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 .
Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-10 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.
A. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 6 recite the broad recitation “greater than 15 g/10 min”, and the claims also recite the ranges following “alternatively”, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The claims which depend from claims 1 and 6 also contain this indefinite recitation.
For examination purposes, the claims will be interpreted as reading on the broad range only.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 10316185 Choi et al. in view of WO 2006/001570 Kang et al., US Pat. No. 5179161 Saito et al.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 6-10:
Choi discloses compositions of polycarbonate, talc, ethylene-methyl acrylate copolymer, and olefin wax containing carboxylic acid or anhydride groups. See Choi, the entire document, particularly the abstract, column 2, lines 28-39, noting the amounts of filler relative to 100 parts by weight of polycarbonate which fall within the scope of the amounts of talc of the instant claims, the amounts of impact modifier relative to 100 parts by weight of polycarbonate which fall within the scope of the amounts of ethylene methyl acrylate copolymer of the instant claims, and the amounts of reactive group-containing olefin wax relative to 100 parts by weight of polycarbonate which fall within the scope of the instantly claimed amounts of ethylene interpolymer, and the talc of line 39. Choi, column 2, lines 60-62 discloses ethylene/methyl acrylate copolymer as one of their olefin-based copolymer impact modifiers. See Choi, column 2, lines 19-27, particularly lines 22-23. See Choi, column 3, lines 55-63. See Choi, column 4, lines 21-32, particularly noting the weight average molecular weights of Choi’s polycarbonates. The higher molecular weights are expected to increase strength properties of Choi’s compositions. Note the talc of Choi, column 4, lines 35 and 36. Choi, column 5, lines 14-18, describes the compositions of Choi which have improved impact resistance and stiffness. The amounts of fillers of Choi, column 5, lines 31-35 at the higher flake-type filler amounts of lines 4-16 gives the instantly claimed amounts of talc. Choi, column 5, lines 39-48, particularly lines 47-48, describes ethylene/methyl acrylate as impact modifier that improves the ductility of the compositions. The amounts of impact modifier of Choi, column 6, lines 63-68 and column 7, lines 1-3 include amounts of the instantly claimed ethylene/methyl acrylate copolymer. Choi does not describe the instantly claimed melt index of the ethylene/methyl acrylate copolymer. According to the Dow website https://www.dow.com/en-us/pdp.elvaloy-ac-1330-acrylate-copolymer.1891535z.html#properties, the Elvaloy AC 1330 of Choi, column 8, lines 60-61 has a melt index of 3 g/10 min at 190℃ and 2.16 kg.
The reactive group-containing olefin wax of Choi, column 7, lines 4-14 encompasses the instantly claimed ethylene interpolymer. The amounts of Choi’s reactive group-containing olefin wax of column 7, lines 27-34 fall within the scope of the amount of the instantly claimed ethylene interpolymer. Choi does not disclose the instantly claimed ethylene interpolymers.
Choi teaches that their reactive group-containing olefin wax improves the compatibility between the polycarbonate resin and the inorganic fillers at column 7, lines 4-8.
The amounts of ethylene/methyl acrylate and maleated olefin copolymer of Choi, column 10, Table 1, Examples 1 and 2 fall within the scope of the instantly claimed amounts of ethylene interpolymer and ethylene/methyl acrylate copolymer.
The components of Choi are mixed with an extruder at 250℃. See Choi, column 9, lines 4-6. This mixing method gives the mixing steps per se of the instant claims 6-10.
The above discussed disclosure of Choi encompasses the instantly claimed inventions.
Kang teaches that the instantly claimed amounts of ethylene/methyl acrylate copolymers having a melt flow index of 0.01-40 g/10 min at 190℃ and 2.16 kgf give good impact strength and flowability while maintaining good heat resistance, thermal stability, processability, and appearance of polycarbonate. See Kang, the abstract, page 1, paragraph [1] and page 2, paragraphs [9], [15], and [18]. Kang, paragraph [7], teaches that, when wax is used as a lubricant, a separation phenomenon is likely to occur. Kang solves this separation problem by adding alkyl acrylate to their ethylene polymers. Kang, paragraph [40], encompasses the amounts of methyl acrylate of the instant claims 4 and 9. Kang exemplifies ethylene/methyl acrylate copolymers at paragraph [86] though it does not have the instantly claimed melt index, noting the melt index of Elvaloy AC 1330 as described above.
Saito teaches that ethylene copolymers with acrylic acid, itaconic acid, fumaric acid maleic acid, methacrylic acid, methyl hydrogen maleate, methyl hydrogen itaconate, methyl acrylate, methyl maleic acid, and methylfumaric acid give improved impact strength to polycarbonate compositions. See Saito, column 5, lines 35-40, particularly lines 38-40, and column 6, lines 16-68, particularly noting lines 16-20, 24, 30-41, 54-59, and 59-68, and column 7, lines 1-17 and 36, noting the talc. These ethylene copolymers of Saito fall within the scope of the ethylene interpolymers and amounts thereof of the instant claims 1-3 and 6-8.
The amounts of functional monomers of Saito, column 6, lines 55-58, include the amounts of comonomers of the instant claims 3 and 8.
The above cited prior art does not describe the instantly claimed compositions with sufficient specificity to anticipate the instant claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the ingredients and amounts thereof of the instant claims according to the method of the instant claims 6-10 because such compositions and methods of making them are generally encompassed by Choi, as discussed above, and the benefits of the instantly claimed ethylene interpolymers and the instantly claimed amounts thereof and the instantly claimed ethylene/methyl acrylate copolymers and the instantly claimed amounts thereof discussed in: (1) Choi, at column 5, line 46 and column 7, lines 4-8, 18-19, and 31-34, with the improved compatibility between filler and polycarbonate being expected to give increased reinforcing from the talc to the composition due to its increased compatibility and resulting increased dispersing in the polycarbonate composition; (2) Kang, as discussed above, particularly at paragraphs [1], [9], and [18]; and (3) Saito, as discussed above, particularly at column 5, lines 35-40, column 6, lines 16-68, column 7, lines 1-17 and 33-36, and the combination of benefits of the instantly claimed ingredients and amounts thereof coupled with the increased reinforcement from the talc, due to its improved compatibility with the polycarbonate, would have been expected of the above discussed compositions of Choi in view of Kang and Saito.
No unexpected results are seen stemming from any difference between the instant claims and the cited prior art which are demonstrated in a manner commensurate in scope with the instant claims and which compares with the closest prior art, particularly Choi. See MPEP 716.02(d) Unexpected Results Commensurate in Scope With Claimed Invention [R-08.2012].
Regarding claim 5:
The increased ductility, impact strengths, and flowability which would have been expected from the above discussed compositions of Choi in view of Kang and Saito would have been expected to give improved dart impact energies, particularly at the upper amounts of talc of the instant claims and the above cited prior art because these properties would have been expected to lead to absorption of the dart energy rather than allow it to damage the substrate. It therefore would have been expected that the polycarbonate compositions of Choi in view of Kang and Saito would have been expected to necessarily and inherently possess dart impacts within the broad range thereof of the instant claim 5. See MPEP 2112.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D NILAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1121. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10 to 5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert S Jones, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-7733. 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.
/PATRICK D NILAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762