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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5,6,8 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 5 and 8 call for a copolymer of α- substituted styrene, acrylonitrile and styrene – specifically forbidden by claim 1.
Claims 5 and 17 call for the flow enhancer to be 100% of a copolymer of α- substituted styrene and acrylonitrile – specifically forbidden by claim 1’s requirement for two copolymers be present.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grabowski GB1253226.
Grabowski exemplifies (#14) a blend of 60 parts of BPA polycarbonate (ie applicant’s “A”), 20 parts graft Y and 20 parts copolymer B. Graft Y (page 2) is an ABS of 50% polybutadiene which qualifies as applicant’s “B”. Copolymer B (page 3) is a methylstyrene/acrylonitrile/styrene terpolymer which qualifies as applicant’s “(ii)”.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN106633769.
The reference exemplifies (#7) a blend of 50 parts polycarbonate (ie applicant’s “A”), 35 parts ABS of 55% rubber (paragraph 101) which qualifies as applicant’s “B”, 25 parts α-SAN which is a methylstyrene/acrylonitrile/styrene terpolymer (paragraph 101), 3 parts of styrenic compatibilizer (paragraph 103) and 1.4 parts of additives (ie applicant’s “D”). Based on 100% this becomes:
parts material %
50 PC 44%
35 ABS 31%
3 vinyl aromatic compatibilizer 2.6%
25 methylST/AN/ST 22%
1.4 additives 1.2%
Collectively, the vinyl aromatic compatibilizer and methylST/AN/ST terpolymer can be considered applicant’s “C” with the former qualifying as applicant’s “i” and the later as applicant’s “ii”.
Claims 5 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jo 2023/0183474.
Jo exemplifies (comparison #4) a blend of 40 parts polycarbonate (ie applicant’s “A”), 25 parts ABS of 60% rubber (ie applicant’s “B”), 15 parts SAN (ie applicant’s “i”), 20 parts methylstyrene/acrylonitrile/styrene terpolymer (ie applicant’s “ii”) and 0.7 parts additives (ie applicant’s “D”).
Claims 5,6 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kishida 4755559.
The Kishida exemplifies ( #1) a blend of 50 parts polycarbonate (ie applicant’s “A”), 20 parts of ABS having 70% rubber (ie applicant’s “B”) and 30 parts methylstyrene/acrylonitrile copolymer (ie applicant’s “ii”).
Claims 1,3-9,16 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP08134299.
The reference exemplifies (#3 table 7) a blend of 50 parts polycarbonate (A) (ie applicant’s “A”) with 50 parts B3. B3 itself (table 6) is 37 parts Ba-1, 37 parts Ba-2 and 26 parts Bb-1. Ba-1 (see table of paragraph 28) is a 75/25 styrene/acrylonitrile copolymer (ie applicant’s preferred “i” see applicant’s claim 4) while Ba-2 is a 75/25 α-methylstyrene/acrylonitrile copolymer (ie applicant’s preferred “ii” see applicant’s claim 4).
Bb-1 (table 5) is a graft of 22.6 parts styrene and 7.4 parts acrylonitrile upon 70 parts polybutadiene which qualifies as applicant’s “B”. The cited example’s composition is therefore:
50 polycarbonate applicant’s “A”
13 ABS applicant’s “B”
18.5 SAN applicant’s “C(i)”
18.5 methylSt/AN applicant’s “C(ii)”
In regards to applicant’ dependent claims:
The polycarbonate (paragraph 39) is Toughlon FN2200A which is inherently a BPA polycarbonate (see paragraph 90 of Tsuneishi 2008/0125527) – meeting applicant’s claim 8.
Claims 9’s properties are assumed to be inherently met as the reference meets all of applicant’s material and amount limitations.
Claims 1-9,16 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Omata 2022/0282116.
Omata exemplifies (#2-1 of table 3) a blend of 62% S-1, 5.5% P-2, 15% P-3, 13.5% Q-3, 3% Q-4 and 1% R-1.
S-1 (paragraph 113) is polycarbonate (ie applicant’s “A”).
P-2 (paragraph 106) is an ABS of 53% polybutadiene. P-3 (paragraph 107) is AES. Collectively, the ABS + AES is 20.5% impact modifier (ie applicant’s “B”). It can be said the impact modifier “comprises” some ABS of 53% polybutadiene.
Q-3 (paragraph 110) is styrene/acrylonitrile copolymer (ie applicant’s preferred “i” of claim 4).
Q-4 (paragraph 111) is α-methylstyrene/acrylonitrile copolymer (ie applicant’s preferred “ii” of claim 4). The cited example’s composition is therefore:
62 polycarbonate applicant’s “A”
20.5 ABS +AES applicant’s “B”
13.5 SAN applicant’s “C(i)”
3 methylSt/AN applicant’s “C(ii)”
In regards to applicant’ dependent claims:
The polycarbonate (paragraph 76) is preferably a BPA polycarbonate – meeting applicant’s claim 8.
Claims 9’s properties are assumed to be inherently met as the reference meets all of applicant’s material and amount limitations.
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 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP08134299.
JP08134299 applies as explained above.
The cited example employs only 13% ABS instead of applicant’s 15% minimum.
However, the reference (abstract; claim 1) calls for a wide range of graft polymer amounts (ie 80-5%).
It would have been obvious to increase the ABS amount to 15% as this is directly suggested by the reference.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omata 2022/0282116
Omata applies as explained above. The MVR of the cited example is not reported. In the event the cited example lacks the required MVR, Omata (paragraph 78) suggests a wide range of molecular weights for the polycarbonate. Varying the molecular weight of the polycarbonate in the cited example to increase (or decrease) the cited example’s MVR would have been obvious for processability/properties reasons.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the amended claims now require the presence of the 1st copolymer (i) and excludes the inclusion of α-methylstyrene/styrene/acrylonitrile terpolymer.
This is not convincing. Some of applicant’s claims still allow for zero (i) and explicitly call such a terpolymer.
In any case, the new references meet these limitations.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BUTTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-3pm.
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.
/DAVID J BUTTNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765 1/26/26