DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-15 are pending as amended on 3/23/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) and species wherein the ratio of the Mw of component B to the wt% of GMA units in component B is in the range of 5-50 (see claim 2) in the reply filed on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (claims 9-15), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim 6 is drawn to a non-elected species. However, claim 4 is a generic claim which recites allowable subject matter, and claim 6 depends from claim 4. Therefore, claim 6 has not been withdrawn from consideration.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al (US 2008/0146726) in view of Kadota (JP 2015004004A; machine translation cited herein).
As to claims 1 and 2, Jang discloses a flame-retardant thermoplastic resin composition [0002] comprising polycarbonate and a modified methacrylate resin [0013]. The polycarbonate (A) has a molecular weight from 15,000 to 80,000 [0024], which overlaps the claimed range of 15,000 to 40,000.
Jang’s modified methacrylate resin (B) is formed from methyl methacrylate and a difunctional monomer [0028]. Jang names glycidyl methacrylate as an example difunctional monomer [0034], and teaches that the difunctional monomer may be present in an amount of 0.1 to 20% by weight in the copolymer [0035], which overlaps the presently claimed range of 0.3 to 15 wt%. Jang exemplifies modified polymethyl methacrylate which contains units derived from methyl methacrylate and 2 wt% of structural units derived from glycidyl methacrylate [0056], which falls within the claimed range of 0.3 to 15 wt%. The exemplified modified polymethyl methacrylate has a molecular weight of 97,000 [0057], which falls within the claimed range of 20,000 to 200,000 g/mol. The ratio of Mw in kg/mol (i.e., 97) to weight fraction of GMA units (2) exemplified by Jang is 48.5 (i.e., 97/2), which falls within the claimed range of 2 to 100 (and also within the range of 5 to 50 recited in claim 2). Jang exemplifies compositions wherein the weight ratio of polycarbonate (A) to m-PMMA (B) is 70:30 or 50:50 (Table 1). The exemplified ratios fall within the presently claimed range of 30:70 to 90:10.
Jang’s composition meets instant claim 1, as set forth above, except that Jang is silent as to the concentration of phenolic OH groups of the polycarbonate.
Kadota discloses a composition comprising polycarbonate and polymethyl methacrylate which is excellent in flame retardancy (p 1). Kadota discloses adjusting the ratio of dihydroxy compound and carbonic acid diester when preparing polycarbonate in order to adjust the terminal hydroxyl groups to a suitable range. Kadota teaches that the amount of polycarbonate terminal hydroxyl groups has a great influence on thermal stability, hydrolysis stability color tone and the like (p 8, last two full paragraphs). Kadota teaches that the concentration is usually 1000 ppm or less in order to improve heat stability and color tone, and 10 ppm or more, such that molecular weight decrease is suppressed and mechanical properties improved (p 10, first full paragraph).
Considering Kadota’s disclosure, when forming a composition comprising polycarbonate and polymethyl methacrylate, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a polycarbonate having any appropriate terminal hydroxyl content within a range of 10-1000 ppm in order to achieve a desired heat stability and color tone, balanced with desired molecular weight and mechanical properties. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed a composition comprising polycarbonate and polymethyl methacrylate, as taught by Jang, by utilizing polycarbonate having any appropriate terminal hydroxyl content within Kadota’s range of 10-1000 ppm, including a value within the presently claimed range of 500 ppmw or more.
As to claim 3, modified Jang suggests a composition according to claim 1, as set forth above. Jang teaches that the composition comprises 1 to 99% by weight polycarbonate (A), 99 to 1 wt% modified methacrylate (B), and about 1 to 50 parts by weight of a flame retardant (C) based on 100 parts by weight (A) and (B) [0014]. The composition may further comprise an impact modifier (D) in an amount of 1 to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight (A) and (B) [0016]. The range of the combined total of the amounts of flame retardant (C) and impact modifier (D) taught by Jang overlaps the presently claimed range of 1 to 20% by weight (C) recited in claim 3. Jang exemplifies a composition (Table 1, example 1) consisting of 59 wt% component (A), 25 wt% component (B) and 16 wt% flame retardant and PTFE (corresponding to presently recited additives, aids and polymers distinct from components A and B as component C); the amounts of each of A, B and C in Jang’s example 1 fall within the corresponding ranges recited in instant claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3 encompasses compositions which consist of A (polycarbonate or polyester carbonate) and B (methyl methacrylate-glycidyl methacrylate copolymer) within specific wt% ranges, and 0 to 20 wt% of a component C. Claim 3 encompasses compositions consisting of A and B with no further component (i.e., 0 wt% C). Therefore, claim 4 (which depends from claim 3 and limits the type of component C, but does not limit the content of component C) encompasses compositions consisting of A, B and a component C which contains metal acetylacetonate, wherein the content of the component C which contains metal acetylacetonate is 0 wt%. However, if a composition encompassed by claim 3 contains any component according to instant “C” (i.e., any component other than A and B) in an amount greater than 0 wt%, the component must contain a metal acetylacetone in order to fall within the scope of dependent claim 4.
The closest prior art is Jang in view of Kadota, as set forth above. Primary reference Jang discloses a composition which, in addition to components A and B, must contain a flame retardant C. Therefore, Jang in view of Kadota do not disclose or suggest a composition which consists of A and B. Additionally, neither Jang nor Kadota teach or suggest including a metal acetylacetonate in the composition, nor does the prior art provide guidance regarding including a related component, such as a related catalyst. The examiner is unaware of prior art which teaches or suggests a composition which consists of A and B, or, which consists of A, B and greater than 0 wt% of a component C which includes a metal acetylacetonate. Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and requires a specific metal acetylacetonate in a specific range, and is therefore free of prior art for the same reasons discussed for claim 4. Claim 6 also depends from claim 4 and is therefore free of prior art for the same reasons discussed for claim 4.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further limits the molecular weight of the component B. Jang does not provide any generic teaching with regard to suitable molecular weight, and the molecular weight of the exemplified modified methacrylate is 97,000 [0057], which does not meet the presently recited range. Secondary reference Kadota teaches a Mw for the PMMA resin (B) ranging from 100,000 to 300,000 as preferable (p 11), which does not fall within the presently recited range.
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further limits the proportion of phenolic OH groups to 1500-3000 ppmw. As discussed in the above rejection, Kadota teaches that the concentration is usually 1000 ppm or less in order to improve heat stability and color tone, and 10 ppm or more, such that molecular weight decrease is suppressed and mechanical properties improved (p 10, first full paragraph). The lower endpoint of the range recited in claim 8 (1500 ppmw) is substantially higher than the upper endpoint taught by Kadota. The examiner is unaware of prior art which discloses or suggests a composition as presently recited, wherein the proportion of phenolic OH groups is substantially higher than the upper endpoint (1000 ppm) disclosed by Kadota.
In addition to Jang and Kadota, the following prior art references are considered pertinent to the instant claims:
Pan et al (Rheological Properties, Morphology, and Thermal Performance of E-MA-GMA/PC Blend, Journal of Macromolecular Science, Part B: Physics, 46:1267-1278, 2007) discloses a composition comprising polycarbonate and a copolymer comprising methyl acrylate units and glycidyl methacrylate units (abstract). Like described in the instant specification, the glycidyl methacrylate units within Pan’s copolymer react with terminal phenolic hydroxyl units on Pan’s polycarbonate (scheme 2). However, Pan fails to disclose a copolymer further having methyl methacrylate units (the presently recited methyl methacrylate units are not met by Pan’s disclosed methyl acrylate units). Pan also fails to teach that the polycarbonate has at least 500 ppmw phenolic OH groups. While Pan teaches that mixing torque is higher in a blend with more -OH end groups (p 1273), the difference in OH end groups between Pan’s blends is due to differing ratios between copolymer and polycarbonate components in the blends. There is no teaching or suggestion in Pan to change the OH end group concentration of the polycarbonate.
Jinxin et al (Influence of methyl methacrylate-co-glycidyl methacrylate copolymers on the compatibility, morphology and mechanical properties of poly(butylene terephthalate) and polycarbonate blends, J Polym Eng 2015; 35(3): 247–256) discloses a blend comprising aromatic polycarbonate (PC) and a copolymer comprising methyl methacrylate and glycidyl methacrylate units (MMA-co-GMA). The blend further comprises polyester (PBT). Jinxin discloses that upon reactive blending, the epoxy group of GMA reacts with the carboxyl and hydroxyl end groups of PBT to form PBT-co-GMA-co-MMA. Jinxin is silent as to the phenolic OH content of the PC, does not teach including a metal acetylacetonate, and teaches MMA-co-GMA copolymers having weight average molecular weights substantially higher than the range recited in instant claim 7 (see Table 2 on p 249).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL KAHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7346. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8-5.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
/RACHEL KAHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights