin compositions comprising: 30 to 99 pbw of a polycarbonate- polydiorganosiloxane copolymer ( meets Applicants’ polycarbonate resin (A) ); 1 to 70 pbw of a polyester resin; 10 to 50 pbw of a filler which is surface-treated with a silane coupling agent having an alkyl group such as the exemplified wollastonites [0206] treated with hexadecyltrimethoxysilane (C 16 alkyl group) or octadecyltrimethoxysilane (C 18 alkyl group) ( meets Applicants’ wollastonite (B) surface treated with an alkyl group having C 12 or more ) (e.g., abstract, examples). As to claim 2, Baba expressly sets forth comparative working example 3 (Table 2) further comprising (E-1) a rubber-based graft copolymer [0207] ( meets Applicants’ graft copolymer (C) ) . Notably, a reference may be relied upon for all that it teaches, including non-preferred embodiments because a non-preferred portion of a reference is just as significant as the preferred portion in assessing the patentability of the claims, Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories , 10 USPQ2d 1843. “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use”, In re Gurley , 31 USPQ2d 1130. As to claim 6, Baba discloses molded specimens [0201]. As to claim 7, Babs’s thermoplastic resin compositions are used to produce vehicle exterior parts (claim 10). 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005220216 A (Nakagawa) abstract and machine translation . Nakagawa discloses a thermoplastic resin composition comprising: 100 pbw of a polycarbonate-resin ( meets Applicants’ polycarbonate resin (A) ); 0.01 to 1 pbw of an alkali(alkaline earth) metals sulfonate; 1 to 50 pbw of a silicate filler such as wollastonite which is surface-treated with a C 4-30 alkyl alkoxysilane ( overlaps Applicants’ wollastonite (B) surface treated with an alkyl group having C 12 or more ) ; a fluorine-containing anti-dripping agent such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) ( meets Applicants’ Teflon-based resin (F) per claim 5 ) ; and other resins inclusive of graft copolymers such as ABS - acrylonitrile/butadiene/styrene graft copolymer ( meets Applicants’ graft copolymer (C) per claim 2 ) (e.g., abstract, examples). In Table 1, Nakagawa sets forth Example 7 comprising, inter alia: 100 pbw of a polycarbonate-resin blend ( meets Applicants’ polycarbonate resin (A) ); 0.04 pbw of an alkali(alkaline earth) metals sulfonate; 18.2 pbw of wollastonite surface-treated with isobutyltrimethoxysilane ( differs from Applicants’ wollastonite (B) in that isobutyltrimethoxysilane does not contain an alkyl group having C 12 or more ) ; and 0.5 pbw of PTFE ( meets Applicants’ Teflon-based resin (F) per claim 5 ). In essence , claim s 1 and 5 differ from Nakagawa’s Example 7 in that the wollastonite is not surface-treated with an alkyl group having C 12 or more . Given that Nakagawa discloses alkyl alkoxysilanes having up to 30 carbon atoms (abstract) and specifically lists alkyl alkoxysilanes having C 12 , C 14 , C 18 , etc. (page 15) as viable examples, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use alkyl alkoxysilanes having at least 12 carbon atoms for their expected additive effect and with the reasonable expectation of success. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness, Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp ., 65 USPQ 297. As to claim s 2 and 3 , while not expressly exemplified in the working examples, Nakagawa clearly discloses (page 26), and renders obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, that “a core-shell type elastomer” such as ABS can be used for its attendant elastomeric effect. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further include a graft copolymer, such as ABS, for its expected additive effect and with the reasonable expectation of success. As to claim 4, case law holds that differences in concentrations do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating criticality for the claimed ranges. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. Thus, it would have been within the purview of Nakagawa’s inventive disclosure (e.g., abstract), and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to formulate a thermoplastic resin composition meeting the presently claimed components and amounts thereof in accordance with the ultimate properties desired and with the reasonable expectation of success. As to claims 6 and 7, Nakagawa discloses the production of molded articles, e.g., for use in producing vehicle parts (page 2) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Ana L Woodward whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1082 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8am-5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Heidi Kelley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /ANA L. WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765